Ethics in Social Sciences-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignment

Question: Discuss about the Ethics in Social Sciences. Answer: Ethics in Social Sciences Universal Ethical Egoism is extremely difficult to apply in the contemporary social contexts which are being increasingly interconnected. It suggests that every individual in this world should act in such a manner which will satisfy his/her own self-interest. In this manner, everyone self-interest will be met (Srzednicki and Wood, 2013). However, in the contemporary society, individuals are closely connected to each other. Therefore, this philosophy is not applicable as it will not focus on the benefit of the society (all or most of the individuals) on a wholesome level. If a cost-benefit analysis is done, then it would suggest that the ends will never outweigh the costs of such theoretical application. This is simply because of the fact that the costs of being detached from the other members of the society and only thinking about one's own self-interest will ultimately proceed to meet his/her own ends on a personal level instead of a social level. This philosophy also contradicts th e assumptions of Act Utilitarianism. Whereas the Rule Utilitarianism suggest that everyone in this society should follow a specific rule to ensure the benefit of the most individuals, Act Utilitarianism suggests that every individual should act as per the situation in order to ensure the benefit of the majority (Lang, 2004). In this manner, it suggests that rule utilitarianism might promote universal ethical egoism to some extent as the rules of ensuring everyone's own self-interest to ensure the benefit of everyone seem to be applicable in this context. On the other hand, Act Utilitarianism contradicts Universal Ethical Egoism by ensuring that the individuals will flexibly determine their actions and decisions in order to assure the benefits for the majority on a wholesome level. The aspect of categorical imperative as suggested by Immanuel Kant refers to the theory which promotes that an individual should act as per his/her subjective motivation (maxim) which he/she wishes to establish as an universal law (Misselbrook, 2013). As per this theory, there should be certain rules and logical reasoning which would eventually determine the morality of actions. In this manner, the hypothetical imperatives for sub considerations do not seem to valid as they are not determined by certain rules. Furthermore, Kant's theory also suggests that the categorical imperatives are influenced by the people's duty toward others (perfect duty) and people's duty with a scope or window to act as per certain logical desires (imperfect duty) (Kitcher, 2004). Therefore, it is the duty and the intention which act as rules for determining the morality of an action. However, in the current society, the religious beliefs and intuitions predominantly determine and dictate the basis of moral ity and actions. It has been observed that individuals, nowadays, would perform some moral actions not thinking about his universal duties and greater good for all but in order to conform to the religious beliefs and directions which he/she adhere to. For example, a number of teachers refer to Biblical or other religion's principles in order to motivate someone to perform a moral action and the students happily accept such teachings. Virtue ethics is indeed a complex aspect which emphasizes what an individual should be like instead of what the morally accepted actions should be. In this manner, virtue is referred to as the characteristic features of every individual and how they can improve it to be morally standard (Hursthouse, 2012). It has been recommended in this philosophical theory that every person has the capacity as well as he/she needs to develop the inherent virtues through constant practice and learning (Curren, 2016). The practice of good conducts and the learning of good norms will eventually help an individual to develop his/her virtue to a higher level. In this sense, the practice and development of virtuous traits can assist a person to learn more about greater welfare, benefit of the majority, and moral actions to ensure good for everyone. Therefore, the development of virtues will eventually determine how much a person can contribute to the broader community. Moreover, the theory prescribes cer tain virtues which should be adopted by professionals from specific fields. For example, an intellectual should possess nous, a scientist should have the knowledge of episteme, and a philosopher must be equipped with the virtue of sophia which is the theoretically logical wisdom. In this regard, every profession or field of operation requires different virtues that are diverse in nature and effect. Moral absolutism and moral relativism are two extremely different ideas. Whereas moral absolutism suggests that every action conducted by an individual would either be absolutely good or absolutely bad, moral relativism refers to the aspect that the goodness of an act conducted by an individual might be viewed as wrong by some other individual or community (McDonald, 2010). In this regard, these theories contradict each other. Thus, it can be stated that these two different ideas can never go along. Moral relativism should not be promoted as it might stand for the morally wrong decisions taken by a certain individual or community (Brogaard, 2012). In this context, if the individual or community performs any act that might be harmful for the majority but beneficial for the performers, moral relativism suggests to assess that act from a particular angle which is not logical. Therefore, Kant's duty ethics to ensure the majority's benefit comes into play. Furthermore, it also suggests th at the scenarios should be assessed by individuals from personal angles instead of standard moral perceptions and values. These kind of acts also violate the norms of virtue ethics. Therefore, there should be only absolute virtue and moral guidance which does not provide any window for moral relativism or 'almost absolute' perception to justify any kind of action. Religious or theological determinism refers to philosophical concept which suggests that every event is inevitable and all occurrences are pre-determined by the God who is the omniscient entity dictating destiny in advance (Judisch, 2008). This concept suggest that either God dictates and determines the future or that the God's knowledge of future will eventually become true. Smoker (2008) has suggested that determinism dictates the human's perception regarding moral actions as the good actions are considered as the will of God while the negative actions are referred to as the demonstration of sins. For example, one can provide a monetary or other kind of help to a distressed person and it would be considered as a destined action or will of God but if the same individual steals something, it would be considered as a sin. Thus, the religious determinism decides if an action is morally suitable (pre-destined) or rejectable (sin). Thus, the theory suggests that the human beings do not h ave any control over their actions and even their will or desire cannot decide anything as everything is pre-destined (Austin, 2014). This theory contradicts with most other theories of ethics as the majority of the theories emphasizes on an individual's free will to make some potential moral choices. References Austin, O. (2014). Freewill and Determinism Debate: The Philosophical Paradox.Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, 4(1), pp.39-70. Brogaard, B. (2012). Moral Relativism and Moral Expressivism.The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 50(4), pp.538-556. Curren, R. (2016). Aristotelian versus virtue ethical character education.Journal of Moral Education, 45(4), pp.516-526. Hursthouse, R. (2012). Human Nature and Aristotelian Virtue Ethics.Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 70, pp.169-188. Judisch, N. (2008). Theological determinism and the problem of evil.Religious Studies, 44(2), pp.165-184. Kitcher, P. (2004). Kant's Argument for the Categorical Imperative.Nous, 38(4), pp.555-584. Lang, G. (2004). A Dilemma for Objective Act-Utilitarianism.Politics, Philosophy Economics, 3(2), pp.221-239. McDonald, G. (2010). Ethical relativism vs absolutism: research implications.European Business Review, 22(4), pp.446-464. Misselbrook, D. (2013). Duty, Kant, and Deontology.British Journal of General Practice, 63(609), pp.211-211. Smoker, B. (2008).Humanism. London: South Place Ethical Society. Srzednicki, J. and Wood, D. (2013).Essays on Philosophy in Australia. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands