Spinoza, the great philosopher, was both a determinist and a relativist. Though both these facets may seem paradoxical, yet his explanations throw light on their co-existence. As per his assertions, nothing is absolutely good or absolutely bad. The interpretation of good and bad is dependent upon the context in which it is perceived. This can be explained with the aid of an example. Death is something that brings grief and sorrow and thus is considered a bad event. However, for a chronically sick person, who cannot recover and is suffering both in the physical and psychological way, this might be the ultimate respite. In this case, death assumes the positive dimension. Therefore the idea of good and bad entirely gets interpreted in accordance with someone or something. This relativity underlines Spinoza’s philosophy on developing the right attitude towards life in general. According to him, this could be the means to free oneself from grief, stress, and anxiety.
The philosophers Bentham and Mill associated the concept of utilitarianism with the study of ethics. In simple words, utilitarianism implied the greatest good for the greatest number. This was based on the principle of utility. If an action generated such consequences that benefited a large number of people, the action was deemed good else bad. The explanation was followed by a simple calculation where the total numbers of good and bad actions were individually counted. Both totals were compared, and naturally, the bigger total defined whether a particular action was right or wrong. Since this approach only considered consequences as the parameters, it received its share of criticism. Focus on consequences meant the course of action was completely ignored. Secondly, some actions have delayed rather than immediate effect. This situation constrained the practical application of utilitarianism.
Kant’s principles on morality move exactly opposite to utilitarianism. He explains motive as the foundation for an action to be considered moral or immoral. He elaborates it through the concepts of duty and obligation. If one performs an action because it is his duty to do so, the action is considered moral. However, if the action is performed just as an inclination or obligation towards something, it is considered immoral. Kant’s justification seems sensible because the motive of the doer affects the ultimate consequences. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant’s philosophy attempts to rationalize the intentions behind an action as the force behind the actual effects.
Kant also proposed the concept of categorical imperatives in the study of ethics. This meant that a certain consequence could be produced by a certain action. In other words, everything in the world has to be approached with a singular, structured perspective. There were no options in dealing with situations in different ways. This was in stark contrast with the concept of hypothetical imperatives, which implied looking at a certain thing from diverse perspectives. A simple illustration would be a situation where a friend asks another to keep a particular secret. When the latter is asked about it by somebody, not disclosing is one categorical imperative. However, the ethical dilemma that arises here is lying to keep the secret. Categorical imperative implies that he should not lie. Consequently, the situation is perplexing. Hence the concept of hypothetical imperatives seems more prudent in this case with scope for thinking and arriving at a certain course of action that would be more rational.