According to Pojman (2006), hedonistic utilitarianism is one of the major perspectives of the general notion of utilitarianism. In order to understand its essence, it is imperative to discuss the underlying meaning of utilitarianism as advanced by Pojman (2006) who indicates that it is pegged on the end results rather than the process or means an act is performed, and which is responsible for causing maximum satisfaction to the greatest number of individuals. In this regard, two major views in utilitarianism are fronted by Jeremy Bentham.
According to Bentham, utilitarianism adopts two main features, a teleological aspect, and a utility principle. In the case of the former, also referred to as a consequentialist view, it indicates that the end result of an action determines its rightness or wrongness. Utilitarianism being a universal concept, the end results are often accounted in terms of their effect on the majority of individuals (Pojman, 2006).
The normative principle that is adopted by these views is the determination of the pleasure or pain element created by the end result. In this case, the right act maximizes pleasure and reduces pain. The contrary view also holds true. in this case, this principle adopts a hedonistic principle that is used as a basis of determination of the morality of an action and which uses the element of human state in accreditation of the rightness of an act. This principle is based on two main states, pleasure and pain. Therefore, the act that maximizes pleasure and causes the least amount of pain is categorized as good. In determination of this principle, a quantitative measure, the hedonistic calculus, is applied and which takes the seven variables of pleasure and pain, certainty, purity, fruitfulness, nearness, duration, intensity, and extent into consideration with a focus of determining the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the quantified results from the above elements.
The criticism that results from the application of hedonistic utilitarianism is that it is too simple. In this case, the categorization of only two elements, pleasure and pain, is not enough to provide the basis of morality of an action.
In one situation, an individual realizes the car he is driving has encountered a brake problem and is unable to stop. Immediately ahead is a school bus filled with five happy children singing from school. The only option available is to swerve the car towards the dirt road where an old man, not aware of what is happening, is slowly walking home. In order to save the children, the driver may decide to run over the old man, killing him on the spot, instead of killing the children. In this case, a utilitarianism would agree with the car driver’s decision to kill the old man at the expense of the children. This view is supported by a utilitarian view that an action is considered right if it maximizes benefit for a large number of individuals (Pojman, 2005).
Moral relativism is a doctrine that indicates that the rightness or wrongness of an act is considered differently across various societies. As a result, universal moral standards are inapplicable owing to cultural differences that are inherent in an individual’s choice of action hence discrediting the application of morality on a uniform and universal scale (Pojman and Tramel, 2009).
Cultural relativism, also referred to as conventional ethical relativism is applied to justify moral principles by virtue of cultural acceptance. In accordance with this view, universal moral principles are invalid. However, these moral principles may relative based on their application in different cultural settings. The weakness of this view is that it leads to subjectivism. In this case, as a result of the pluralistic society human beings belong to, the many values espoused on individual subcultures could override the cultural values thereby making them relative to comply with.
As in the case of cultural relativism, subjectivism also agrees to the lack of validness of universal moral principles (Pojman and Tramel, 2009). However, it differs from the former in that it bases morality on an individual level as opposed to the cultural setting as provided by conventionalism. The weakness of this premise however, is that it discredits morality and renders it useless. In this case, there is no way one can judge an individual as his/her actions are based on individual morality standards which are relative in nature.
The realist alternative to this view is a hybrid makeup comprised of both subjectivism and conventionalism. In this case, this approach would rely on individual illustrations of morality while taking into consideration, those supported by the cultural groups one belongs to.
According to The Labor Theory of Value, the commodities and labor value are arrived at in terms of an inverse proportional relationship between the two concepts. In this case, the laborer is assumed to be a commodity whose value decreases with the increase in value of the commodity he/she produces (Marx, 2013). Through the act or process of production, the laborer becomes devalued and in order to ensure his/her sustenance, he/she has to continue providing labor.
According to Marx, exploitation of labor amounts to the appropriation of the surplus labor provided by workers in order to produce commodities. In this case, the laborers provide more labor than is necessary and in turn are compensated less than the value created by the commodities they produce (Marx, 2013).
References
Marx, K. (2013). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Lanham: Start Publishing LLC.
Pojman, L. P. (2005). How should we live: An introduction to ethics. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Pojman, L. P. (2006). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Pojman, L. P., & Tramel, P. (2009). Moral philosophy: A reader. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
