Overview
People from different society have different ways of upholding their morals. There different technics employed to see that moral values are protected, this however depends on individual opinion or rather the culture opinion. Morals is concerned with the nature of behavior; either right or wrong according to the personal being of human beings. This has led to the existence of different moral theory whose aim is to bring about the difference in good and bad morals. Examples of these moral theories as stated by Debra Rosenthal are: cultural relativism, subjectivism and the Divine command theory. In this text we are going to look on which carries more weight between the Divine command theory and the utilitarianism theory.
Introduction
There are two important moral virtues that rule our daily life activities; Utilitarianism and the Divine command theory. Utilitarianism is an establishing ethical theory that takes into consideration the wrongfulness and the rightfulness of the results of an action. This theory caters for the well-being of others not one’s own benefit from the action being taken ( Acharya, S. 2016). On the other hand the divine command theory entails moral that portrays God’s intentions; they are moral whose roots are based on God’s will. The utilitarian theory is the most appropriate theory for a better coexistence in the society. Its purpose entails bringing peace by the fact that it caters for the well-being of others over a certain action to be taken. General rules that govern people and the people’s actions can be in the application of utilitarianism. There are plenty of advantages that are displayed over employing the utilitarian theory.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Justification of punishments
In every society we have the law offenders and are always punished according to the rule by the authorities. The punishment given is to make the victim pay for the crime committed. The punishment issued what take into consideration its effect on the society but the aim is to make the victim pay. Through the Utilitarianism moral theory, there are three ways of justifying punishment. First the victim is reformed by making him/her understand the disaster of the mistakes he has done through rehabilitation centers. The second is incapacitation where he is put behind bars so that he has no ability to harm the society anymore and this prevent future crimes. We also have the deterrence in which the criminal is taken as the case studying by other law breakers. A thorough punishment is stated out so that people can learn the outcome of creating crimes and this will help them to try as much to avoid such ( Acharya, S. 2016).
Democracy
Utilitarian has always been on the front in supporting democracy. This is evident from the fact that the aim of utilitarianism is to make the majority comfortable. In a democratic government, decisions are obtained from the majority group and this ensures that the majority is comfortable with the decision and this is the where the utilitarianism is satisfied. Also utilitarianism has supported democracy from the fact that it links the authority interest to the collective interest of the majority. Laws made through democracy are intended to promote the welfare of majority of individuals as stated by Turner and Young (2016) . This link between utilitarian ethics and democratic government is very vital if put into considerations. An argument is drawn where that each individual would always understand what is right for himself and when many people have the same perspective so should it be respected. Democracy is a good example of applied utilitarianism in that it pictures well how utilitarianism is employed.
Economics
It is a fact that economists make decisions based on the utilitarian writers. Utilitarianism ethnics would best state the benefits of a cost inquired ( Turner and Young, 2016). This is to say that decision taken on a way of spending cost should be in a way that it brings a greater outcome, don’t think of the cost but rather the outcome. On the views of the first utilitarian’s, they disagreed with the government taking part in any economic activities claiming that the industries will be better if the work on their own. This was done so as to have a better outcome from firms but since it was later proved to be hard working alone without the government. This called for a change in the utilitarian writings and the government was to take part with this firms. Utilitarianism theory would always be the one to give the success of the economy. The economist and the utilitarian ought to work together for the best outcome of our economy and its environment ( Tzafestas, 2016).
Conclusions
The aim of the utilitarianism moral theory is to do what satisfy the community at large. It entails options made according to the utility and its effect towards the other group. This is very vital for a well-being of a society. It is everybody’s responsibility to observe good moral, to work for a better future by caring about one another. Moral is what binds us together and without it is just like living in darkness. Utilitarianism moral theory has made choosing from right to wrong not a big deal. If an individual do what it takes to bring peace, do something that will not offend the other, do something that comes out with the best consequence, then he or she will not be talking about doing the wrong thing. Utilitarianism moral theory teaches what is right and its opposite is wrong; it shows the path to be followed.
References
Acharya, S. (2016). Theories of Justice and Economic Goods in Jurisprudence. Available at SSRN 2713254 .
Turner, D., & Young, M. (2016). History, Philosophy, and Ethics of Biology Interspecies Ethics. Critical Perspectives on Animals: Theory, Culture, Science, and Law. By Cynthia Willett. New York: Columbia University Press. $90.00 (hardcover); $30.00 (paper). ix+ 220 p.; index. ISBN: 978-0-231-16776-5 (hc); 978-0-231-16777-2 (pb); 978-0-231-53814-5 (eb). 2014. The Quarterly Review of Biology , 91 (2).
Tzafestas, S. G. (2016). Roboethics: A Branch of Applied Ethics. In Roboethics (pp. 65-79). Springer International Publishing.
