Morality: Selflessness or Sacrifice?



Morality: Selflessness or Sacrifice?Anjaih Clemons 4/1/2012This paper was written to provide the basis of different moral philosophies and to prove that these philosophies and theories are not complete if they do not have a moral basis in order to contribute to the eudaimonia of the common good.IntroductionMoral philosophy has been prominent in the world since the beginning of time. If you recall, Adam and Eve were the first human beings to portray morals. For example, the bible noted how God commanded Adam and Eve to not eat of the forbidden fruit. However, they disobeyed God and as a result were cast away from the garden. Did God not just establish morals and the law of the land in this story? Many may question what exactly is moral philosophy? Considering that there are many moral principles established by philosophical geniuses, moral philosophy has many opinions that vary from person to person. Because of these different opinions, one cannot simply prove what ethical standpoint is right or wrong, but rather understand ones ethical position based on their practices and beliefs through their action and knowledge. I take that standpoint that morality is based on character and the individual values and how it contributes to the common good. E.J Bond, author of Ethics and Human Well-Being (1996) examines fourteen ethical positions, which I challenge to prove that they do not contribute to the eudaimonia of the common good of society.Ethical EgoismEthical egoism is a theory that coincides with the motivational theory of psychological egoism. Bond (1996) discusses how psychological egoism is a form of motivation that implies that “all acts of people are selfish and whatever anyone does is self-regarding.” (p.7) Ethical egoism relates in the same instance suggesting that we should always act for our own greatest advantage and our own profit, and anyone who thinks differently is a fool (p.10). Brian Medline, a moral philosopher, argued that “any such principle expresses an attitude, and in asserting the principle we are trying to modify the attitudes of our fellow…while expressing our own desires and purposes” (Glasgow, 1968). Let’s view an example of egoism first hand. You have two people applying for the same position in a Fortune 500 company. Yet they both have motives that are self-regarding. In order to obtain this position, each one is willing to outdo the other for the sake of individual gratification and not for others or the betterment of society. I completely disagree with both psychological and ethical egoism theories for the simple fact that they do not contribute to the well- being of the common good and one’s moral character is questionable. Egoist believe either 1) humans are motivated by self-regarding considerations and nothing else, or 2) every act of everyone is self-regarding…and to disregard living in fear of one another, one can enter into an agreement (for your own benefit) and cleverly be decent with one another for purely self-interested reasons (p.16). I can understand the fact of entering an agreement in order to be decent with one another and not violate the laws of the contract. However, this agreement is only out of self-interest reasons which implies a self-regarding act and lacks the concern of others for the common good. Exploiting others for the liking of oneself only brings about conflict, which does not cater to the well-being of the common good. Cultural RelativismAs stated in the introduction, morality differs from person to person, but can be viewed as a local matter. If distinguished as a local matter, morality cannot be considered universal, which brings about the discussion of cultural relativism. According to Bond (1996), cultural relativism is the principle that an individual or groups belief should be understood and respected by other cultures; and that morality (conduct or character) varies from culture to culture and is different at different times and places. Hence there is no universal morality that applies to all human beings regardless of their location (p. 21-2). Cultural relativism was discussed in two forms; simple and sophisticated. From the works of twentieth-century ethnologists, Bond discovered that their arguments were “Accepted norms of conduct vary from culture to culture, therefore morality varies from culture to culture” (p.22). Bond also discussed sophisticated cultural relativism from the likes of Bernard Williams (theory that there are moral truths, but they are perspectival truths, or truths only from within the particular culture to which you belong (p.25)), Alasdair MacIntyre (belief that morality is embedded in culture and one cannot arrive at any moral conclusions…by taking a position outside all living moralities (p.28)) and Sabina Lovibond ( the belief that there are moral truths, but they require consensus or possibility of consensus…and they rest upon a shared practice which is embodied in institutions (p.37)). Economist Walter C. Neale stated, “classifying other people’s beliefs and preferences as true or false, good or bad does not lead to understanding; it does not explain how these people put their world together…its functional relationships and their consequences that explain” (Neale, 1990). I can understand Neale’s view on how we are not to classify other cultures beliefs as wrong or right because it does not lead to understanding, however, what about who believe that their tradition is right and all others are wrong and nothing else matters? My argument against culture relativism is that it is inconsistent and ultimately incorrect. It suggests that people in a culture have one set of standards. So when a person has a variety of perspectives, cultural relativism does not provide direction due to claims that these standards should be followed even if they conflict. Also, cultural relativists believe that there is no universal morality, hence no moral truths. If there aren’t any moral truths; which means there is no foundation for the basis of theory. In order to contribute to the common good, there must be a basis for morality, through which cultural relativism does not have. Furthermore, cultural relativism is in favor of dividing cultures, which is completely against the eudaimonia of the common good and/ or the quality of an individual. The common good is part of the good of each individual of the community, and if we don’t show concern, everybody, including ourselves suffers (Bond, 1996). When you view cultural relativism, it displays inequality and no concern for the well-being of others due to one’s customs, beliefs and practices are more or less right than any cultures beliefs and practices. Subjective RelativismAnother theory that is discussed is subjective relativism. Unlike cultural relativism (the believe that there is no right or wrong, good or evil that is independent of the culture in which a person happens to be located of the living tradition from which he or she speaks) (Bond, 1996, p.48), subjective relativism is the view that morality is relative not to custom, tradition, or shared belief, but purely personal belief or conviction (Bond, 1996, p.49). In short terms, one becomes their own person ‘god’ or authenticator and creates their own belief based on their inner feeling or private morality (p.51). ). At some point, cultural relativism and subjective relativism can relate in terms of tolerance. We must realize that within both claims, we must tolerate and respect the morals of other cultures and their values, beliefs and traditions and not judge because their convictions are different from our own. However, claiming subjective relativism, entails that we must stay true to our own personal convictions but not be subject to claim morality to be social, as described by cultural relativism. Unfortunately, we cannot claim both or we will be contradicting ourselves. Theodore Schick Jr., author of Is Morality a Matter of Taste… (1998), claimed subjective relativism to be morally infallible; and it sanctions any action as long as the person performing of it or believe that it’s right, which can’t be right. Schick used the argument of homosexuality. One person may believe that homosexuality is wrong, whereas another may believe that it’s right. However, neither one is in disagreement with the other because no one is denying what the other is saying. Schick also claimed that subjective relativism fails to meet the criteria of adequacy for ethical theories; it sanctions immoral actions and is inconsistent with our moral judgments, so therefore it’s not an acceptable theory. Even though subjective relativism is more or less about personal views without judgment or disagreement of others views on a subject, I am in complete disagreement with the theory. The reason behind my argument is that one cannot be free to establish their own morality based on their personal feeling because this would cause discord amongst everybody when the whole stance on morality is based on the well-being of everyone. Plus, establishing your own personal morality based on your personal preference or feeling clearly shows that one is acting upon a single instinct relating to a self-regarding act which defines egoism (which we previously discussed that egoism does not contribute to the well being of the community due to lack of caring for others). Therefore, I find subjective relativism to be an illogical thought behind moral reason. EmotivismMoving forward to a complex but yet simplistic theory, I challenge the doctrine of emotivism. E.J Bond, author of Ethics and Human Well-Being (1996), discussed the meta-ethical theory of emotivism, defined by the works of theorists and linguists C.K Ogden, I.A. Richards, and W.H.F Barnes, as having “moral thoughts and utterances that remain subjective and personal, but they are what we may call “non-statemental” expressions of personal attitudes or commitments.” (p.73). Ogden and Richards gave an example using the word “good” simply saying it’s purely emotive, and when so used the word stands for nothing whatever, and has no symbolic function...it only serves as an emotive sign expressing our attitude…” (p.73). Barnes theory supported the fact that when something is “good” that you approve and you’ve simply made a non-statemental expression of approval; one in attempt to influence the conduct of others by getting them to share that same approval… (p.76). Carl Wellman wrote an article entitled, Emotivism and Ethical Objectivity (1968), which he examined the works of Charles L. Stevenson, an emotivists whose theory was similar to that of Ogden, Richards, and Barnes. However, Stevenson’s original theory on Ethics and Language (1944), took two approaches implying that ethical statements are a declaration of the speakers attitude and that statements are based on types of actions that the speaker is evaluating according to a general principle.According to the emotivists theories previously discussed, we have stated “stealing or robbery is wrong” which might mean “stealing or robbery decreases happiness”, which in return explains Stevenson’s first approach of “I or we disapprove of anything that decreases happiness.” We are simply declaring our attitude (first approach) toward an action that we are evaluating (second approach). Overall, I understand the theories presented, but, I do not necessarily agree and my reasoning’s are as such. Emotivism simply denies moral knowledge and moral truths only saying they are just expressions of how we ‘feel’ about something. Daniel Stoljar, author of Emotivism and Truth Conditions (1993), stated that within emotivism, moral sentences lack truth conditions (p.82). From this perspective, I conclude that anyone who believes the theory of emotivism lacks the knowledge of both truth conditions and moral judgments. Emotivists believe that there is no universal moral reality, but we are simply using our moral language to express what our feelings or attitudes consist of. I honestly feel that this moral theory is irrelevant because it overlooks the practical function of moral language in decision making and it does not explain morality in a clear light which results in morality seeming to be “watered down”.PrescriptivismEnglish moral philosopher R.M Hare proposed the moral claim that moral ought-judgments are universalizable and prescriptive (Prescriptivism), meaning that prescriptivism is not a truth claim but rather an imperative prescription claiming that one “ought to do this or something”. Prescriptivism is yet another ethical claim that is inconsistent and quite questionable when discussing its foundation. E.J Bond, author of Ethics and Human Well-Being (1996), detailed this meta-ethical theory developed by R.M Hare, as a practical judgment instead of a critical judgment of praise or blame, hence, leading to decisions about what is to be done. (p.80). Bond described four claims that Hare made, focusing more on the claims of 1) The imperatives contained in value judgments are universal imperatives or principles, and moral judgments, especially “ought” judgments, are universal prescriptions that express decisions of principle; and 2)The only ultimate, justification of a decision of principle is personal commitment (p.80). Hare claimed that we can only ask one to make up his own mind which way he ought to live; for in the end everything rests upon such a decision of principle (p. 81). Bond also included valid points made by philosopher’s Stuart Hampshire and Sartre, who were somewhat in agreement with Hare, claiming that decisions involve only personal commitments but at the same time making decisions for humanity in general; anyone in my circumstances is to do just this (p.81). In other words, I ought to do “this” in this situation and therefore everyone should do “this” in the same situation; therefore not just prescribing for myself, but for humankind in general. However, after reviewing the reading and dissecting the information, I concluded, as stated above, that prescriptivism is another theory that I find rather questionable and not necessarily agreeable.Prescriptivism is all about expressions of opinions (similar to emotivism) rather than fact. However, the claim in general is expressing our views, but simply prescribing our opinions on others. For example, if I believe stealing is wrong, I would simply be saying, “one ought not to steal, and neither will I.” I am simply addressing my opinion and prescribing that it should be like this to humankind. Another example to elaborate would be if I were to steal something from my neighbor because it was pretty or it would look better in my home, but I wouldn’t want my neighbor to steal from me. This example in a sense is showing this claim (prescriptivism) to be inconsistent. I may believe that I ought to do something to somebody, but I don’t desire that same thing to be done to me; wouldn’t that show inconsistency because there is a violation of the claim? In this particular example, J.C Mackenzie, author of Prescriptive and Rational Behavior (1968), stated that this is irrational because there are no moral judgments or objective truths. (p.312). Norman O. Dahl, wrote in his article, A Prognosis for Universal Prescriptivism (1997), that moral judgments are impartial because they are based off impartial principles (p.390). This in return, shows that Hare’s claim for prescriptivism is impartial and inconsistent. I have chosen to go against the moral stand point of prescriptivism for the same fact as I did emotivism. Viewing how they are in relation to one another, prescriptivism can lead to denial of moral knowledge and truths, which can clash with the overall approach of ethics in our daily lives. If this is the case, the concept of prescriptivism will not contribute to well-being of the individual in order to promote the common good. Aretaic MoralityVirtue and character are important aspects that form an individual. Morality and character are simply means of conduct that prepares us to be an admirable individual and being just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts and brave by doing brave acts. For all that has been said, I agree with the principles that make up the dimension of morality known as Aretaic, because it holds true to how we live today with our language and building our individual character. E.J Bond first introduced aretaic morality in chapter 7 of his book entitled Ethics and Human Well-Being (1996). In this chapter, he discussed three dimensions of morality (deontic, aretaic and morality as conduct) and contrasted the different aspects of each. According to Bond (1996), aretaic morality is specifically concerned with good and bad qualities of character, in which a person is said to be morally admirable or contemptible, strong or weak, noble or base (p. 150). The fundamental notion surrounded by this dimension is essential to human flourishing (eudaimonia) and living a good life in the fullest sense. Bond also emphasizes the usage of language and how it contributes to the production or maintenance of eudaimonia (p. 151) but most importantly to the disposition or quality of character of an individual. Within aretaic morality, language is a very important aspect that can ascribe good or bad character to a person. Seeing how in the English language, vocabulary is constantly changing, so it’s very important to be mindful when describing a person’s character in a literary sense. Bond (1996) pointed out that words that ascribe goodness or badness to a person’s character are moral terms and they convey moral praise or condemnation. As a result, it shows aretaic morality, which is in our ordinary ways of thinking and talking about people (p. 153). From this, I have truly learned and can agree with the fact that the concept of aretaic morality is true and is embedded in our everyday thinking when it comes to describing or sometimes judging a person.Upon reading this theory of morality, I concluded that of all the theories and distinctions of morality, I agree with this theory 100 percent because it stresses how morality is based on virtue, values and character. Aretaic morality also contributes to the overall justification of the eudaimonia. Aretaic morality places emphasis on a person’s overall character and morals, which shows that an excellent contribution to the common good. Robert E. Card author of Pure Aretaic Ethics and Character (2004) simply wrote, “Once a individual has chosen activities which lead to the acquisition of a bad character, he or she may not be free to have a good character any longer” (p.475). Your actions, attitudes and behaviors predetermine your character, which describes your virtue that can revert back to the value within the common good (which is the whole point right?). Bond said “to be a virtue, the quality in question must contribute to the eudaimonia, either that of the community (common good) or of the individual person who possesses it or both” (p. 154). Virtue is of moral excellence and should be valued as basis for good moral beings. I believe this is what makes us who we are and is a part of our everyday lifestyle, thinking and quality of character that is worth possessing. No doubt or question in my mind that aretaic morality is true because viewing it in a broad perspective, it contributes to the well-being of the common good, which I believe is the sole purpose of morality. Deontic Morality and the Categorical ImperativeAlthough deontic morality is the opposition to aretaic morality, I believe that it contributes a certain value to the common good. Bond (1996) begins this ethical approach by reiterating the moral reasons and values that are tied to eudaimonia and the communal good (chapter 6, p. 119) in order to show the basis for morality. He concluded that there were two kinds of moral reasons:1. Reasons for or against a particular kind of action as such; for example, promise keeping and needless offence.2. Reasons for or against having a certain disposition of character (being a person of a certain disposition or tendency); for example, honesty or dishonesty, courage or cowardice (being an honest or a courageous person and not being a dishonest or a cowardly one) (p. 135).From these conclusions, Bond (1996) brought about the dimension of morality known as deontic. According to Bond (1996), deontic morality was formed by 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whom believed that the only thing that had moral worth was obeying the moral law because it was the moral law (p. 137). Deontic morality is concerned with the moral requirement to do certain things and not to do others or the avoidance of wrong doings (p. 136). Deontic morality is modeled by law, and similar to the law, it tells us of certain things to do and certain things to not do. Therefore, deontic morality is considered an ethics of limitation, one that informs us of certain lines to not cross while living our lives as we please. Deontic morality is comparable to the categorical imperative (formulated by Immanuel Kant), which forbids us from doing or not doing anything that could not will everyone else to do whenever they pleased (Bond, 1996, p.170). For example, if everyone decided to lie, steal or cheat whenever they very well pleased, we all would suffer. The moral reason for obeying the categorical imperative is that it recognizes the existence of others and their well-being, which ultimately creates a pleasant environment for people to live and enjoy without worrying about being done wrong (p.177). As a result, the contribution to common good and the eudaimonia of the individual is valued. Moral RightsWithout morality, an individual would not be given the obligatory demands for justice and rights within any given situation. Bond argued that any moral theory would not be complete without the recognition of justice and rights that are required to each individual. He stated that “it can only be true that I have a moral obligation toward you, if you have moral right to demand it for me, and it can only be true that you have a moral right to demand something of me, if I am morally required to do it or not do it for you”(p.196). If the obligation was not fulfilled by me, then you have been wronged and have the right to seek punishment for my unjust behavior or action (p. 196-7). Bond referred to an example of borrowing money and a promise to repay in a few days. However, a few days have passed, no repayment was made and no justification was served. In this instance, I have been wronged and trust has been violated, therefore, on moral grounds I am entitled to seek reparation or demand punishment (such as to never speak to you again) or both. Even though I am in partial agreement with Bond and his argument, it is still questionable whether moral rights of an individual could or may violate the rights of others. When it comes to human rights, some situations may appear where the rights of one may violate the rights of others. CITATION JMV02 \l 1033 (Vorster, 2002). J.M Vorster, author of Human Rights and Moral Conflicts (2002), provided a concrete example of how one’s rights may violate the rights of others. Post the attacks of the World Trade Center in September 2011, authorities had to choose between the security of the state and individual freedom. As a result, individual freedom had to be restricted within airports in order to secure the security of the state. (p. 458). I believe that moral rights are vital to the each individual. It allows one to be adversarial and provide deontic moral grounds for actions that are opposed to an individual’s interests. If positive moral rights exist (and are carried out through cooperation from all) there will be less need to concern ourselves with justice and rights. Common Good and Servant LeadershipBond (1996) begins his discussion by focusing on the basis of moral values. According to Bond, moral values are meant to provide a person with reason for action and thus this must be related to one thing-the thriving, flourishing, happiness, or well-being of the person who is making the choice or eudaimonia (p.119). Bond also explained that moral values of any kind if they provide reasons for someone (you), they must be worth your having, getting or doing. (p. 121). When referring to moral values, Bond brought forth examples such as trust, promise keeping, courage and kindness to examine the truth behind what is really morally valued by most. One point that Bond made regarding morality relating to unfairness was the fact that “unfairness is a negative moral value because it interferes with friendly relations and creates adversarial competition and conflict, something that is bad for everybody –bad for the community and therefore bad for the individual. The common good is part of the good of each and every individual member of the community, and if we don’t show concern for it, everybody suffers including ourselves.” (p. 124). I can clearly understand and agree with Bond’s stance when it comes to the importance of moral values within an individual as well as how it affects serving the common good. Authors of Common Fire: Live of Commitment in a Complex World (1996) described the common good as being “a shared, public space of the sort anchored the American vision of democracy.” (p.2). They also pointed out the purpose of the common good by displaying the everyday lives of people who are committed to work toward the common good by valuing the important things that help sustain the common good; family, education, jobs, etc and valuing the importance of the morals that are connected with the common good as a whole. When speaking about the common good, you have to refer to how the unification of the common good is affected. Otherwise, social conditions would not allow the shaping of eudaimonia. However, in order to support the common good factor, there must be a leader who is willing to serve for the well-being of others. Servant Leadership was first coined by essayist Robert K. Greenleaf in 1977. His philosophy was to fuse the role of servant and leader into one person to suggest that in order for one to lead, he must have the willingness to serve first. In his defining essay The Servant as Leader (1977), Greenleaf stated:The servant- leader is servant first…it begins with the natural feeling to serve first, then the conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…the difference manifests itself in the care taken by servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. (p.6) theThese thoughts would entail that Greenleaf believed in the principles that catered to common good. He later articulated in his second essay, The Institution as Servant (1972) this:caring for persons, more or less able, is the rock upon which a good society is built…and if a better society is to be build, one that is more just and loving…then the most open course is to raise both capacity to serve and performance as servant in existing institutions.(p.1)Upon reviewing Greenleaf and Bond’s views on ethics and leadership, I am in agreement with both for the simple fact of how they relate to the well-being of the common good. As previously stated, morality should be guided by conduct of character in order to contribute to the common good. Redefining and development of institutions that bring people together and allow them to live fulfilling lives is the important factor of morality versus the opposition of dividing communities due to egoism of discouragement of the common good. In order to be justified properly, current and upcoming leaders must be willing to not necessarily sacrifice their individualism but properly posses the quality of good character and the willingness to serve and put others needs before themselves. It’s more or less about balance rather than sacrifice. This is the only way to possess eudaimonia and improve the common good.Taking into consideration all of the moral theories and distinctions that were discussed, I can say that I appreciate the philosophical standpoints and the factor of conveying moral truths. However, I find that all these moral philosophies are more complex then what morality should be portrayed as. It’s quite simple. I claim that morality is based on ones’ character and those things that they value the most. Character defines who a person truly and based on that you can find out the moral standpoint of an individual by their actions and how they speak. Furthermore, as a leader, one does not need to be selflessness more or less than sacrifice. A true leader exemplifies both selflessness and sacrifice in order to be moral. Leaders face many different situations on consistent basis and they must know how to handle the situation at hand. A great leaders character will shine the most at this moment if they make the sacrifice to come out self in order to serve the higher needs of others. This would be the overall function of morality: to cater to the eudaimonia of the common good. References BIBLIOGRAPHY \l 1033 Bond, E. (1996). Ethics and Human Well-Being. Massachusetts: Blackwell.Card, R. E. (2004). Pure Aretaic Ethics and Character. The Journal of Value Inquiry , 473-484.Dahl, N. O. (1987). A Prognosis for Universal Prescriptivism. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition , 383-424.Glasgow, W. (1968). The Contradiction of Ethical Egoism. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in teh Analytic Tradition , 81-85.Jr., T. S. (1998). Is Morality a Matter of Taste? Why Professional Ethicists think that Morality is not purely 'Subjective'. Free Inquiry , 32+.Mackenzie, J. (1968, October). Prescriptivism and Rational Behaviors. The Philosophical Quarterly , pp. 310-319.Neale, W. C. (1990). Absolute Cultural Relativism: Firm Foundation For Valuing and Policy. Journal of Economic Issues , 333-344.Parks- Daloz, L. A., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Daloz-Parks, S. (1996). Common Fire: lives of commitment in a complex world. Boston: Beacon Press.Stoljar, D. (1993). Emotivism and Truth Conditions. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition , 81-101 Vorster, J. (2002, October). Human Rights and Moral Conflicts. Ecumenical Review , pp. 458-471.Wellman, C. (1968). Emotivism and Ethical Objectivity. American Philosophical Quarterly , 90-99. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download