Ethics Weblog

According to Webster, Ethics is the branch of philosophy dealing with the rules of right conduct.

In the search for morality or goodness in our actions, we have discussed many theories this semester ranging from CI to Utilitarianism (not necessarily in that order).  What we have found is, despite their initial appeal, the theories are also accompanied with some flaws.

Being flawed is not necessarily cause for complete disregard.  It should not be surprising that of all the theories that I am most attracted to Hobbes’ theory of “Social Contract”.

According to Hobbes, life in the state of nature (constant state of war) is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.  In exchange for peace and protection, mankind transferred their rights to a central agency (governement), which in turn enforces the covenant.  From the covenant and creation of government emerges morality.

Morality resides in the fact that our rationality allowed us to accept the trade-off of our rights over protection, and the ultimate happiness of all.  In the end we come to enjoy the mutual benefits afforded by the covenant. 

The governement serves its purpose for keeping all actors in check.  It ensures that we follow the rules.  When someone violates the covenant he gets punished according to the rules of the covenant. 

Technological advances, commercial export and import of goods, cures for diseases, advancement of arts and letters are some of the benefits associated with the social contract theory.

Tangible benefits, social order, respite from a violent death in a constant state of war are reasons enough to make Hobbes’ social contract theory my preferred theory over CR, DCT, Mill’s Utility; Kant’s CI; and Aristotle’s PS.   

“The genus of moral virtue: it is a state of character, not a passion, nor a faculty” (Aristotle 137).

In keeping with aforementioned citation, according to Aristotle, virtue must be one of the three things that are found in the soul (passions, faculties, or states of character) 137. 

Appetite, is a passion that has caused a significant amount of grief to a great number of individuals in the world.  Appetite is a sensation that is completely outside of our control, that is we feel hunger without a choice.

Aristotle says that despite not having any control over our appetite, the means by which we go about satisfying our hunger are well within our control.  The choices for execution give rise to moral virtues.

Taking an aggressive approach in satisfying our appetite can be considered a vice.  A vice toward any disposition is immoral.  An excess disposition towards food will lead to obesity, which in turn will create health issues, and the ultimate goal of living happily will be unattainable.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the ambivalent disposition toward satisfying one’s appetite or hunger.  Being undernourished presents its share of health issues such as anemia, permanent organ damage, and death.  Such action is immoral as well, since happiness will be beyond reach.

A balance approach or disposition to satisfying our appetite will lead to a healthy and happy life.  One will feel energized, alert, with a robust immune system.  The balanced disposition in class was called “the golden mean”, and it is the most desirable disposition and therein lies the virtue.

This process of determining moral virtue is by far the best and most explicit theory of all the previous ones (CI, Social Contract, etc) we have studied in class this semester. 

In our everending quest for morality, Aristotle is being tackled this time around after Mill, Kant, and Hobbes gave us plenty to process.

“The science of the good for man is politics” (Aristotle 124).  Such is the claim thus far for Aristotle.  He believes that the aim of Political Science is the ultimate goal of mankind “happiness”.

Much like the other philosophers we studied in class before him Aristotle believes in the rationale capacity of mankind.  He goes further in combining rationale capacity  with virtues that are well cultivated to the rise or attainment of the ultimate goal which is happiness.

Is that the aim of Political Science?  PS is the study of government in all its facets, accepting that PS’s aim is the happiness of mankind would lead us to believe that government has the interest of its citizens before the needs of the state.  Ideally, it is the right belief but it is not practical.

Happiness is relative and not all actions endeavored by government will lead to overall happiness.  It is therefore untrue that PS’s aim is happiness. 

According to Kant, the moral worth of an action does not come from the result of the action but from the maxim upon which the action is decided upon (276). 

No matter how bad things are in life, taking one’s life accomplishes nothing.  It is an act committed out of despair and selffishness.  Self-love can be taken out of context in this instance to justify the act, however in understanding the true purpose of self-love as it is explained above by Kant, one should actively endeavor thye furtherance of life.  In beating the odds and rising above the sufferings, gloom, and despair one would be commended in performing a moral obligation.

Suicide in the name of self-love is a maxim that can not be willed into universal law.  There are too many people beating the odds, enjoying life, and meeting hard times head-on to convince them to opt out of life in the name of self-love.  Taking one’s life is seen as a derelection of duty, and relinquinshing his or her right to life.  

CI dispenses our duty; and the morality of our action gets validated if we can will its maxim into universal law.  Suicide in the name of self-love opposes the supreme principle of duty (286).  Suicide, according to Kant, is immoral. 

The more we discuss Hobbes in class the more drawn I am to his theory for morality.  In fact, there has not been anything that I disagree with thus far.

Social Contract is a very practical, and feasible way to co-exist.  As we have seen before, living in the state of nature would be a horrible way to live.  Though we all advocate freedom as an inherit right, too much freedom in the state of nature  would not be conducive to our overall well-being.  There would be too many rights violations, hence we enter into a mutual agreement.

The agreement Hobbes refers to as “Social Contract”.  In entering this agreement, we transfer some of our rights to a central authority collectively in exchange for protection, and peace of mind.  Being that as human beings we tend to act out of our self-interest, it is necessary to enter this agreement so we can all be kept in line for lack of a better analogy.

The social contract dictates the morality behind our actions.  Per the agreement, we all agree to hold our end of the bargain.  In order to prevent us from reclaiming those rights we gave up, we create Government.

The government acts as enforcers in the event that any of us breaks the covenant, for the existence of the covenant gives rise to morality and injustice as it is explained with the following passage ” And in this law of nature, consisteth the fountain and original of JUSTICE” (225).

It makes sense to embrace the Social Contract theory as everything seems to come together neatly.  As with every other theory we have studied, and discussed so far this semester, we are bound to run into a problem with the theory that will make it unattractive.

For now, I remain a fervent subscriber of the Social Contract theory. 

One can’t help, but agree with Hobbes in his view of humans as naturally aggressive.     

An existence in the state of nature, that is a world without police, laws, rules, or regulations would be dreadful indeed to quote Hobbes.  It would be a terrible way to live.  Life would be uber chaotic, there would be no trust, everyone would be constatntly looking over his or her shoulders constantly.  There would be no trust, hence no peaceful or harmonious co-existence.

Moreover, think of all the technological advances we would miss out on.  Nobody would devote time, and energy to make our world a better place.  Our time would be spent fighting each other for the scarce goods.

The state of nature as discussed in class, would be a state of war between all men and must be avoided at all costs.

CI, unlike the theory of utility, is turning the search for morality in our actions exhausting as with every page we turn, we encounter a deeper meaning to the “supreme moral principle”

It is quite apparent by now there is little or no room for exceptions with Kant.  Inclinations, personal gains, in other words overall the consequences of our actions play little or no role in determining the moral worth of our deeds.

We resort to finding morality in the rational thought process that as higher beings we have been endowed, and most importantly in the following algorithm of CI: “Act only in such a way that you could will your maxim into universal law”.

Let’s take the issue of talent cultivation.  As free beings, one would be of the thought that it is a personal decision to cultivate talents that are innate; after all the talents are personal and the choice should be left to the individual whether to be honed or not.

Kant agrees that the talents are given to the individual to serve him and for all sorts of special purposes (287).  The morality in not cultivating those innate talents reside in the aforementioned algorithm.  The choice to not cultivate those talents is considered to be the maxim.  That maxim will go against already established universal law.

Not cultivating one’s talent can not be willed into universal law.  We are proned to harness our raw talent, as we already know, once one individual goes against the prescribed maxim law by an actor, that maxim can not be will into universal law.

Therefore, it is immoral to not cultivate one’s talent. 

From Mill to Kant two distinct schools of thought in the ever ending search for the root of morality.

According to Kant, the supreme principle of morality lies in the notion of “Categorical Imperative” which is summed up with the following:  Act in such a way, that you could will your maxim into universal law.

Let’s take lying for example, in following Mill theory of utility, lying would be acceptable for as long the end result of a lie promotes more happiness than harm.  In other words the consequences of our actions take precedence over the intent of our deeds.

For Kant, the consequences are immaterial.  Good will or rationale not inclination establishes the morality of our actions.  There is no room for deviation or exception with Kant.  Lying is wrong because the purpose of lying fundamentally serves someone’s selfish need since nobody would lie out of duty.

Lying as a universal law is not acceptable in society at large, so therefore telling a lie for personal gain could not be willed into a universal.  As we have seen in our classroom discussion, it is not feasible for someone to go around telling false promises to obtain money.  The moment someone catches on to the false promise, it will become known that the intent behind the promise is false and no money will be loaned out.

Telling an ugly person for example that he or she is beautiful can not be willed into universal consensus, since no two individuals will see the individual in the same light.  Therefore telling that lie to make the person feel good is an action that is executed in accordance to duty.  The duty is performed based on the individual in question.  The lie is told to please a wife, a family member, or a friend to avoid hurting their feelings.

Since it is impossible to re-train the world in accepting lying as a means to end, we can say that it is immoral to tell lies.

Learning about Utilitarianism was a bit of a roller coaster, as there were times when objections were valid and sound in contrast to Mill’s defenses.  Despite the lack of clarity with Kant’s position upfront, I am finding myself more drawn to his theory of good will than that of utility.    

Utilitarianism also dubbed the theory of life, endorsed by Mill, postulates the worth of a deed is based on the amount of happiness it brings.

We have just began reading Kant, and he takes a different approcah to the theory of life.  According to Kant, thus far, the end-result of a good deed is irrelevant if the action was not endeavored with good will.

Good will as discussed in class, can be interpreted as reason.  Kant unlike Mill is seeing good will as a guide for determining our purpose or duty in life.

Mill does not take into consideration the intent of an act, but he relies heavily on the outcome of an action; furthermore if the action whether good or bad increases happiness it is considered acceptable. 

Despite the noble appeal of Kant’s approach, we already saw that reason can complicate our lives rather than using it to attain happiness.

It remains to be seen the high points of Kant’s approach.  

The objectors say, “it is exacting too much to require that people shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of society”.  Translation, the theory of utility is demanding too much of an individual for the collective happiness of mankind.

To side with the objectors, means that we should be selfish in our thought process, immaterial to the overall feeling of others.  The notion of community, togetherness, and brotherhood would be nullified if we are to take such a strange approach to our actions.

According to Mill, the motives of our actions are irrelevant.  The end-results matter solely.  Furthermore, Mill states that the great majority of our good actions are not intended for the benefit of the world; ultimately the personal motives of our actions resulting in happiness will impact the happiness of the rest of the world.

Fundamentally, there are issues with the theory of utility on this objection.  If we can one moment visit the works of Mother Theresa, and Ghandi; I do not believe for one moment there were any selfish motives behind their sacrifices.  Indeed, their sacrifices contributed greatly to the overall happiness of millions Worldwide.

Despite their sacrifices, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi were not asked to give so much of  themselves, they willingly, and unselfishly took on martyrdom.  Therefore, Mill this time around  failed to convincingly defend the theory of utility.