Category Archive
The following is a list of all entries from the Uncategorized category.
My Moral Theory
I think to say that there is one moral theory that is right is a little ridiculous. Each theory we came across posed a different argument and introduced us to a new way of thinking. In that way, I don’t think I have a moral theory. What I have is a bunch of tools to further analyze the day-to-day decisions that I have been making all along. For example, now when with a bunch of friends, and faced with the decision between two alternatives, I can think as Mill did and try to understand what would cause the greatest overall happiness for my friends and I. I need not extend it to as far as Mill did, but the mere ability to think in that manner is something that I now have in my mental arsenal that I did not have before. When reading the newspaper and seeing all the carnage going on in Iraq, I now wonder, is there a State of Nature? Is this the exemplification of it?
Of all the theories, I think Aristotle comes the closest, but it’s hard to even say that. It’s like the old math problem, “I can prove to you that all the numbers in existence are between 2 and 3.” And you would go on to cite the infinite amount of numbers that are between those two numbers. I think of the definition of goodness the same way. The closer you think you get to the definition, the more you have to magnify that one point on the continuum and you realize that you are now on a smaller continuum of with the same problems. I think this goes on infinitely but that does not mean we should not try because the tools and thought experiments we gain in the process are invaluable.
Aristole’s Virtues and Vices
Aristotle contends that the humans have the ability to have virtues and vices, and the virtue is the mean of the two vices (one of excess and one of deficiency). One example of this is pride. Too much of pride is considered to be arrogance or egoism. Too little of it would be considered to be a lack of self-respect (I can’t think of a single word for it). The mean of it would seem to be a strong-willed person.
My problem with this is that it seems like the “mean” as Aristotle refers to it, often leans closer to one side than another. For example, with kindness, it would seem that it would be better off to have an excess of kindness than to be completely lacking it. For someone who is in excess of it, may get pushed over a lot but still has the capacity to get things done. While someone who has no kindness would simply not engage in human interaction at all. So it would seem that these virtues are subject to each individual. And if that is true, then it means that morality is subject to each individual. Is Aristotle a moral relativist?
Aristotle and the Master Art
Aristotle contends that politics is the master art. While this sounds like a contentious statement at first, it really is not. Aristotle is merely combining the theories of Mill, Kant and Hobbes to come up with a down-the-middle theory of what “good” is. Mill states that it is greater overall happiness, Kant states that goodness lies in the intent, and Hobbes states that it lies in the social contract. Politics as a whole seems to encompass all of these. I would define politics as the art maintaining and enforcing a social contract with the intent to improve the overall happiness of the people. And thus, it does not seem to ridiculous to me that he is saying this. In fact, it seems like the least contentious of the 4 theories and the most irrefutable.
Hobbes and the Sovereign
Why should so much power lie with the sovereign? Hobbes seems to assert that we would all be better off in an autocratic society where all the power lies somewhat singularly at the top, but is this really better? The practical results of such a theory have shown little to no success. Hobbes contends that the sovereign should not only rule, but should have no limits on his authority. He seems to dislike the fact that there may be checks and balances for the sovereign to rule. Without these checks and balances, however, how will society be ensured that the rules of society are being enforced correctly? It seems that in Hobbes’ moral theory, the sovereign lies above the moral plane of the average citizen. He/she would have to in order to have the ability to enforce the contract. But what is it to say that once in such a position, the sovereign would not abuse this upper hand he’s been given to choose what he wants to enforce and not enforce? And also, the sovereign seems to have an imbalance of power when compared to society. While in his position, the sovereign, like many dictators do, can use manipulation tactics like fear and security to result in him having even more power. Hobbes does not account for this nearly as well as he should have, just merely saying that this state is better than the state of nature. Really? Says who?
Hobbes and the State of Nature
Hobbes’ arguments about scarcity and general equality of men go to the basics of modern economics and specialization theories. Each man has his own worth and has ability to contribute, he just has to capitalize on his inherent abilities.
However, it is Hobbes’ arguments about the State of Nature which concern me. Hobbes’ State of Nature is an overly pessimistic view of the world. Hobbes asserts that because we lock our doors at night and keep our money in a safe, we are proving his claim that men act out of self-interest and general disregard for one another’s needs. However, I take exception to this. We do not lock our doors as a statement towards all of humanity. We lock our doors to prevent the few irrational human beings out there from disrupting our rational behavior. Such behavior on our part may be stupid, but it is by no means an admission that humanity is innately selfish, which seems to Hobbes’ contention.
Kant and Cultivating Talents
Kant’s duty to cultivate talents is, once again, based on the categorical imperative. Kant’s maxim is that “Even though I have the natural ability to do x, I will not work towards achieving a betterment in performing x.” Kant states that we can certainly imagine a world where this exists, however, this maxim cannot be willed into universal law. His rationale is that any rational human being relies on his/her talents and the talents of others to achieve their ends in society. So any rational human being that is a part of this world would want others to cultivate their talents as he/she has certain things they want to achieve.
The problem occurs when considering that this duty is not a perfect duty. Meaning, this duty cannot be carried out 100% of the time. No one can spend ALL of their time cultivating their talents or their talents would serve no purpose to society, and each talent has a presumable end where no more cultivation is possible.
Another problem with this theory is that it creates a finite definition of morality. A person is moral if they do their duties. So, all someone has to do is cultivate their talents to be moral. There is no quantification of what the definition of cultivation is. So, imagine there are two doctors. One doctor is a basic internist and has limited expertise. Another doctor is a pediatric cardiac surgeon and has advanced expertise and has spent much more time training than the other doctor. With Kant’s definition, they are both moral and neither is more moral than the other. This may seem alright at first glance, but then what is the incentive for the second doctor to achieve that level of expertise if both men have satisfied their moral duty and the first did much less work? Kant’s duty does not allow for people to go above and beyond the call of duty.
Kant and Self-Love
Kant states that suicide is immoral by applying the following maxim to universal law:
“From self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life if staying alive threatens more evil than it happiness.”
Kant’s conclusion is that this maxim itself is a contradiction because human beings have an innate ability of something he calls “self-love”. Kant describes self-love as human being’s desire for the furtherance of life. However, placing this generalized assumption of self-love only serves to undermine Kant’s theory. Even rational beings participate in behavior that Kant would argue is against the principle of self-love. One might contend that the idiots who post their arm-breaking antics on YouTube are not acting out of self-love. However, this is far from a contradiction of human nature.
Kant states that the same self-love principle that furthers our life cannot end it. But why is this not possible? An apt thought experiment would be to consider a device that turns on the heat when it gets too cold. Now if that same device turned off the heat when it got too warm, would that be a contradiction? No. The device being described is a switch, or more specifically, a thermostat and exists in society today. The point is that if we consider self-love to be a device rather than a finite concept, it becomes very plausible that it could serve these two purposes. A device can serve contrary purposes without being an inherent contradiction.
The Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative is a concept created by Kant which seeks to establish a standard for actions and their resulting morality. In contrast to utilitarianism, which often asserts morality in terms of the hypothetical, Kant seeks to establish morality in terms of the categorical or universal. Kant states that to determine the morality of an action, one must create a maxim regarding that action and then universalize it to understand whether the action is justified for all people. If the action cannot be justified for all people, the action must be immoral. This can be applied to the concept of lying or false promises. For example, if a debt collector is looking to collect money from Phil, and Phil says he doesn’t have any money even though he does, how do you determine the morality of that action? The basic idea is to universalize that idea. So we imagine a world where it is a universal law that every time a collector calls a debtor and asks for money, that the debtor lies about having money. This idea presents an inherent contradiction. If it’s a universal law, then the collector knows that the debtor will lie about having money so he will not believe him. And so if he does not believe him, then the lie will not work. So, lies are an inherent contradiction and are thus proven to not be morally justifiable.
Kant vs. Mill
According to utilitarianism, if you lend your car to a friend and that friend drives drunk and kills someone, your action as well as your friend’s action is deemed immoral. The moral action of helping a friend out turns immoral once the overall happiness as a result of that action decreased. This is counter-intuitive to most modern-day thinking as most people think there is an end to when you should be subjected to the morality of an outcome. Kant adresses this by emphasizing that it is not the result but the intent of an action that is of importance. So you lending your car to a friend in need is always a moral action. As far as the drunk driving friend, what if his intent was positive? What if he was drunk and he got a call saying his father was in the hospital and simply wanted to be there to support his father? His intent was arguably altruistic, but the result was horrific. What does Kant say about that?
The Case of Jojo
According to Utilitarianism, it would be moral to kill one person as long as it benefited enough people so that the happiness caused by the person’s death is greater than that caused by the person’s sustained life. Utilitarianism also does not care about the reason there would be more happiness, whether it is because of dictatorial actions (e.g. Saddam Hussein) or helpless rationale (e.g. Jojo). Many people in the class had the instinctive reaction that killing Jojo was morally wrong even though utilitarianism said it wasn’t. People seemed to shared Mill’s retort of the moral fiber argument: that killing someone, regardless of reason, redyced the moral character of our society as a whole.
I guess I feel like I’m in the minority here by our class discussion the other day. My gut reaction was that the thing to do was to kill Jojo. Damn, that sounds worse as I read it back. But still, it’s what I would do. And I would tend to agree that not only would I do it (rational decision) but that I should do it as well (moral decision). My reason for feeling this way is that if Jojo is impacting society in a way as to decrease productivity and to decrease overall happiness on such a global scale, then society is basically rendered useless. In fact, I would use Mill’s moral fiber argument to prove the converse. Our moral fiber is based on the theory that everyone is striving to be efficient and productive and that if someone threatens that efficiency or productivity, they will be punished. This is what encourages most of humanity to go through most of the steps of social progression and feel that they have an opportunity to succeed. Jojo’s presence without punishment goes against that basic social contract. Thus, the moral action is to kill Jojo.
Damn, it still feels awful to type that.
