Morality and Social Responsibility
AristotleAristotle believed that the end purpose of man is to applying activity in accordance with rational. He was also inclined to defining this purpose as a kind of life live by a person; the life is the living activity in accordance with reason. So, what a person decides to do with his or her life would be a result of the reason behind the actions by this reasoning. If the reasoning is good, the person who acts out the activity to those ends receives what is noble and good in life. This will also mean that any man who acts are noble of virtuous will be deemed the same (Arthur & Scalet, 2009).
Still, some things cannot be done without money and or friends. But, while material and external things in itself don’t make one happy, they are require as a means to an end; that end being happiness. Aristotle sees happiness as the ultimate good. According to him a happy person is one whose activity is in-line with perfect virtue, and has enough external goods. However, virtue is part intellectual and part moral. Intellectual virtue takes time to develop as it is a result of being taught, while moral virtue is the outcome of habit. By this definition, it would mean that Aristotle’s observation of people led him to think that they were not inherently moral. So, to be virtuous one had to have a deliberate moral purpose; one that had a mean to an end, relative to the self, and certainly good reason behind it (Arthur & Scalet, 2009).
Immanuel Kant
Kant argues that life in itself does not provide for a person to be moral, because man shares life with trees and animals. However, trees and animals do not subscribe to morality. So, it must be the ability of humans to reason that allow them to be moral. But in order to be moral, a person must have autonomy of action. If one’s action is compel by an external force them it is not of the self and therefore is a stimulated action. As well, to be truly moral one has to be doing the moral act because of duty. If one is stimulated to be moral as a mean to an end, then that is not true morality (Harvard University, 2011).
For example, if one were a store proprietor and a customer came into one’s store that could not discern the value of money. If realizing this, one decided to give this customer the correct change for the purpose of retaining customers. This act though it may seem moral to those that find out about it, is not. The moral act must be done for the sake of moral duty to be moral (Harvard University, 2011). Kant argues that an action is right if in acting rational any agent must do it to conform to a moral rule (Arthur & Scalet, 2009).
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill argues that people may have reason to act virtuous under favorable circumstances. So, morality is conditional of favorable motives. Mill subscribes to utilitarian which he states is the creed which accepts as its foundation of morals the greatest happiness principle. It holds that actions are right to the exact extent that they promote happiness. So, actions are wrong if they produce sadness (Arthur & Scalet, 2009).
Analysis
I can’t say that I identify with Aristotle’s theory of morality within my own culture identity. The reason is some people live by way of necessity and not by reason. As well, some are happy without wealth, and morality could be inherent. As well, Mill cannot be aligned with my culture because I have seen virtuous acts that bear no favorable motives. In other words, the act of morality was simply because it was needed, at the time. If there is a motive then how can the act really be one of virtue and morals? The seemingly virtuous act is now a sham towards an end and not the end (Arthur & Scalet, 2009).Here, Kant is more in-lined with my thinking and culture identity as exposed to me. For there to be moral soundness the act must be one of autonomy, and lacking hopeful benefits (Arthur & Scalet). One’s cultural identity impacts social responsibility to the exact extent that one does his or her moral duty. Cultural identity determines what is moral and therefore dictates what is socially responsible within the context of the same. So, one can ignore the problem in one’s community and society, “or we can work, as well as we can to shape a more generous common future” (Loeb, 2010, p. 33).
On Morality
http://www.bimgsynergy.com
References
Arthur, J., & Scalet, S. (Eds.). (2009). Morality and moral controversies: Readings in moral, social, and political philosophy. (8th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice HallHarvard University. (2011). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Episode 06: “Mind your motive.” Video. Retrieved January 22nd, 2012, from http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-06/#watch
Loeb, P. R. (2010). Soul of a citizen: Living with conviction in challenging times. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment