Question 4: Morality, Rationalism and Subjectivity according Aristotle and Plato
Perhaps one of the most important functions of philosophy is the inquiry of human behavior and the rationale behind it. Kant argued that laws come from human desire to become rational and objective. He also insisted that the end results of human desire are happiness. The realization of this happiness means that people have to make certain sacrifices and draw standards. Using the idea of cultural relativity, and the concept of rationalism, I would explore the action of the humans as rational beings. I would make a case that no human being can be free from subjectivity. Because of the absence of value bias, moral pluralism becomes the premise upon which society can function.
Philosophers are concerned about the broad field of ethics, morality and the effects of morality and facets thereof. While the said facets morality is related, they are also distinct and concerned about unrelated thinking process in the pursuit of consciousness. Still, ethics has come be defined as the study of morality in the realms of philosophy. Usually, ethics refer to the analysis of values and the concepts such as good, evil, right, wrong and the role of responsibility. Even within ethics, there are three subdivisions. The first one is meta-ethics that focus on the study of ethics as a concept. The role of meta-ethics is the analysis of ethical attitudes, statements and judgments. The second aspect of ethics is normative ethics which is concerned with the acquisition of ethical values. The last aspect of ethics is the use of ethical values and is usually decried as ethical values. How do we define objectivity? Are human beings objective at all?
Value free means that the philosophy is not influenced by the society’s pressure. In essence, it is ethically neutral. However, values have some objectivity. Therefore, values depend on people’s evaluation and analysis of situations. Values are morally relative. Stepping out of the constraint of values require moral pluralism. Secondly, from this class, I understand that previous knowledge of an individual an affect the way an individual or a society can see in that the inference sometimes can borrow greatly from the opinions. In real meaning, previous knowledge can instill value, affect methodology and generate ideology. With all these available, there is likelihood that the conclusion could be one sided, a mere experiment to justify an already existing theory and this could be objective. In his view, Plato posits that moral thinking works together with human emotions and ethics. Aristotle distinct himself from Plato ethical treaties that makes the argument ethics is not a theoretical discipline, but a combination of goods that are classified as either the good or highest good.
The desirability of good thus becomes the representation of ethical standard Aristotle’s virtue theory constituting four basic attributes. The attributes included: Strong reliance on some conventionally accepted virtues of character. Aristotle believed that an individual can only be morally upright after mastering basic values of life. Another aspect of virtue ethics relied on the presence of an active community that has certain moral guidelines. The community becomes a laboratory where ethics are nourished and practiced. The third aspect of virtue ethics posits that morality is not restricted to societal rules or guidelines. Morality of is at discretion of an individual to exercise judgment based on rationality and conscience. Successful recognition and imitation of role models is essential for propagation of morality within the community.
Moral and political knowledge is the preamble of ethics and morality in a society. Without political knowledge, rationality would be hard-nut to crack. In Introduction to Virtue, “the relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or as they see it”, here truth is diverted from the original conception of higher being as the source of truth and reason, instead the fundamental American value of equality takes the principle of logic and ration. American societal ethics and its codes would that be arguably a function of Natural Law and slow transformation to accept relativity of truth, and solidified by the supreme law of the land that advocates for equality of mankind.Like the United States founding fathers, most inhabitants of earth believe in the concept of a higher being that magically guides people towards some moral grounds. The belief on the role of a superior being as the mastermind of rationalism is exhibited by the writings of George Washington in his inaugural address where he said “inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the civil administration”. George Washington was a believer in the concept of a higher power that reigns over humanity, thus defining what was right and wrong. In one statement George Washington admits by saying “Almighty Being rules over the universe”. Being from the earth society, my concept of rationalism would therefore cloud the judgment I make when confronted by people from other places of the world.
Having understood the concept of ethics, it is perhaps in order to understand the concept of moral philosophy as used in the society. Moral philosophy also lies within three canopies. Each of the canopies plays an incredible role in the building of the other segment. Moral ethics also called morality focuses on man’s pursuit of the answer and the distinction between right and wrong. The first layer of the pursuit of right and wrong is the individual. The individual, also called individual conscience is perhaps the most powerful segment of the moral code. However, it must be understood that the moral code as attributed in the individual consciousness is independent of other facets. The individual conscience is also shaped by the systems of principles and judgments that a given community share. The differences in cultures and how they shape different societies perception of morality is governed by a relatively post modern philosophy called cultural relativism. The cultural relativists hold the view that-cultures differ substantially in what they value.
The third aspect is the role of culture is the formation of codes of behavior in a society. The values that a given society holds play a substantial role in the making of laws. If I use an example, the Native American society held strongly that human sacrifices were pivotal for the betterment of the community. Because of this, Native American societies made it a law that once year; a virgin girl would be sacrificed. The process included some form of pain and shedding blood. The society believed after shedding this blood, would appease the underdogs and bring good for the society. The systems of judgments have shaped how the society defined success. Compare this to western understanding of masculinity. Using old western movies, one can see a trend of masculinity as defined my conquest, bravery, macho-men and material possession. Morality thus was not defined by individual consciousness but by the experience- the one about conquest and the culture of male dominance.
Still, it is important to understand that everyone has their own philosophy. While the individual have a moral dispensation, the process of formation of the moral code that individual follow is often shaped by the person’s environment. Personal morality thus plays an important role in defining intentions, understanding of right and wrong as well as agreements about certain moral ethics. Because of this reason, it is possible to find people of one culture, religion, and geographical place disagree about a certain moral or ethic. In retrospect, people may agree on some little aspects of morality even when they share completely different philosophies about life. In summation, while studying morality, it is important to keep in mind that each and every individual has their own moral philosophy and their own morals. As a philosopher, it is important to keep this in mind while engaging in the debate of philosophy of ethic and the philosophy of morality.
Moral philosophy probes us to object the idea of truth of fact and trade it off for our personal values. By becoming clouded by values, moral philosophy thus commits the fallacy of moral claims. Factual claims and moral claims cannot be tested the same. Factual claims are tested by quantitative reasoning, by observation and experience. Moral claims are difficult to test because they are built on people’s values. As such, the use of cultural relative argument allows people to hide on cultural relative sense by appeasing cultural moral claims. Finding correct answers requires that one step out and removes the hat of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism leads to bias because it makes people see the world as they understand it. In order to escape these fallacies, one has to be morally relative. Moral relativity is drawing lines across cultures on what is wrong and right. It is setting standards that are consistent, similar and disrespectful of the feelings or values of the affected community, society or individuals. The question on moral relativity is, how do we define the standards of what is wrong or right?
Works Cited
Aristotle, and J. A. Giles. Nicomechean Ethics,. London: J. Cornish, 1987. Print.
Horn, Christoph, Dieter Schönecker, and Corinna Mieth. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2006. Print.
Hume, David. An Inquiry concerning Human Understanding;. New York: Liberal Arts, 1955. Print.
Tushnet, M.. The Constitution of the United States of America: a contextual analysis. New York: Hart Publishing Limited.2009. Print
Washington, George. George Washington’s Inaugural Address. National Archives Record Admnistration, Washington, DC 1789. Print.
