Ethics needs rules. Discuss.

Other relativist theories are situation ethics and utilitarianism. These are different to antinomianism because they offer guiding principles: situation ethic’s guiding principle is to obtain agape love.  Again these relativist theories take into account individual circumstances and the complexities of life. Utilitarianism seeks to find the greatest good for the greatest number, thus looking at the consequences of an action and an act is right if it delivers more pleasure than pain.  A characteristic feature of Bentham's theory is the idea that the rightness of an action entirely depends on the value of its consequences. This is why the theory is also described as consequentialist. Nevertheless some argue that these theories are self contradictory; utilitarianism sets out rules which are technically absolute in order to obtain the greatest good for the greatest number, for example in the one must take into account the consequences of ones actions in order to be moral. On the other hand, there are significant disadvantages to the flexibility of relativism and to rely solely on consequences rather than standards or morality. It is incredibly difficult to comprehend what the consequences of an action, and a ‘wrong’ action could lead to a good consequence. Also when one is personally involved in a situation it id difficult to be objective without being emotionally bias.

Some people argue that to understand morality there must be an absolute standard of morality on order to judge some one against. This is where the strengths of absolutism lie. For absolutists an action is ALWAYS wrong or right, there are no exceptions and the rules that are laid are not to be broken in any circumstances in order to be moral. Kant held that there were absolute duties which were always right. He believed that we should consider whether our actions could be translated into a universal law before deciding what is right and wrong. If moral rules are right then they should be able to apply to everyone: universalisable. One law would be treat other as you would treat yourself (the golden rule) as established by the divine command theory. Other examples of absolutism are Natural Law. Within the natural law can be found working the law of 'double effect', which is mainly concerned with the reason for an act, and not it's long term consequences. You are only considered responsible for the direct or primary results of your actions, and can not be held accountable for any unintentional secondary effects. Take as an example, the contraceptive pill. If you are a female member of the Roman Catholic Church and are prescribed this pill for a medical condition, the prevention of conception would be considered a secondary effect. Natural Law enables people to establish common rules to structure communities, links faith with reason, gives guidance on everyday life and links them to the fundamental principles of life and can be seen to be the basic principles of many different cultures. Again there are disadvantages to this side of the argument as it refuses to take into account individual situation and sometimes a good consequence can become of a bad act, for example, stealing food to feed one’s starving children. Absolutists would not look at the good consequence and just see the action as wrong. Whereas Utilitarians would say the claim the women was doing it for the greatest good for the greatest number so therefore it is justified.

In conclusion we can see that absolute rules are needed in decisions, however in a modern day world it is not readily acceptable on its own. Many people will argue that we need to recognise the fact that there are special circumstances where the rules will not apply and we need to make room for these situations and act accordingly. Although there are disadvantages to every ethical theory, these disadvantages are better than absolute chaos that not having any rules would bring about. So in conclusion, ethics does need rules but just not absolute rules!!!!