Walid Abu Naba’a
Dr. Ben Miller
PHI2630-05
March 2, 2017
Utilitarianism vs. Cultural Relativism
First off, I will define and explain utilitarianism. The utilitarian argument says that “we should judge actions by how much happiness or unhappiness they cause” (Rachels 109). So, in every decision you make you should consider the consequences of such decision in regards to overall happiness. This can be related to the cost-benefit principle which states we should only partake in a particular action if its benefits outweigh its cost. Utilitarian’s say that pleasure of the many is superior to the pleasure of an individual. This principle includes people as well as animals. Other animals might not possess reasoning skills, but they do have emotions such as pain and pleasure. By being a utilitarian we do not condone animal experiments or mistreatment as such things would cause pain to the being. Its purpose is to promote general wellbeing other than individual pleasures. If you can sacrifice something to help the many then you should.
Secondly I will be defining and explaining cultural relativism. Cultural relativism says that something is either right or wrong depending on the society. It aids individuals in understanding other cultures by forcing the individual to place themselves in the shoes of a person with unlike cultural views. Some things may be morally acceptable within a certain society while they are considered entirely unacceptable in others. A good example would be how Saudi Arabian women are forced to cover themselves up in public. This may be extreme in America, but if you put yourself in the shoes of people in Saudi Arabia you realize that the reason they have such rules is due to religion and customs. It would be improper to consider your own society to have a higher status than others. It is all a matter of opinion so there are no universal truths or moralities.
Next I will be objecting utilitarianism. I am not in accordance with the utilitarian view. After studying this view, it raised a plethora of questions and is comprised of viewpoints that are impractical. During World War II the United States bombed Japan with two nuclear bombs with the purpose of stopping the war and preventing further lives from being lost. This seems rational here in America, but the fact is that you are still promoting human suffering in Japan. By nuking Japan, you have committed intentional mass murder. Murder is never the answer and it is universally known to be wrong no matter the situation at hand. Mass murder is not the only thing a nuclear weapon can do. The natural resources in the area that was bombed are permanently destroyed, and living conditions in that area become unfeasible. The residual radiation could be fatal to anyone around that area. By doing what is good for the many, further suffering has been promoted. It is outlandish to place animals to the same emotional standards as humans. Animal experimentation helps the general wellbeing of society. If certain products are tried on animals before they are tried on humans it could potentially lead to saving numerous lives. For example, by testing cancer medication on animals prior to prescribing them to humans, we could determine the side effects of such medications before making them available to the public. Animal based products are also helpful to human nutrition. People enjoy eating meat and meat consumption helps us reach optimum protein levels.
Now I will be defending utilitarianism from the previously stated objection. Mass murder is the answer if it has fewer consequences than the alternative. In this instance, if destroying several lives means saving many more in the future, then the benefits outweigh the costs, rendering it the right choice. If you know of someone who is a serial killer, it would be wise to terminate his or her life to prevent any future victims. This person is clearly going to keep on killing people unless you put an end to their actions. If you can send the person to jail for the rest of their life, then by all means. However, if an authority catches the serial killer about to murder his or her next victim, this leaves authorities with no other option other than killing the individual before he or she can commit the murder. It this case, killing the serial killer should be done as this decision takes into consideration the happiness of the individual he or she was about to kill. It is wrong to kill, but is not wrong when it is saving the life of one or many victimized individuals. With regards to animal experimentation, if there is a medication that is so harmful that cannot be tested through human trials then it should not be tested on animals, let produced at all. Animals also have feelings like we do and they can experience pain. Even though they might not have the intelligence us human beings possess they are still beings with emotions nonetheless. Since their suffering can be avoided than it should be avoided. Nutritionally speaking, protein can be readily found in other sources other than animal meat, such as soy based products, beans, buckwheat, quinoa, just to name a few.
For my next point, I will object cultural relativism. I can see why it may be wrong to judge other societies, but some customs are simply wrong. By making women in Saudi Arabia cover themselves in public you are disregarding their human rights. It is a woman’s right to do whatever pleases her with her own body. If you force women to cover themselves up, you are denying women this right. This could potentially lead to numerous issues within that society itself. Gender equality issues would arise since males are not required to cover themselves up. This is just the tip of the iceberg since there are some societies that promote worse crimes such as infanticide or genital mutilation. The fact is that infanticide is murder no matter what culture you’re a part of. You are killing a child and that is universally wrong no matter what. If you support cultural relativism I would say you are an ignorant and have complete disregard for human rights. Genital mutilation deprives a being of pleasure and happiness. This is a fact, as the female clitoris is an organ with the sole purpose of pleasure, so by promoting genital mutilation you are actively destroying sexual satisfaction in people’s lives.
Lastly, I will be defending cultural relativism from the objection above. You’re saying that if I support cultural relativism I am ignorant, but it is you who is being ignorant by insulting my cultural upbringing. Being ignorant is described as lacking information. Our women in Saudi Arabia cover up because they believe in our laws and do so willingly. We are not denying her right of happiness as if any woman truly wanted to behave in a way that is culturally unacceptable she can simply move to a place where she would feel the happiest. We would be declining her human rights if they would not be able to change their circumstances, but the fact is that they can change their situation if they truly wanted to do so. Infanticide is promoted in my country because it is in the general wellbeing of my society. If we do not have the money or the ability to feed a child infanticide is the way to go. I wouldn’t want my child to suffer so I am granting my child a quick and peaceful death. If there are not enough resources to support the child’s life and the rest of my family must suffer if it continues living, then it shall die. There is no purpose for it to continue living a life that consists of suffering so it is best to give it a peaceful death rather than a painful life. In committing infanticide, we are also providing a solution for overpopulation within our society. If there are too many young children and scarce resources, then it is wise to commit such an act for the many not to suffer because of the few. Cultural relativism is clearly the way to go. Genital mutilation is part of our cultural beliefs and saying that it is simply wrong would be a direct insult towards my culture. Genital mutilation has many benefits; it provides parents with the relief that their children will not be sleeping around with several partners for pleasure and instead reassures them with the fact that their children will have sexual relationships with the person whom they marry in order to have their own children. The sole purpose of intercourse is procreation not pleasure.
In conclusion, I believe utilitarianism is superior because overall happiness outweighs everything else. By promoting general happiness, more people would be satisfied and pleased, than they would following cultural relativism. Cultural relativism can support many claims that can cause people pain. A good example would be genital mutilation. When a woman’s clitoris is removed, you take away the organ which is charge solely of pleasure. This can cause severe depression and a feeling of incompleteness. Since utilitarianism is based on happiness, genital mutilation would not be allowed and women could live a better life. Utilitarianism is clearly the superior option as it aims to please the masses.
Word Count: 1557
Works Cited
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Dubuque: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.