Beautifulstruggles’s Weblog
Just another weblog


I find myself torn between the objection that the standard of utilitarianism is too high and basically unnatainable. On one hand the task of truly calculating utilitarinism seems impossible; how could one possibly comprehend or even come to the conclusion that an action certainly maximizes the overall utility?…. is it not a possibility that an action never stops affecting others that like time itself is continutally spinning off into eternity. I dont believe that one has the time, energy or capability to calculate the true maximum utility and a person in the end will try maximize those closest to them. You maximize the utility of the child’s life you save and the town in which you live, that child matures joins the air force and drops bombs on people at the will of commanding officers, still maximizing overall utility? On the other hand it would seem pretty obvious to me that if we use the morally maxizing values instilled in most religions or spiritual groups that the world would be damn near perfect. I maybe going over my own head but, if we try to see a correlation in Utilitarianism and just being virtuous i believe it makes its self apparent. The reason the people fight to be virtuous through there individual religion seems pretty same reason for maximizing utillity is to live in a better world, or to better it the way they see fit with those lil ole virtues:


The moral value of self sacrifice is dependent upon the cultural beliefs of a person in their society. However i feel that in most situations a person in need of help from another person will feel morally obligated to thank those employing assistance. It is then that the example from class pertaining the Jewish tenants in BK refusing the firefighters help is so perplexing. In what case would a group of people see the action of self sacrifice of morally negative value and why? Is it due to hubris of a particular group seeing it fit, to first respect their particular beliefs, and secondly by law respect socially accepted beliefs concurrent with their own. When the beliefs of one group differ with the cultural paradigms or accepted views of the society that group will feel a moral obligation or positive moral value to following the specific custums. So in the case of the tenants and firefighters, could it be just a dissagrement in beliefs? I am postive that in most cases one will feel a positve moral value to self sacrifice, however only if that sacrifice itself is of massive positive value in the first case.  Anybody remember Mr. JC (jesus christ), western religion is based on self-sacrifice but it seems like people are as selfish as ever.


Coincidentally Jamaica has more churches (per sq kilo) than any other country in the world still they consistently manage to rank in the top 5 for murder rate per cap. Guess Christianity isn’t working… or is it?. In a Time article about the tiny country, written in 2006 titled “The Most Homophobic Place on Earth?”,8599,1182991,00.html Jamaica was branded with the same title. Now the cultural relativist would probably say neither perspective is wrong however still equate Jamaica to having a lower culture which produces the aggressiveness towards gays. The fact of the matter is someone has to be wrong especially when its about such a sensitive subject and where people have such strong feelings.

It seems as if Cultural Relativism was intended to relate one’s beliefs to their actions however during the time in which these ideal originated the norm was bigotry and racism. I highly doubt any philosophers were shooting for tolerance or equality. Now some countries like the U.S. use this as their foundation to allow and fund or alienate and scrutinize other countries for certain actions based on a twisted convoluted perspective of morality. Tolerance for one another is the key for humanity’s success however a certain intolerance must exist towards actions which go against Universal Morality