Morality can be defined in different ways. Some of the definitions are dependent on several factors. Philosophy is a broad subject that involves the study of different aspects of life, and non-life factors too. Philosophy even becomes more interesting and intriguing when involves the lives of human being directly. This is because it includes the perceptions of different things that people would take normally under normal situations. However, philosophy brings everything into light, though in a rare manner.
As opposed to descriptive efforts of ethics, it is also meant to describe what ethical behavior entails alongside providing reasons to be ethical. Most ethical theories assert that the human desires are enough to simulate ethical behaviors, which implies that human beings in their desire t satisfy their desires should exercise their activities ethically. Immanuel kant and Thomas Nagel are some of the outspoken moral philosophers. They have constructed several theories of defining what morality and rationality entail. According to these philosophers, rational thoughts and actions are only based on the principles of reason and known facts (Lawler, 2006). These theories are basically aimed at exploring the philosophy of the mind and practical reasoning (Millgram, 2001). Therefore, these philosophes believe that, a rational person would not act in their beliefs or institutions unless they had very good reasons to believe that their actions and beliefs were true. On the other hand, irrationality entails acting on unfounded beliefs or desire (Lawler, 2006).
An example of rationality is faith. Faith is not based on facts, evidence, or deduction, but on generally accepted beliefs. According to these philosophers, for instance, Nagel defends altruism as being moral since treating people as equal because thre is no reason to consider our personal needs as more important is rational while the converse is irrational (Lawler, 2006). Based on this theoretical beliefs about rationality and morality, this paper concludes that morality is a matter of rationality. In Plato’s Republic, he explains that justice, which is a universally accepted code in the society and aims at ensuring equality for all, informs and guides morality (McDowell, 1998). Kant believes that the major reason for human existence in the society is for happiness, which is equally explained in the interview with Foot (Foot, 2003).
The objective of this masterpiece is to dive into the murky waters of defining and comprehending the intricacies of philosophy with a bias to morality and rationality. In so doing, we will get a clear picture of how these two micro-factors affect the normal functioning of people in the society. Additionally, the effects that these two factors have will be expounded through the use of relevant and practical examples that are readily available in the day-to-day operations of a human being.
Diverse scholars have offered various descriptions of the two: morality and rationality. The definition and contextualization of the two keywords will be of immeasurable essence in the quest to analyze the wider meaning of both words. Human philosophy is a broad field, but when someone narrows down to morality and rationality, then it is narrowed down to a more comprehensive version.
Morality is well understood in the context of Christianity, for instance. When somebody commits a sin according to the Christian teachings, there ought to be some perceived consequences of the said act (Aristotle, & Peters, 1930). This is because there is the belief that the moral boundary has been surpassed. On the same level, it can be argued that someone has fallen short of meeting the requisite moral basics. These will the offender the rational reason to act for forgiveness or to pray to God. Any rational being is entitled to act morally within the clearly defined principles of morality. Without morality, several things would be uncontrollable. It is only through the moral empowerment that.
The major philosophical differences between McDowell and Foot's view on morality and rationality is based on their perception of rationality and irrationality based on practical reasoning. While Foot believes that acting out of motivation by certain reasons that apply to an individual by certain reasons that apply to him, but which go against his desires or self interest is being rational (Foot, 2003), McDowell asserts that lack of this motivation is not necessarily irrational (McDowell, 1998). These differences in beliefs in internalism and externalism comprise the contradictions of reason. The internalism view argues that an individual can only come to see new reasons through deliberation and that there cannot be external reasons, which the externalism view considers to be a fault in practical reasoning. Foot considers rationality as influenced by the external factors that contradict the beliefs and self-interests of an individual in the society.
The concept of morality ought to be well understood. It is a broad matter of philosophy, consequently, utmost attention should be given to it. Moral demands of any society are usually weighed with rational demands. There are situations whereby someone might be forced to sideline issues pertaining to morality. This usually happens when the desires surpass the moral standards in the society. For instance, if there is a cloth that someone needs to buy at an exceedingly high price, and there is a need for it, then it will be bought nonetheless. This depicts that the need for certain things in the society might not be morally justified but they will have to be done.
Morality is the sense of disambiguating between right, and possible wrong, at least naturally. People have been blessed with the capability to realize when they have to done a good or a bad thing. This will ensure that the society that people live in is sober in terms of behavioral patterns. It ought to make moral sense to anyone who has engaged in an error that they ought to apologize when they have wronged someone. In the same light, someone who has done a right thing ought to be applauded for his or her ability to do something that is morally right in the society.
Moral blindness exists in the society. These are people who can hardly see the difference between a good thing and a bad one. They are the people who will be quick to judge others for things that they have done without bothering to engage their minds to know the complexity of the perceived offence. Through morally acceptable means, people ought to realize when they have offended another party. Moral considerations should also match with rational demands. For instance, when someone is hungry, the most obvious reaction will be to look for food. This means that someone does not need to be necessarily tutored on how to behave in certain circumstances. The obvious thing or move will prove to be the most morally desirable option. The same way, when someone is thirsty, the most appropriate action that the person will take is to look for water, regardless of the source. This explains the concept of moral justification of certain matters that the populace take for granted in normal operations in the society. Morality seems to be seen in almost every aspect of human lives. We are ruled by morality. Every human move will have to be judged by the morality before any other procedure is used to judge it. However, the premises on which morality is based might shift depending on a number of factors.
Philosophers such Rosalind Hursthouse considers other factors to be responsible for either moral goodness or moral badness. The factors or determinants include dispositions, internal elements and finally motives. This premise of argument is partially true. This is because someone's motives most likely going to be used to judge him or her if at all something happens. This is usually very common in negative effects (Gert, 2008). Human beings that have done positive things to the society are rarely applauded and noticed unlike people that have bad things happening to them. For instance, if someone was walking behind someone’s kitchen and water gets to splash on him, that particular person will be judged differently. People will start to ask what he was doing behind someone’s kitchen at a given time. The world would hesitate to know his status after the water splashed on him; instead, there would be speculations as to what he could have been doing behind somebody’s kitchen at that point in time.
Additionally, “internal factors” might also determine moral goodness or badness. This can include factors such as someone’s state of mind at a given time and several other factors. For instance, someone might be stressed, and he ends up doing something that was not morally upright, at least by the standards of the society (Gert, 2008). The only way someone would ever know that a given person was stressed before he undertook a given task is through questioning him. If nobody gets to understand his side of the story then he is most probably going to be judged wrongfully, of which is not right.
In certain situations, morality is indeed not a matter of rationality. There are decisions that can be made without the element of rationality featuring anywhere. This is mainly common are situations that require emergency or where important things take center stage. Moral considerations have to be made in every situation, inasmuch as might not appear to be rational, the final decision will still have to count. This is evident in cases where people make promises. Once someone has made a promise to another party, it is both morally right and rationally right to honor the promise (Danielson, 1998). If I promised my younger brother a visit to the circus, for instance, and something else arises that I might find to have more moral weight, then I will have to make serious moral consideration. For instance, if someone in the household is unwell and the only money I have is that which I had planned to use at the circus is used then the circus date will be cancelled. This is because moral consideration demands that someone has to be ferried to the health unit instead of a brother being taken to the circus to watch clowns. In this context, the rational consideration that was about honoring the promise to the brother has been abandoned at the expense of taking another family member to hospital, which is a moral consideration. In this context, it is better to break the promise than honor it and then lose the life of the ailing relative in the same house. The rule of natural goodness also comes into play in the same context; in fact, it strengthens the aforementioned moral considerations.
Morally shameful deeds must however be treated as irrational. Morally shameful deeds tend to be several in the modern day society. For instance, bestiality has been on the rise in recent days. There exists no approval for engaging in bestiality. In facts in beats all the moral tests. First, the person engaging in bestiality does not seek the approval of the animal involved. Instead, he forces himself into the animal (COPP, 2001. Not only is this inhumane, but also against the rule of natural goodness. Animals engage in mating only for reproductive purposes. The act of engaging the animal in a sexual orgy to quench his thirst is against this rule. The fact that the animal and the man are not compatible reproductively means that inasmuch as the man would find it fit to engage in such an act then it is out rightly irrational. Morality and rationality in that context are in two different tabs. The act of bestiality lacks any rational backing. That, therefore, means that morality is a matter of rationality at times, especially in this context.
Human beings are naturally wired in a manner that enables them to easily differentiate between what is good and bad. Moral goodness and badness is part of the puzzle that human beings need to find a clear definition about. There are certain things that might be rationally correct but not morally proper. This depends on the situation that the given issue has happened and the variables surrounding it. For instance, when somebody is walking, and he picks a pen, the pen is not his, but because he feels the intrinsic need to pick it, he does that without a troubled conscience. This reasoning validates the aforementioned points concerning the morality of certain issues in the society. Plato does human beings justice by giving an insightful journey into the same point.
In conclusion, on whether morality is a matter of rationality: the answer is pretty much obvious now. There are situations where morality is undoubtedly a matter of rationality, and there are situations where morality is not a matter of rationality, by any possible means. There is little evidence that contradict morality and rationality. However, a bulk of issues reveal that morally upright deeds are considered equally rational. Most philosophers such as Kant, Aristotole, Rosalind Hursthouse, and Nagel among several others believe that human actions are guided by the cobsciousness about the coexistence in the society and that their abilities to act rationally defines morality. In my opinion, I agree with the fact that morality is a matter of rationality and consider human actions as guided by the rational instincts of treating others in the society according to generally accepted beliefs and in a manner that we would also love to be treated in return.
References list
Aristotle, & Peters, F. H. (1930). The Nicomachean ethics. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trübner.
COPP, D. (2001). Morality, normativity and society. New York, Oxford University Press
Danielson, P. (1998). Modeling rationality, morality, and evolution. New York [u.a.], Oxford Univ. Press.
Gert, J. (2008). Brute rationality normativity and human action. Cambridge [etc.], Cambridge University Press.
Lawler, J. M. (2006). Matter and spirit: the battle of metaphysics in modern Western philosophy before Kant. Rochester, NY, University of Rochester Press.
McDowell J. H. (1998). Mind, Value, and Reality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Foot P. (2003).The Grammar of Goodness. The Harvard Review of Philosophy.
Millgram E. (2001). Varieties of Practical Reasoning: A Bradford book. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
