James Rachelsa satisfactory theory

According to James Rachels

An acceptable theory should be realistic in terms of where humans fit in the grand scheme of things. The world was founded about 4.5 billion years ago, according to the big bang theory, which occurred around 13.7 billion years ago, and life on Earth evolved according to the principle of natural selection. According to this hypothesis, as animals like dinosaurs became extinct, it paved the path for other mammals to evolve, eventually leading to humans. Yet, when humans evolved, they considered themselves to be the crown of creation, believing that the entire cosmos was created to serve their purpose. All theories of right and wrong were developed to protect their interests as they believed they had an objective value as compared to other animals(Rachels, 175). However, the big bang theory which criticizes the modesty of the human race asserts that though humans are the smartest animals ever to walk on earth and develop a comprehensive language, this cannot justify the fact that the human race places itself at the center of creation.

Human beings excel in examining and articulating facts

Human beings excel on the fact that they can examine and articulate facts to give reasons that promote their interests. Unlike other animals, human beings make decisions based on behavior and its consequences, deliberation and thinking instead of instincts or habit. According to Rachels, people use the word ought to mark the element of the situation, give the strongest reasons for taking a particular action and thus justifying the morality of the measure. However, in their reasoning, humans can be either consistent or inconsistent. For instance, while discussing matters concerning racism, nationality, classism, and sexism always make human beings inconsistent since they find themselves accepting facts as a reason on one accession and rejecting the same facts on another similar situation. This is because in such cases, human beings place the interests of their nation, class, race or nation above the interests of others despite the absence of any concrete reason for their action. Such action is however against satisfactory morality because it is an offense against reason.

Human beings are social creatures

According to Rachels, human beings are social creatures who live together as a community as they need the company of each other, each other\u2019s cooperation and can provide care for each other. This interdependence explains the pleasing fit between situations or reasons that require adherence to rules that serve the interests of the society, impartiality, requirements of social living and personal inclination to care about one another at least to a certain modest degree. Rachels also explain the idea of treating others as they deserve as it describes the notion of a satisfactory morality. They assert that the idea of promoting the interests of everyone alike is only applicable when refuting bigotry, but there is a good reason for treating people differently just as they deserve (Rachels, 178). This is so because humans are rational beings with the capacity to make choices and choose to treat others well because they deserve good treatment while they choose to maltreat others because they deserve proper treatment. While that line of reasoning sounds harsh, there is always a satisfactory reason for humans to treat people who have earned their respect and gratitude, beyond the general obligation to help or care about them. According to Rachels, treating people in accordance to how they choose to treat others is not just a matter of pleasing people who are dear or holding grudges against enemies, but it\u2019s a satisfactory choice of treating people as responsible beings who deserve particular responses by their past line of action. This is so because past behavior towards a person determines their gratitude or resentment towards the individual. Denying people the ability to decide their fate would make them much worse off.

Treating people as they deserve gives every individual the opportunity and ability to earn good treatment from others

Treating people as they deserve gives every individual the opportunity and ability to earn good treatment from others. This is paramount because human beings live in societies and their welfare depends on both what they do to others and what others do to them. Treating people as they deserve is, therefore, a satisfactory morality measure as it empowers people to determine their fate. Failure to this, people would use force to get the right treatment from society members even if they did not deserve it. Additionally, others would get good treatment as a result of charity or luck. Friendships and love also dictate motives because it is justifiable to treat friends and loved ones favorably than others and though it\u2019s not regarded as moral, such motives cannot be eliminated from human life. This is so because it is unimaginable to live in a world without love and friendships. Additionally, motives such as intention to create something of value and to take pride in one\u2019s job among other noble choices also dictate morality. This is so because the lack of noble intentions would lead to a poorer life.

The single moral standard that can be used to measure morality is making people as happy as possible

The single moral standard that can be used to measure morality is making people as happy as possible since this specification can be useful in assessing a broad range of right or wrong intentions including policies, actions, customs, laws, motives, rules and regulations as well as character traits among others. However, this standard does not dictate that one should always think regarding making every human being as happy as possible. Henry Sidgwick in 1838 said that the doctrine of universal happiness does not imply that universal benevolence would be the best course of action. He asserts that human beings should not necessarily expect that the result, which gives the criterion of rightness, justifies the end at which they consciously aim. As a result, philosophers have used the ideas of motive utilitarianism to justify the fact that human beings should act from their motives that best promote the greater good for all regardless of the result. However, the issue of justice and fairness criticizes the theory of utilitarianism regarding things such as punishment since it endorses manipulation to be a legitimate moral strategy to achieving the common good (Arntzenius, 46). As moral agents, human beings should be concerned with the welfare of every individual whose well-being may be affected by their actions. Though this is a hard doctrine satisfactory morality should not be limited to nationality, race, sexuality, and time in terms present or future, gender or tribe.

In conclusion

In conclusion, a satisfactory moral theory should maximize the interests of all community members, and all decisions and plans should consider personal modesty. When considering larger populations, the theory of utilitarianism is best applied and should always take into consideration the welfare of all human beings. When dealing with smaller societies, people always seem to treat others as they deserve. Additionally, other factors such as motives to build a new life, love, and friendships also impact on morality.

Works Cited

Arntzenius, Frank. “Utilitarianism, decision theory and eternity.” Philosophical Perspectives 28.1 (2014): 31-58.

Rachels, James. “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?.” Moral Issues in Business: 90.

Sidgwick, Henry. The methods of ethics. Hackett Publishing, 1873