'A Relativistic View of The Ballad of Narayama\r'

'First Position Utilitarianism, a branch of devout realism, is a doctrine that attempts to justify the abstract idea of morality. Consequentialism, a broader basis of utileism, defines an treat as being slump or violate by saying that the right act in some(prenominal) moral dilemma is that which leads to the superlative genuine for the greatest snatch of people. It focuses in on the burden of an action and declares that this result is the true basis for popular opinion about the morality of a ratiocination.Utilitarianism takes these ideas a gait urther and defines the quality of the consequence of an action as its â€Å"utility. The but way to funda mentally ensure that our actions are secure is to prove that the results of the chosen action were really erupt than the results of the other possible choice. (2) turn Position moralistic relativism is a philosophy that defines morality in a way that directly depends on the individual or group of people involved. One prominent variability within moral relativism is the meta-ethical speckle.The basic proposition rat this argument is that moral judiciousness can non be universalized and in this way morality is relative to he parties involved. This permits any culture to practice anything they see as right, and this depression within the culture depicts it the right thing to do. In the mindset of a meta-ethical relativist, we must reserve our Judgment if we see people committing what we feel are chastely defame actions and understand that they may be doing the right thing in the context of their culture. (3) Major dissent A moral relativist would see many dents in the ideology of utilitarianism.One major objection is that utilitarianism is too deep of a doctrine as it suggests there is always a way to act that would benefit to a greater extent people. There is inherently too much hale put on humankind if utilitarianism were to be followed because it requires us to constantly act unifo rm â€Å"moral heroes,” claiming anything less(prenominal) would make us bad people. Due to the accompaniment that there could be a greater unspoiled in every decision we make, we would barely be able to live our witness lives, develop our possess relationships with family and friends, and make our own decisions if we strictly adhered to the doctrine of utilitarianism.This flaw of utilitarianism is exposed in The lay of Narayama because the action of cleanup the time-worn when they evanesce 70 would be deemed viva voce wrong and ludicrous. However, the moral relativist realizes that this contradicts the societal tradition and is and so the right thing to do. To the naive eye of the utilitarian, killing the elderly immediately expects like a chastely corrupt tradition that could never be acceptable. However, the moral relativist understands this practice in the context of the Nipponese colonisation and renders it acceptable.Keeping Orin alive would be morally wr ong to the relativist because it takes the twinge off of Kesakichi and even Tatsuhei to develop as men of the household. They still have Orin providing food and expireing for them and as a result Kesakichi remains naive and immature. The adolescent people in the Japanese settlement choose develop on their own, and so the tradition of the village should be honored regardless of specific cases, like that ot Orin. In ad dition, the elderly Just move another mouth to t cases in the barren village. 4) First Rebuttal in most The utilitarian would answer this objection by saying that it would not be for the best(p) to take Orin and all the 70-year-old citizens to the steer of Narayama. They would argue that societal tradition should not be followed in this case and it is morally ncorrect to leave the elderly to die in this way. Even if they are a burden to nightclub, the greatest good for the greatest number of people comes when they are kept alive. Our deepest inclinations also seem to tell us that killing any somebody who lives to be 70 is morally wrong.If they were allowed to live, family units would become stronger, wiseness would be passed through the generations, and the elderly could find sunrise(prenominal) ways to contribute to society regardless of their age. Additionally, the utilitarian would disagree with the idea of hoarding food spell others go hungry, as they do in the Japanese village. The morally correct action that would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people would be to share food and services, never placing your own familys inescapably above the needs of the society as a whole.To the utilitarian, any acts that can be conceived as self-centred are morally wrong and every decision should be made with the community in mind. (4) Second Rebuttal The meta-ethical relativist would respond to this rebuttal by cohesive to their convictions and arguing that in the context of this Japanese village, it is best to follow t radition and take the elderly to the summit meeting of Narayama. The utilitarian lacks the foresight into the future of the society and naively acts with only immediate benefits in mind; â€Å"To recall that life has no high end than pleasure” is â€Å"a doctrine worthy of swine” (RR 600).Although the immediate affects of go away the elderly atop the mountain to die peacefully may not provide the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, in the long pack it pays off and does, in fact, result in the greatest good for society. As for the claim that it is morally wrong if you place your familys need at a higher priority, the meta-ethical relativist would say that this type of elfishness drives society. The providers for a family want to total as much as they can to their children and this motivates them to work unassailableer.Although the utilitarian would think that it would be best if the Japanese villagers openly shared their food, the moral relativist would understand how the society figure outs and disagree. If an individual donated any excess they had to the society as a whole, the motivation of individuals within the society would evaporate and the Japanese village would no longer function properly. The lives of the villagers depend on their planning for the future and hard work in the farms.The competition between workers and the believe to provide for their families is the reason this Japanese village has survived for generations. If a villager knew that any extra work he did or any extra food he grew would be taken away from him, then the villager would not work as hard and would not be as worried about securing his own crops and farming his own land. The moral relativist understands this as the basis for the tradition in the village, as killing the elderly puts responsibility on the other members of society to produce while step-down the number of mouths they have to feed.This tradition should be upheld because it allo ws for them to make their own decisions and look out for their families. The moral relativist position realizes that the action of killing the elderly once they reach age 70 is morally permissible in the Japanese society depicted in The Ballad of Narayama. This moral Judgment is not universal, as in most societies this action would be deemed morally incorrect and unacceptable. However, given the economic situation of the village along with the dependence on manual labor, the tradition should be upheld as it is morally best for the society at hand.\r\n'