Ethics in Philosophy: Insights from Ayn Rand and Ruth Benedict

1050 Words3 Pages

Part One: Area of Philosophy
The question that is posed to us falls under the philosophy branch of ethics. Chaffee defines the branch of ethics in the following matter, “the study of moral values or principles. It is concerned with distinguishing between good and evil in the world, between what is right and wrong in human actions and between virtuous and non-virtuous characteristics of people” (30). The two philosophers who I will be discussing this question and possible answers with are Ruth Benedict and Ayn Rand. Both women have very interesting ideas about ethics and how these ethics play into this topic.

Part Two: Argument Analysis Ruth Benedict was an advocate of “cultural relativism”. Chaffee explains what cultural relativism is
Benedict’s arguments lead us to shooting the one person because we are within the culture of these people and cultural relativisms leads us to this being the morally correct choice. Rand’s beliefs of the virtue of selfishness would lead us to not shooting the one individual and instead letting 30 people die because that way there is no way for us to get jail time in our own country. My own argument is that while it is unfair to the one person who will be shot, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and by shooting the one person you save 29 other lives. There is also the possibility of your home country understanding the situation at hand and giving you a lighter sentence based on the situation. You may even be able to argue self-defense in court if you felt like the officer who told you to shoot one of the 30 people was going to kill you if you didn’t do it. As well as their maybe laws dictating how these crimes are handled while you are in a different country. So, it is possible that you manage to save 29 lives and don’t do 20 years in jail if you take one

Open Document