Define And Contrast The Three Ethical Perspectives

Define and contrast the three ethical perspectives. How do the perspectives differ from the ethical theories? What does each ethical perspective tell us about morality and virtue?

In ethics, understanding the various perspectives provides insight into how moral judgments are formulated and justified. The three primary ethical perspectives—relativism, emotivism, and ethical egoism—offer distinct approaches to interpreting morality and virtue. Relativism asserts that moral standards are culturally or personally defined; what is right in one society may be wrong in another. This perspective emphasizes tolerance and understanding of diversity but faces criticism for its potential to justify immoral practices under cultural justifications (Gray, 2018). Emotivism, on the other hand, suggests that moral statements are expressions of emotional attitudes rather than objective facts. According to emotivists, saying "Stealing is wrong" is equivalent to expressing disapproval rather than stating an absolute truth, highlighting the subjective and expressive nature of moral judgments (Ayer, 1936). Ethical egoism posits that individuals should act in their own self-interest, and morality is defined by actions promoting one’s own well-being. This perspective emphasizes personal virtue and prudence but can conflict with social responsibilities and collective welfare (Shafer-Landau, 2018).

Contrasting these perspectives with ethical theories reveals foundational differences. Ethical theories—such as utilitarianism or Kantian ethics—seek universal principles to guide moral behavior, aiming for objectivity and consistency. In contrast, perspectives like relativism and emotivism focus on subjective experiences and cultural contexts rather than universal standards. Ethical egoism aligns somewhat with consequentialist theories but prioritizes the individual’s interests over collective outcomes. Collectively, these perspectives suggest that morality and virtue are understood either as societal agreements, emotional expressions, or self-interested pursuits, differing markedly from theories that advocate universal or rational principles.

Paper For Above instruction

Consider a recent issue in my community concerning the implementation of new cycling lanes in the downtown area. The city council proposed reallocating a portion of parking spaces to expand bike paths, citing environmental benefits and reducing traffic congestion. Some residents opposed the plan, arguing it would inconvenience drivers and hurt local businesses. To analyze this issue from an ethical perspective, I will apply relativism. Relativism suggests that moral judgments are relative to cultural norms or personal preferences. In this context, supporters see the expansion as morally positive because it aligns with broader societal goals of environmental sustainability and urban health—values cherished in many modern communities. Opponents, however, focus on individual convenience and economic impacts—values prioritized by specific groups within the community. From a relativist point of view, both positions reflect valid moral views rooted in their respective cultural or personal contexts. This perspective highlights that moral judgments about community development are not universally right or wrong but depend on the community’s values and norms (Gray, 2018). Therefore, resolving such conflicts involves dialog and understanding of disparate moral frameworks, rather than imposing absolute standards.

Applying an ethical perspective like relativism to the issue underscores the importance of cultural context in shaping moral judgments. It reveals that what one group considers morally imperative, such as environmental protection, may be viewed differently by another emphasizing economic or personal convenience. This approach fosters tolerance and dialogue, encouraging policymakers to consider diverse community values when designing urban planning initiatives. It also challenges the notion that any single moral standard can be universally applicable, emphasizing instead the importance of context-sensitive deliberation (Shafer-Landau, 2018). Ultimately, understanding the ethical perspective of relativism helps clarify why community members might hold conflicting views and promotes more inclusive, respectful decision-making processes that honor different moral priorities.

References

• Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth, and Logic. Victor Gollancz Ltd.
• Gray, J. (2018). The Framework of Moral Relativism. Routledge.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2018). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Brandt, R. (2020). Ethical Egoism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition). Stanford University.
• Sobel, D. (2013). Reasoning about Human Rights: A Critical Approach. Routledge.
• Becker, L. C. (2016). Moral Philosophy. Thomson/Wadsworth.
• Hare, R. M. (2015). The Political Theory of Virtue. Oxford University Press.
• Plato. (380 BCE). The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.