A Peek Into Morality

Introduction

         Any philosophy on morality and ethics would be hard for the average American student to grasp, as morality is an alien concept to our society. Still, that doesn’t mean these philosophies are beyond comprehension. Rather, once one is able to understand them, he or she can compare them to current events, circumstances, and situations. The philosophies of Utilitarianism (Mill), Kant, and Aristotle can be related to modern society, but with varying degrees of success. Besides being very different from one another, these three philosophies offer a very limited scope of moral philosophies.

Explanation

         Utilitarianism is a consequentiality moral philosophy built upon two definitions: goodness and moral rightness. The definition of good is critical to the utilitarian so he/she has an idea of what happiness is to be maximized (as maximizing happiness is the morally right half of the utilitarian argument). In maximizing happiness, the key is to maximize the happiness for every last human being imaginable. To determine this maximum happiness, though, requires a series of calculations that would assign numbers and ranks to possible outcomes. For example, consider five friends sitting around trying to decide what to do that night. Four would be happier seeing “Movie Du Jour” while the fifth would be happier window shopping downtown. At first, it would seem that the maximum amount of happiness would be achieved by attending the movie. However, when looked at in terms of after effects, this may not be the case. If “Movie Du Jour” turns out to be bad, then the happiness level would be at -20, while window shopping in downtown could lead to a happiness rank of +75. Only after looking at the “numerical” rankings of various outcomes can maximum happiness be determined.

         In this, though, utilitarianism is riddled with flaws and subject to countless objections. Most objections show the impracticality of utilitarianism. Probably the most significant of these objections relates to the numeric rankings of outcomes. First, what kind of point system would be used ( i.e. a scale of one to ten)? Even if such a system could be created and then universally accepted, calculating all scenarios would be too time consuming and that decisions would hardly (if ever) be made. Other objections include special obligations ( i.e. parents and children, students and teachers), a lack of recognition of God as the supreme moral being, and numerous counter objections. Both the nature and the bounty of objections and problems stemming from utilitarianism make the theory (in its purist form) impractical for real world application. However, the concept of maximizing happiness by determining a numeric rank for consequences has manifested itself in the real world via the cost-benefit analysis, showing that indirectly, utilitarianism has some practical application in our society.

         Kant’s Duty Defined ethics take a different approach to morality. As opposed to consequentiality utilitarianism, Duty-Defined ethics focus on the person’s intentions for committing an action, and consequences aren’t even considered. Duty-Defined operates on the principle of good will motivation, which states that the intention/duty stems from good will, a force governed by reason. Kant says that the ability to make moral law due to reason, which he cites as the internal authority which determines right and wrong. Due to this, we are supposedly able to determine universal laws that define moral action, devoid of any emotional connection. In the creation of these qualifications, we are to test its rationality to see if it can truly apply for every possible situation (and thus be made a universal law). From there, Kant’s main objective (the Categorical Imperative) is to treat people as ends in themselves (and not simply use them along the way). However, some objections exist to this philosophy as well. These four maxims cannot be universalized due to their inherently contradictory nature: suicide (you can’t use your life force to end your life), lying (the concept would be rendered moot if everyone lied if they could gain from it; this is contradictory because no one would believe anyone was telling the truth), self development (talents cannot be developed through simple rationalization), and charity ( if one remains apathetic to another’s suffering, what will happen when the first suffers?). Interestingly, Kant himself proposes these objections, which suggests he wanted to make sure his Duty-Defined Ethics could be accepted without question, something that can be perverted to work against his theory (which I will explain momentarily).

         Finally, there is Aristotle’s Virtue Theory, a theory that greatly deviates from both utilitarianism and Kantianism. It deviates in that it focuses on a person’s character rather than the actions he/she performs. His theory is founded on his thesis on nature, that everything is a fusion of matter and form. For humans, the matter is the body, while the form is the soul. He explains that the soul has three components: reason, will, and desire. From these stem the cardinal virtues of intelligence/practical wisdom (from reason), courage (from will), and temperance (from appetitive/desire). Aristotle derives these virtues from two extremes and finds the middle ground (the mean). In other words, a balance of (for example) recklessness and fear is courage (being able to overcome fear and do something perhaps unusual in other circumstances to make a change). Aristotle also held the view that happiness and pleasure were mutually exclusive, that happiness was life filled with virtuous action, (not pleasure), something that took much practice to achieve. Essentially, in Aristotle’s view, being a good human was to be a virtuous human, and being a virtuous was ethically right.

Response

         Out of all the moral/ethical philosophies covered here, I find Aristotle’s virtue ethics to be the most practical in modern society. First, since it is not a ‘moral’ system, it would be easier for everyone in the nation to follow, regardless of religion. Second, it focuses on character development, and many Americans (myself included) lack a decent, balanced concept of character. Finally, it is a lot similar than many other moral/ethical philosophies, as it places emphasis on three virtues that determine a course of action. I am especially drawn in to the idea of temperance, as American society is quite overindulgent. Learning temperance could solve some of America’s biggest physical and psychological problems, including obesity, sexual promiscuity (and its many physical and psychological consequences), and complacency in important matters due to obsessions with trivial pursuits (i.e. sports and entertainment).

         Obviously, due to the many gaps and objections/exceptions, utilitarianism is very impractical for modern society. Its biggest problem here lies in dealing with the calculations of happiness, if you will. Besides hindering a course of action, it also is very inhibitive to a course of reaction being taken. Consider this. The decision to create the new cabinet position of Department of Homeland Security was very hasty with no clearly visible indication that happiness was maximized with the formation of this new bureaucracy. Thus, when faced with the decision for how to fund it, lawmakers would have to consider budget cuts in other facets of society under federal government control. It would take too long for them contemplate all the outcomes of cutting funding in various fields, as Bush (and the cabinet) would push for immediate formation of the Department of Homeland Security. Thus, reaction time is truncated into a matter of days and weeks, which is not nearly enough time for Congress (both houses to boot!) to reach an agreement on cuts that maximize the nation’s happiness.

         As for Kantianism, I do agree with it, but that’s because my craft (fiction writing) places me in a position where I study intent for the sake of character development. Outside of my craft, I view Kant’s idea of universalization of moral/ethical principles as something potentially revolutionary to global thinking. However, new exceptions would arise, and we have already seen the devastating effects of such maxims in history. One such case is the more recent wars in United States history. National leaders throughout the decade sought to universalize the maxim (stated) that if democracy is under ANY threat of attack by any force opposed to “democratic” thinking, tear it asunder for national protection and self preservation. Such a universalized maxim has resulted in the high casualty total in Vietnam and the increased rebellion in the 21st century Iraqi war. By universalizing the maxim of attack even the slightest fact, serious mistakes are made on the foreign policy, political, and economic front for the United States, not to mention the fact that war is morally degrading for the oppositions civilians, as they are most easily subjugated to the status of object in a time of war.


Conclusion

         Moral/ethical philosophies are abundant, and the ones presented here are only a very slight few of them. Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics differ from each other in very different ways, but all try to define a way to achieve good works. Only Aristotle’s virtue ethics hold any potential for modern society, as Kantianism and utilitarianism have both been proven to be impractical.