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

Break the silence, Question the norm

Have you ever realized that the one-word question 'why?' always gets you one step closer to authority? The truth is that knowledge is truly power and its lack thereof subjects the mind to slavery unto those who hold the power. This particular post is personalized to ask the question - why? While the intent of taking shots at any individual is not at hand, its purpose is to challenge those involved mentally. 

Growing up, it was expected that you respected any one older than you regardless of the quality of judgement the older individual held. To some extent, experience was the royal scepter that was held by elders to control those in a low age bracket. Parents commonly told their children to be good in school, get good grades, be the best at what they do, take the first position by all means, never tell lies, never cheat, seek advise when needed, go the extra mile, make friends with the right folks, never follow the joneses, be yourself. Anyone reading this can identify with at least one that their parents constantly told them. I have no problem with these ideals as they are fantastic values to instill in a child. My question pokes into the thought of whether these ideals stick because the people we call parents, who by the way were taught the same, fail to use them as leaders in their nation. Does this mean that hypocrisy plagues the thoughts of those we call parents? The people we call Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governor are themselves parents to children and know to some extent, the difference between good and evil. 

Imagine a father punishes his kid for cheating on a test but meanwhile as Chairman of the Electoral Board, the father assists in rigging an election, robbing people of expressing their rights.  A mother who tells her child not to follow the crowd, compromises on the manufacturing quality of her products and services because other people are doing it without consequence and reaping massive rewards. A father who says he expects nothing but the best from his son, builds public infrastructure of poor quality so as to pocket whatever is not used from the assigned public funds. A mother who tells her daughter to go the extra mile at school but cannot do the same for a desperate family in need as a medical doctor. Do these leader-parents ever think about what their children's reactions may be before indulging in certain acts? Do they consider the fact that as leaders, their parenting values should align with their leadership values? 

Respectfulness is an important virtue to have in most third world countries but is fixed in a certain way. One has to honor the request of an older individual even though it is of poor judgement and of no personal benefit to the younger individual. If refused, one is tagged a rude child lacking moral upbringing. Why? What is the reasoning behind that? How long do the younger folks have to continue to feed the egos of the elders and leaders? Children, teenagers, youths, challenge the people you call parents. Call them out on their flaws and hypocrisy in a subtle manner. As much as it is very difficult to do, the best way to see a change is to avoid such behaviors if and when you are placed in the same situation, which will be in a few years to come. Keep pushing.

                                   ..::GIDI::..

* this post is dedicated to the youth of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

"Live, and let live"

Love thy neighbors as thyself. It can be quite easy to the tongue but utterly difficult by action. Loving your neighbor as yourself is an act that most people cannot follow through maybe because morality is not required. Is it impossible for anyone to love everyone as himself or herself? One may find it easy to care for others but even to this regard, is it required a person cares for others as they do for themselves? The connections between love and morality are complex if there are any at all.

Do love and morality go hand-in-hand, with one acting as a support for the other? An American philosopher by the name of Bernard Gert put his thoughts into a book and from an explicit understanding, it is clear Gert feels that morality does not depend on the individual but rather on the behavior they portray towards others. Love, because of its intangibility, is opened to the opinion of everyone that seeks it and morality, is exposed to the interpretation of the society. 

The title of this writing were words of Bernard Gert and in that four-word sentence carries the power to re-shape minds. Gert’s statement is fascinating for two reasons: Regardless of how one may treat oneself, no person has the right to cause other people harm. For instance, if Dr. X is depressed, does he have the right to make others suffer due to his pain? If Dr. X does not love himself, does he have the right to hurt other people? Secondly, it is possible for anyone to love every other person equally or as they love themselves. Why should a person have to love a complete stranger or someone who has been unfair in the same manner as they love their spouse or them self? It is not plausible and is very unlikely that someone would. 

Love thy neighbors as thyself can be utterly vague and almost impossible to attain. For this reason, Bernard Gert does not accept the phrase as a basis for morality. A more appropriate route is to live and completely let live. 

                                  ..::GIDI::..

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

The Utilitarianism Concept

Utility can be referred to as the greatest happiness principle but many have misunderstood utility as an opposition to pleasure. A british philosopher by the name John Stuart Mill clears the confusion by expressing utility as an action that is right in proportion due to tendency, which promotes happiness and on the flip side wrong, if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness. According to Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and privation of pleasure. Actions are good when they lead to a higher level of general happiness, and bad when they decrease that level.  Pleasure and absence of pain are the only things that are desirable as ends in themselves and the only thing inherently good. 

When making a moral judgment on an action, utilitarianism thus takes into account not just the quantity, but also the quality of the pleasures resulting from it. Utilitarianism does not say that it is moral for people to simply pursue what makes them personally happy but rather morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle; moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world. All actions and experiences are not judged by one reductive standard, but rather according to a variety of different qualities of pleasure in correspondence with the type of experience.

Happiness can not be the rational aim of human life, because it is unattainable. It is perceived that people can exist without happiness, and all virtuous people have become virtuous by renouncing happiness. Mill states that it is an exaggeration to conclude that people cannot be happy because the major sources of unhappiness are selfishness and a lack of mental cultivation. Thus, it is fully within most people's capabilities to obtain happiness, if their education nurtures the appropriate values. Furthermore, most of the evils of the world, including poverty and disease, can be alleviated by a wise and energetic society devoted to their elimination. Martyrs sacrifice happiness for some greater end and what else could this be but the happiness of other people? The sacrifice is made so that others will not have to make similar sacrifices; imbedded in the sacrifice is the value of others' happiness. The willingness to sacrifice one's happiness for that of others is the highest virtue. A person must not value his own happiness over the happiness of others; and the law and education should help to instill this generosity in individuals.

When people desire things in order to obtain satisfaction, it is been done in order to obtain happiness. The issue behind martyrs gives a classic example of an act that in its own worth does not provide happiness but is done as a means to happiness of others, which eventually increases the general utility. Based on my understanding of John Stuart Mill and his arguments, I believe the utilitarian doctrine shows that happiness is desirable, and is the only thing desirable as an end; all other things only being desirable as a means to that end.

                                  ..::GIDI::..

Reference

• Stuart, J. (2001). Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing.