3 OF A KIND : morality | rationality | impartiality

In order to understand morality, it is important to have a vast knowledge on the role rationality and impartiality plays. Morality in itself is not a derivation from the concepts of rationality and impartiality; rather the close ties between these three concepts make up a justification for morality. Evil is that which all rational creatures seek to avoid, namely, death and suffering. The worst evils are far more important in terms of their effects than the greatest goods, and that it is therefore appropriate for morality to emphasize the avoidance of evil. No rational being seeks to harm itself just for the sake of it. 

The fundamental sense of rationality has distinct features of which will be explained below. One feature is an explicit recognition that acting rationally requires no more than avoiding acting irrationally. Irrational actions rather than rational actions are fundamental; rational actions share no distinctive common feature except not being irrational. This way of defining a rational action has the desirable result that the importance of the category of rationally allowed actions is apparent. What is of particular philosophical interest is that in cases of conflict between morality and self-interest, it always will be rationally allowed to act in either way. 

Another feature is the hybrid character of rationality. An action can count as irrational in the basic sense only if it causes, or significantly increases the risks of, some harm to oneself. However, the reasons that can justify harming oneself, that is, that can make harming oneself rational, are not limited to beliefs about harms and benefits to one self. Beliefs about harms and benefits to others can be better or stronger reasons than beliefs about harms and benefits to one self. The strength of reasoning is completely determined by which otherwise irrational actions it can make rational. This hybrid character reinforces the conclusion that in cases of conflict between morality and self-interest, it is rationally allowed to act in either way.

Another feature is that, when functioning as the fundamental normative concepts, reasons, rationality, and irrationality are identified by their content rather than by means of some formula. An action is irrational in the basic sense only if it causes, or significantly increases the risks of (avoidable) death, pain, disability, loss of freedom, or loss of pleasure for oneself, and no adequate reason exists for the origin of the action. On the flip side, rationality involves avoiding one or more of the undesirables in the previous list, and gaining greater consciousness, ability, freedom, or pleasure for anyone. 

This particular account of morality has all of the features that most people take morality to have. It not only has the content that people normally take morality to have, it is related to impartiality and rationality in the way that most people think. This relationship is much weaker than many scholars may have wanted, but it is as strong as one can make it without significantly distorting one or more of the concepts involved.

                                  ..::GIDI::..

Reference

• Gert, B. (1998). Morality: its nature and justification. Oxford University Press, USA