Deontology

     This was a tricky theory for me to wrap my head around at first. Its not as straightforward as the other ones have been so far. Anyway, deontologists have a sense of duty to do what is right by universal law despite the consequences. They go off of what they ought to do as opposed to what they desire. To determine if something is universal law or not, you have to look into the action you're about to perform, and analyze whether or not you would be okay with others doing this action too. To be universal law you must be okay with others doing the action as well because there are no exceptions to the rules in deontology.
     We used the example in class of lying. Lying is universally considered wrong because if lying were a universal law, society could not function. People would never know if they were being told the truth, and we would assume that everything someone said could be a lie. Instead we usually assume what people say to be true because telling the truth is a universal law that most people follow. Deontologists have a duty to uphold the universal law. In class we used an example of someone whose friend murdered someone, but as a deontologist he was required to give a confession when prompted by police. The person knew his friend would go to jail, but he could not break one of the universal laws. He could not make an exception because that does not exist in a deontologists world. right is right and wrong is wrong.
     I can't say i'm a full on deontologist only because i don't fully understand what universal law is, but i understand that a deontologist's duty to uphold the universal laws is greater than duty to friends or other things. I feel like this theory is slightly vague for me, but maybe a more general theory would work better than something so detailed.

Ethical Egoism

 Okay so, i'm going back to ethical egoism because i never posted about it. Ethical egoism is the idea that a person ought to act out of his/her best interest, always. One thing that stuck out to me on the reading about this one was the line about how ethical egoism endorses selfishness, not foolishness. So excessive drinking, smoking, and other unhealthy crap is frowned upon my the ethical egoist because it does not promote self interest over the long run.

     At first i had some trouble differentiating this from psychological egoism. They're based around selfishness, but the difference is between selfishness opposed to self interest. Psychological egoism states people should always pursue their own interest, but ethical egoism is a normative theory that explains how we ought to behave in our best interests. psychological egoism supports immediate pleasures such as excessive drinking and smoking, and ethical egoism frowns upon things like that. 

     Ethical egoists are not opposed to doing things for others as long as it crosses over into their best interests as well, but it has to benefit them directly. They also do not believe in charity because they see it as rude and intrusive. 

     I definitely don't agree with this, but I've met people who always have a self motive in everything they do. Society wouldn't work properly if everyone thought this way. We rely so much on each other, and if everyone only thought of themselves, people would rarely do anything to help others in need, and we all go through times of need. This kinda comes out of left field, but I also think compassion is ingrained in the human race as a survival method because we cannot survive successfully without companionship and compassion from others.

Utilitarianism

     This is the first moral issue that my philosophy class has discussed that i actually agree with. Obviously it has its flaws, but all in all i probably follow this moral theory more than cultural relativism and psychological egoism. Utilitarians believe in doing what is best for the majority of people. This could be something that has been engraved in my head ever since i was small because all i can ever remember from living in america is "majority rules". Even in pre school our teacher would allow us to vote on the game we played or the movie we watched, and which ever side got the most votes, won.
     We talked about a pretty outrageous example in class, but i think it was necessary in order to point out the black and white guidelines of this theory. We talked about a hostage situation involving a large group of citizens versus a small girl. The utilitarian would be for sacrificing one life to save all of the other lives. People had many different points to disprove this, but i actually agree with it. While i understand that every life is precious and what not, i will never believe that one life is worth like three hundred. Utilitarianism is so valid to me because it proves the point of "you can't satisfy everyone", and I've always found a lot of truth in that statement as it relates to my life.
     I completely appreciate those people that try and please everyone's wants and needs, but I've noticed those people are always the most exhausted because it is simply not possible. The will never be a world where everyone wins, and while there's probably a more morally sound moral theory out there, this just seems like the most realistic and applicable to me.

Psychological Egoism

     Psychological egoism is the idea that humans are incapable of being unselfish. Even when we do something for the good of others, there is still selfish motive behind it no matter what. For example, if i volunteer with my church group to make blankets for the homeless, that act in itself seems unselfish.  However, my religious beliefs associated with that group claim i will go to heaven doing good deeds such as this. So while it feels good to help the homeless, the reason it feels good is entirely selfish because it will hypothetically help me on my path to heaven.
     On days that I feel pessimistic, I would probably agree with this theory. However, today i must disagree. I believe there are definitely completely selfless people out there. I know I've done things for others selflessly. In fact, last weekend my mom went out of town for a few days, and I went by her house twice a day to water the flowers, check the mail, let the dogs out, etc. I didn't necessarily want to drive all the way to my mom's twice a day for three days, but i knew she needed my help, so i did it. We don't always do things for others because it is what we desire more, and that in itself is unselfish.

Ethical Relativism

     The theory of ethical relativism basically explains the ideal that people differentiate what is morally right and wrong by looking to their societal rules. For example, arranged marriages in foreign countries such as India and Pakistan are very common. In the United States we have free choice of marriage. My friends and I would probably freak out on our parents if they tried to arrange a marriage for us. However, Neither culture practice is considered better than the other, they're different but equal. You also cannot deem different cultural customs correct or incorrect from an outsider view because it depends on the customs you grew up around. 

     People obviously obtain certain slang words, traditions, and certain conduct from their surroundings. However, i don't know that I can agree with all aspects of this theory. If we consult our morals solely off of the society we live, this can be flawed. Many people do not think the society they live in fits their standards of morals. I wouldn't say I draw all of my morals from America or Texas. I don't agree with many of the things that are widely accepted in our society, but i definitely follow some of the American norms. 

     I think it is very important to be well rounded in culture, and that's why traveling is so crucial. Any chance I have to travel outside of Texas I take it! It's necessary to understand and appreciate other cultures in order to gather well rounded views of the world. I feel like people have their cultural customs and norms, but i don't know if i believe that directly relates to morality all of the time.