The Debate on Ethics

The Debate on Ethics. 

1. Relativism. 

1. Definition of Ethical Relativism: Ethical relativism 

holds that moral principles are not universal, but 

are relative to the cultural, individual, or situational 

context.

2. Cultural Relativism: Morality is determined by the 

norms and values of one's culture. No culture's 

ethics are inherently superior to another's.

3. Individual Relativism (Subjectivism): Each person 

determines their own moral values, meaning ethics 

vary from person to person.

Key Questions for Discussion:

1. Is morality entirely dependent on culture or individual 

belief, or are there universal ethical truths?

2. Does ethical relativism foster tolerance, or does 

it excuse harmful practices?

3. Can we effectively criticize another culture's morality 

without imposing our own values?

4. How can global moral standards (like human rights) 

be justified if moral relativism is true?

5. Does ethical relativism lead to moral chaos, or does 

it allow for moral flexibility?

B. Utilitarianism. 

Core Concept:

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that the best 

action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or 

well-being. It’s often summarized as "the greatest good 

for the greatest number."

Key Questions for Discussion : 

1. Can happiness and suffering be objectively measured, 

and is it ethical to base morality on these 

measurements?

2. Does utilitarianism sufficiently account for the value 

of individual rights and justice?

3. Is it morally permissible to harm a few for the benefit 

of many?

4. How can we predict long-term consequences 

accurately in a utilitarian framework?

5. What happens when utilitarianism conflicts with 

deeply held moral intuitions (e.g., organ transplant 

cases where one person is sacrificed to save many)?

C. Situational Ethics. 

Core Concept: Situational Ethics argues that the 

rightness or wrongness of an action depends 

on the context or situation. Joseph Fletcher 

developed the theory in the 1960s and centers 

on the idea that love (agape) should guide moral 

decisions, rather than adherence to fixed rules.

Key Principle: The most loving action is the morally 

right action, and rules should be set aside if they 

conflict with love.

Key Questions for Discussion: 

1. Can love (agape) serve as an adequate 

guide for ethical decisions, or are moral 

rules necessary to prevent misuse?

2. Does situational ethics lead to moral 

relativism, or is it a more realistic and 

compassionate approach to ethical dilemmas?

3. How do we determine the most loving action 

in complex situations where there are competing 

interests?

4. Does situational ethics make it too easy to justify 

morally questionable actions by appealing to 

circumstances?

5. Are there any moral principles that should never 

be violated, even in extreme situations?

Kantian Ethics. 

Definition: The Categorical Imperative, which states 

that one must act according to maxims that can be 

universalized, and treat individuals as ends in 

themselves, not merely as a means to an end.

Key Concepts and Questions for Discussion

1. Categorical Imperative: Can universal moral 

rules exist, and can they truly apply to all situations?

2. Are there situations where following a universal 

moral law might lead to a morally questionable 

outcome?

3. Ends vs. Means: Kant argues that individuals 

must always be treated as ends in themselves, 

never as mere means to an end. Question: 

Is it always wrong to treat someone as a means 

to an end, even if it benefits the greater good?

4. Duties vs. Consequences: Kantian ethics focuses

on duty rather than consequences. Question: 

Should we act solely on principle, regardless 

of the consequences? What if the outcome is disastrous?