The subjects of social ethics are the ideals and guiding principles that influence how we interact and relate to one another in society. Socialism, existentialism, and utilitarianism are three philosophical schools of thought that offer various viewpoints on society’s organization and how people should interact. Whereas utilitarianism aims to optimize the happiness of most individuals, existentialism promotes personal freedom and responsibility, and socialism focuses on the welfare of society as a whole. This paper will delve deeper into these ideologies, examining their ethical foundations and how they affect how people behave and make decisions. Furthermore, the paper will show how these three philosophies differ in how they offer direction for addressing social concerns and establishing a just and equitable society.
-
Socialist-communist Ideology
Considered the most known social ethics ideologies, socialism and communism entail disrupting private dominance of production means and supporting an undefined egalitarian community (Broad, 1947). Although the two ideologies run the same concept, they each have a unique outlook on accomplishing their mission. By definition, communism regards a more stringent variant of socialism that promotes the ultimate eradication of society classes and the limiting of privatization of production means or property. In such a setting, for instance, the society is responsible for all the production means and distributes to its members according to urgency. As an added advantage, the ideology develops a feeling of communism in which no significant differences exist between the common and the ruling classes. Every individual has a say in the production process and resource allocation.
On the other hand, socialism establishes a climate of sharing all the means of production and trade (Broad, 1947). Therefore, in such a setting, either the leadership or the society in general control such means and distribute the accrued prosperity to its members depending on contribution and requirement. Subsequently, both ideologies trail toward a society with equitable economic dispersion, democracy, and social justice.
A brainchild of Karl Max and Friedrich Engels, the socialism and communism concepts revolutionized from the limitations of the rapid nineteenth-century industrial revolution. The revolution, which saw most of Europe revolve around the economic, hence social, aspects of the economy, brought conflicting ideas to an otherwise capitalist environment, leading to the development of socialism and communism alternatives. In its argument, Marxism propagates that the then-capitalist ideology advocated division between the ruling and the working class (Broad, 1947). This division, Marx believed, would lead to class unrest and the eventual revolt by the working class, ultimately creating a socialist dynamic. This idea was experimented with and implemented by states such as China, with other implementations failing due to the concept not regarding economic and political repercussions.
Due to its inherent benefits and drawbacks, the concepts have attracted divergent opinions. Its political and economic benefits have made the concepts gain favor in different social settings and political boundaries. However, some countries practicing it have initiated modifications that facilitate the healthy democracy, social justice, and economic dispersion objectives of the ideologies. Such modifications push the focus from considering the obliteration of private ownership to the healthy growth of the community at large (Broad, 1947). Its opponents, however, maintain that achieving such benefits is utopian. They believe that attributes such as human nature and satisfaction from economic gain deem the ideologies impractical. They further attest that the concept would only establish clear evidence of economic affluence due to the lack of distinction between the ruling and the working class. From the assessment of both divergent opinions, it is clear that the socialist and communist ideologies enable the formation of classless, egalitarian societies. Such formation consequentially eradicates the limitations of the capitalist political and social framework.
-
Utilitarian Ideology
Believed to be a brainchild of Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher from England, the utilitarianism framework builds on the advocacy for an increment of wellness and the sensitization against inhumane conditions for the more significant population (Broad, 1947). A tenet of the utility business concept, utilitarianism pushes its advocates to engage in activities that will delight them fully instead of those that will diminish their pleasure. This framework draws from the developer’s belief in consequentialism theory which dictates that repercussions of actions should evaluate the actions themselves. As such, the concept closely follows morality and hedonism.
Morality forms the core principle of utilitarianism. It dictates that the utilitarianism concept should focus on the healthy development of people in place of concentrating on stringent or rigid rules and regulations (Broad, 1947). The belief follows that such dictation should be free of discrimination to benefit from the social framework comprehensively. Similarly, the hedonism aspect of utilitarianism maintains that the absolute life objective is a pleasure. It subsequently recognizes the dictation of accomplishment of such pleasure against any consequential suffering or accruement of pain. Such a stance directs the concept to consider enhancing healthy development against just pleasure increment. This disproportionality consequentially raises different opinions, especially considering its ethical framework.
Proponents of utilitarianism cite that the framework facilitates the wholesome being of people and focuses on consequentialism. According to the well-being strength, the concept promotes the concentration of morality on facilitating the development of happiness to the most selected group instead of pushing the same satisfaction to a limited number of unique individuals (Broad, 1947). Such facilitation helps avoid moral and ethical dilemmas, especially in healthcare and social ethics. Meanwhile, as a strength, consequentialism builds on the earlier framework of relaying moral dictation on its repercussion instead of the rigidity of set laws and regulations. This strength makes the utilitarian ideology practical as it assesses the ethical bearing of an action to its circumstance and scenario.
In contrast, the opponents of utilitarianism argue that the framework might be impractical and over-reliant on outcomes. The concept may not be as practical since there are no ways to correctly innumerate happiness or sadness, especially concerning multiple people. In such cases, the justification of morality, or social ethics in this regard, is subjective as each individual possesses their understanding of morality or ethical dispositions (Duquette, n.d.). The same criticism of the concept arises with its impracticality due to its focus on circumstantial repercussions. The opponents argue that such a single-sighted outlook prevents the concept from considering the significance of the person’s rights, privileges, or external social and ethical bearing. In so doing, the concept can, therefore, according to the logic, justify irresponsible or criminal activities if it entails forwarding pleasure to the doer. Therefore, in general, utilitarianism forwards strengths such as consequentialism and well-being; however, the same tenets raise concerns and limit the social ethics of the concept since they might propagate criminal or harmful activities as long as they produce the desired well-being.
-
Existentialist Ideology
The existentialism ideology provides the most exciting philosophical concept as it builds upon the outlook of humanity as ambiguous and limited to disparities that necessitate a focus on individualism and freedom (Broad, 1947). This aspect of the framework raises social ethics concerns since moral doctrines dictate individual demeanors and meaningful social relationships. The concepts regard subjective experience, choice, and authenticity tenets. The subjective experience tenet of existentialist social ethics builds upon a focus on individualized outlook and experience instead of objective reality. This aspect entails the recognition of personal dispositions in comprehension of the responsibility for their reality view and experiences and the significant influence it has on them (Duquette, n.d.). This view enhances the individual’s understanding of personal and external subjective dispositions influencing different people. In so doing, the individual benefits from the subjective outlook of social ethics, especially regarding pluralism and cultural diversity. For instance, existentialism creates an atmosphere of valuing and honoring human experience and outlook divergence instead of focusing on a communal cultural understanding of a circumstance. This valuation stems from the encouragement of individuals to have an ethical commitment in their doings and associations.
Subsequently, the notion of authenticity builds around a similar structure, although on different levels. As subjective experience focuses on individual outlooks on cultural norms, authenticity regards the creation of personal life meaning and valuation in contrast to societal impositions. It directs individualized examination and expression of merits and demerits to relay a distinct approach to life (Broad, 1947). Considering an ethical outlook, the tenet forces an abandonment of personal responsibility commitment. It instead relishes in individuals owning their actions instead of relying on external guidelines or dictations. As such, the concept’s only command is the acceptance of repercussions and responsibilities for the actions taken and comprehending humanity’s existential ambiguity. However, like subjective experience, the authenticity tenet of existentialist social ethics propagates individualistic autonomy and honoring the same disposition of others.
In the meantime, choice, a tenet of existentialist ethics, considers people as individually determining and free. This aspect trickles down to the understanding that each person has to accept the repercussions for their actions or choices with an understanding that such dispositions influence them and their surroundings (Duquette, n.d.). Much like subjective experience, the choice aspect of existentialist ethics abandons the idea of communal dictations, but it uniquely bases its moral justification on the context and circumstance present. Such a direction excitingly affects social ethics. For instance, in social justice, the aspect discourages passivity regarding oppression; hence, it influences revolutions to induce a sense of responsibility in developing equitable societies.
Interestingly, this tenet confronts individualism and responsibility to the overall society. For instance, it observes that a person is responsible for actively challenging existing authorities. However, in so doing, the same person has a duty to one’s self-integrity and ethical bearing.
Generally, existential ideology forwards exciting approaches and outlooks regarding social ethics. It follows choice, authenticity, and subjective experience tenets. From a social ethics viewpoint, these tenets push for a critical approach to individualistic responsibility and a push to revolutionize current authoritarian norms and social divisions. Although the concept needs a distinct grasp in problem-solving, it offers clear justifications regarding the challenges and vagueness of humanity in its constantly dynamic nature.
In conclusion, social ethics, utilitarianism, existentialist, and socialist ideologies seek to dictate different approaches to moral justification in social interactions. The socialist-communism view approaches the individual as a part of the society and therefore regards the wholesome well-being of the society in place of the single individual. On the other hand, existentialist social ethics push for individual responsibility and freedom. It accords that each person is mandated to create personal objectives and is solely responsible for them. Lastly, the socio-ethical aspect of utilitarianism rails on the notion of optimal satisfaction in contrast to suffering. It weighs positive and negative repercussions and follows the one with the most justification regarding many people. Therefore, picking any ideology would regard the required outcome in the social aspect.
References
Broad, C. D. (1947). A History of Western o-etPhilosophy, and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. By Bertrand Russell. Pp. xxiii, 895. Simon and Schuster. New York. Philosophy, 22(83), 256-264.
Duquette, D. A. (n.d.). Hegel: Social and political thought. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers. https://iep.utm.edu/hegelsoc/
write