Moral - an adjective indicating a choice between significant options, based on a principle or set of principles derived from reason, family teachings, education, religion, or, in some cases, the law.
Morality - the study of moral systems by which significant choices are made; in popular usage, the user's sense of right conduct, so a given person is said to be or not be "moral."
Moral System - a network of beliefs that forms the basis on which a moral choice is made - for example, Hebraic biblical laws, the Christian Sermon on the Mount, Socratic reasoning.
Moral Absolutism - the belief that a given set of moral standards, derived from reason, religion, or culture, is universally binding.
Moral Imperative - in Kantian philosophy, the inborn capacity to understand what is right when faced with moral decisions.
Moral Relativism - the belief that moral standards are not universal but rather vary depending on time, culture, an situation.
Universal Questions for Debate
1. Does the end ever justify the means? If the overall goal is considered beneficial, is it morally right to do anything - including individual acts that on their own would be considered wrong, criminal, or even evil - in order to achieve that goal? Or is any moral transgression, even telling a lie, wrong under any circumstances?
2. Are punishment and the fear of punishment the only things that prevent us from doing wrong? (see debate between Socrates and Glaucon).
3. Do the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual?
4. Should economic resources be owned and controlled by individuals or communities? (see the Free Market argument by Adam Smith).
5. Are results all that matter, or do intentions also count?
Glaucon vs. Socrates
In The Republic, a series of philosophical dialogues between Socrates and his students, as chronicled by Plato, a confrontation occurs between Socrates, who is always on the side of reason, and Glaucon, a firm believer that everyone does the right thing out of motives that have nothing to do with reason or innate goodness.
Glaucon - the appearance of goodness is all that matters. Doing the good, if nobody knows, is futile.
Socrates - the virtuous act is done for its own sake. To know the good is to do the good. Reasonable people do the right thing regardless of whether or not they profit from it. Not life, but a good life, is to be chiefly valued.
Socrates chose death by poison rather than give up his search for truth because he felt that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
Socrates vs. the Sophists
Socrates believed in Absolute Truth, Justice and Universal Law (good and evil are universally recognized - they are the same for everyone in every time.)
Protagoras, a Sophist, argued that the truth is whatever you can make them believe.
The danger of the Sophist attitude? Societies and rulers define justice and law as whatever is in the best interest of the ruling party.
The debate? Can we alter truth and law to suit our needs? Are values and truth relative to time, place, and culture?
Plato's Standards for the Philosopher
Later in The Republic, Plato admits that the majority of people - both the governing and the governed - will generally be driven by self-interest unless held in check by one supreme ruler, a man like Socrates, motivated solely by what reason advises in every instance - a man not out for himself but rather ruling because he has a clear vision of a state in which justice prevails. He called this ruler the "philosopher-king."
Genuine philosophers are “those whose passion it is to see the truth.” For Plato, unlike the Sophists, standards of beauty, justice, and goodness exist that are universally valid – that apply to all people at all times. Plato held that these standards are in a higher world, the realm of Forms or Ideas. This world of Forms is known only through the mind, not the senses.
Plato’s Theory of the Forms: The mind is in us at birth – it contains the knowledge of the Forms or universally understood abstractions. We are born with the capacity to recognize Good (the goodness of a deed), Truth (the truth of a statement), Beauty (the beauty of art).
The ordinary person, basing opinion on everyday experience, has an imperfect understanding of beauty, goodness, and justice; whereas, the philosopher, through reason, reaches beyond sense perception to the realm of Forms and discovers truth. Such people are the natural rulers of the state; only they are capable of a correct understanding of justice; only they have the wisdom to reform the state in the best interests of all its citizens.
The Morality of Self-Interest
Machiavellianism - a theory of government, based on the philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), that advocates powerful leadership in order to protect people from harming themselves and others because of their inborn self-interest. The true philosophy behind Machiavelli's most famous work, "The Prince" - Machiavellianism - emerged from the Renaissance focus on individualism. Machiavelli (along with Plato and Aristotle) believed wise rulers best served both their own and their country's interest by imposing carefully considered political philosophy. This idea is called enlightened self-interest; serving the self in order to make an effective government that provides for people better than they could provide for themselves. The term Machiavellian has unfortunately become a reference to cynical individuals who scorn the masses, considering themselves superior to all others and therefore entitled to exert power over them.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a political philosopher who believed that tight autocratic control was necessary because the masses of people, not their rulers, were out for themselves. He believed that egoism was the natural condition of humanity, and denied that such a thing as a noble purpose could exist. Hobbes wrote "Leviathan" recommending a political system based on absolute monarchy. He employed the term commonwealth to describe the ideal state, one in which each subject must willingly turn over his rights to the sovereign for the mutual protection of all people from each other. He maintained that reason alone, not a sentimental faith in human nature, could allow humanity to live in peace and harmony.
The economic philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790), in contrast, believed the perfect society was one in which all people were free to pursue self-interest. Like Karl Marx, Smith believed that economic well-being was the guiding force in human life. Greed was not immoral; it was the natural condition of humanity. Smith's ideal of laissez-faire ("allow to do") had a built-in system of checks and balances that prevent the accumulation of wealth in just a few corporations. All people living in a free-market system are joined together "as by an invisible hand." Unfortunately, Smith's version of Capitalism (an economic system that stressed the social benefits of private ownership and free enterprise) did not foresee our present era of monopolies, greed, and a global economy.
Transcending Self-Interest: Altruism
Altruism is the quality of acting out of concern for the welfare of others rather than one's own. Can there be a place for altruism in today's world? Some say no, arguing that even if reason in the Socratic sense requires us to place others before ourselves, what appears to be an altruistic, or selfless, act really springs from secret motives of self-interest.
American philosopher John Rawls (b. 1921) agrees with Socrates that reason does not support self-interest. Rawls proposes that each of us pretend to be wearing a Veil of Ignorance that wipes out all awareness of who we are and where we came from. The Veil of Ignorance would place everyone on a equal economic and libertarian plane; this societal equality would then lead to a general agreement about the nature of a just and fair society. Should a society contain both wealthy and poor men (an unequal distribution of wealth), and should the society decide to throw away the invisible Veil of Ignorance, then self-interest could easily color attitudes toward what is right or just. If you were rich, you might not prefer an "equal" distribution of your hard-earned money; in contrast, a person with less financial resources might preach the old saying, "tax the rich and give to the poor."
Utilitarianism
An 18th century political party founded on Jeremy Bentham's moral mathematics and its view that, as moral choices have a scientific basis, they should not be made for the individual by rulers espousing any particular moral system but should be the result of a logical analysis of the number of people who could benefit from a given choice. Bentham declared that numbers were the key to moral certainty - finding a formula that would decide the right course of action in every instance. For him, the goal was a society in which the maximum number of people achieved the maximum amount of pleasure without impinging on the rights of others.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) agreed with Bentham's views on government's responsibility to guard the rights of the private citizen, but disagreed that majority rule is always the proper course. Mill questioned the wisdom and taste of the majority in all decisions, and whether the rule of the majority might not in fact deprive many people of their moral rights. Mill's writing greatly influenced American democratic thought, especially that of Thomas Jefferson.
The Moral Imperative of Immanuel Kant
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) merged science and philosophy into one of the most influential systems of thought ever devised. The various branches of his philosophy are like the spokes of a wheel radiating from a central belief, adopted from science, that truth is arrived at through experience.
Kant's view is that the input of the senses does not constitute experience until it is interpreted by our inborn rational capacity. He believes we are born with mental categories into which sensory data are filed. His theory is that the sense of right and wrong is also inborn. Kant calls this inborn faculty the moral imperative, or sense of ought: an intuitive classification of actions and choices as morally acceptable or unacceptable. Experience teaches us which specific actions are right and which are not, but rightness and wrongness cannot be taught.
Religion and Morality
The major religions - Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - provide what we might call moral orientation for most of the world's population. They differ in many respects, and wars are still being fought in the name of some religious teachings.
Ritual is the basis of some of the conflict: dietary restrictions, modest clothing, methods and frequency of prayer, who belongs within a particular sect and who is outside it. Some conflict is theological: the true path to salvation; which leader warrants being called divine; even the nature of deity itself.
Basic moral codes for Western societies derive, wholly or partly, from the Ten Commandments, recorded in the Hebrew Bible as delivered by God to Moses after he led his people out of slavey in Egypt:
1. Require people to recognize only one God.
2. Forbid the making and worshipping of any graven image.
3. Forbid the taking of the Lord's name in vain.
4. Require that the Sabbath be kept holy.
5. Require that people honor their parents.
6. Forbid killing.
7. Forbid adultery.
8. Forbid stealing.
9. Forbid the bearing of false witness against another.
10. Forbid the coveting of another's wife and of another's goods.
Punishment for disobedience of scriptural laws varies from religion to religion, as do promised rewards for leading a virtuous existence. Hebrew morality focuses on family and community. Disobedience can result in ostracism. Leading an exemplary life brings inner peace as well as good repute in the community. After death, the good person lives on in the happy memories of friends and family or, for some believers, in the world to come.
Islam fosters the belief that after death the virtuous children of Allah are with him in paradise, a sentiment echoed in Christianity. Christian concepts of heaven for the blessed and hell for the damned.
Paradise is variously interpreted. Does it mean a state of freedom from pain, similar to the Hindu moksha and the Buddhist nirvana? Both Christians and Muslims, for the most part, believe in an afterlife. As Christianity developed and spread, the promise of joy for the virtuous in heaven and eternal torment in hell for the damned became increasingly ingrained in religious minds.
Feminist Morality
Moral relativism of a different form has arisen during the past three decades from philosophers and cultural historians all over the world who point out that cultural, religious, and literary traditions are dominated by the male viewpoint. Feminist ethics maintains that universal and impartial standards are difficult to apply when gender differences are ignored. Feminine ways of feeling and feminine needs may alter the moral nature of given circumstances. Philosophers such as Rosemarie Tong (b. 1947) ask that we consider all relevant circumstances - especially gender needs and differences - before we make a moral decision or evaluate somebody else's moral decision.
Feminist philosophers are also suspicious of the absolutes in ethics derived from major religions on the grounds that they were set down by males without consulting women. Nonetheless, the figure of Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible is almost always cast in female form or invoked with female imagery, and in the Gospels, Jesus too speaks with Wisdom's voice. Paul wrote in one of his Epistles that there "is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one."
Yet somehow women are blamed for all the world's ills, stoned for immorality (despite the admonition of Jesus), and have traditionally been told to "love, honor, and obey" their husbands. The problem, as feminist philosophers see it, is that for centuries women agreed with male-dominated ethics because they were denied the education that would have broadened their perspective. Many male philosophers, despite being advocates for natural rights of the individual, did not favor equal education for women; Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1713-1778) stated that a woman's duty was to be "pleasing" in appearance to her husband, "to win his respect and love... to tend to him in manhood... to make his life pleasant and happy." Yet feminist moral philosophy has aleady enhanced awareness that women's thoughts and feelings have been largely ignored over the centuries.
Being human is an art, and nowhere is that assumption more crucial than in moral matters. Today, you can decide that moral integrity - doing what you know to be right - is the mark of a fully realized human being. A ringing declaration in the humanities is that moral integrity is worth the risk. Gambling on integrity may be basic to the human condition in its finest hour.