Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
As defined in Ethics, morality is a concept that describes a rule of acceptable code of behavior in any given society. Taking a philosophical point of view, a heated debate on how morality is linked to self-interest has been sustained for years end. The big question has revolved on whether it is in one’s self-interest to act in a morally good way, or does being moral require one to act in ways that are contrary to their self-interest?
As a matter of fact, self-interest stands out as a driving force behind most actions undertaken by humanity. On the other hand, morality demands that one stick to some specific code of conduct regardless of whether it contradicts their self-interest. This forms one of the paradoxes that have characterized this debate. The discussion that follows seeks to analyze this argument based on the views presented by some of the great philosophers of all times (Goodman 117).
According to Aristotle, an advocate of virtue, morality, and self-interest go hand in hand. However, his belief is largely attributed to his perception of morality. Aristotle asserts that a moral action is an act that is driven by virtue. When a virtuous person acts in a virtuous manner, their action can be described to be in accordance with morality. At this instance, the question that emerges is how one can tell that one is virtuous.
Virtue Ethics answers this quiz by alluding to the school of thought that being virtuous is simply adhering to the lifestyle of a virtuous person- who acts in accordance with their self-interest. Furthermore, Virtue Ethics in which Aristotle alludes to, has two distinct levels of self-interest. The first level is the first-order desires that are short-term in nature, whereas the second is the second-order desires that tend to be long-term. The Virtue Ethicists argue in favor of the second-order desire that constitutes what is morally upright. Therefore, in conclusion, morality and self-interest, based on the argument presented by Aristotle, are concepts that are inseparable. By following one long-term self-interest that is clearly defined, one is said to be acting morally upright.
Morality has been an issue that many societies globally have been trying to contend with. Generally, it is a term that is used to describe the code of acceptable behaviors in a given context or society. On the other hand, the moral minimum is a word that goes hand in hand with morality, and this basically sets a standard or rather a principle by which the members of a society have to adhere to so that they may be considered to be operating within the limits of proper moral conduct.
The advent of civilization has given room to various forms that moral minima can be derived from. As such, morality has become an issue that is interpreted in different ways depending on the angle at which one looks or evaluates it. Therefore, this has given rise to at least three areas where morality is supposedly derived from. Firstly, morality can be considered relative to the laws of a given nation so that what the law stipulates as right then is morally upright. Secondly, morality can be said to have also been derived from religion where the various religious affiliations have their own holy books by which members are beseeched to behave in a particular manner. Finally is the personal source of morality. This is what has sparked a lot of controversies as it is subject to millions of interpretations and understandings (Bloomfield 213).
In his argument, Kant asserts that there are some four fundamental and universal things that generally fall under the category of wrong and unacceptable acts in society-moral minima. First is a genocide that encompasses politically instigated famine and germ warfare. Second is the act of terrorism that also includes kidnapping and child labor force, especially as warriors. The next category is polygamy that may also be extended to cover slavery and incest.
Finally is rape and female genital mutilation. Undoubtedly, I can say that I share the same sentiments with him. In fact, the majority of what he has outlined in his arguments in the eyes of most of the civilized population is regarded as acts directed to deny human beings the right to a comfortable life and, as such immoral. I, therefore, surmise that Kant was very right to list down the ills that affect or can affect any society.
From the above instances, it becomes so clear that there is nothing like universal moral requirements. In fact, it is even really shocking to find out that even that behavior or action which generally is wrong is being practiced somewhere else without raising eyebrows. Let’s take a case of terrorism. Evidently, human life is sacred, and every person would love to live forever. But now consider the terrorism acts that are being carried out by some Muslim extremists in the name of fulfilling religious obligation- holy Jihad.
The above discussion makes me conclude that it is simply impossible to have universal moral minima. In as much as I am tempted to follow my heart and say that all Mr. Goodman said was and will forever remain right, objectivity compels me to accept the bitter fact that one man cannot stipulate the rules of conduct for the world. Giving one person the mandate to formulate and draft morals for the universe is akin to selling all of our rights to the author. Also, considering that no one is one hundred percent perfect, it is wrong and unacceptable to stick in totality to the ideas of one person without questioning. As such, relativity ultimately haunts the universe as far as moral minima are concerned (Robert 243).
In conclusion, it is being morally upright demands for some sacrifices to be made in so far as personal interest is concerned. From the definition of morality, one gets to understand that it is a code of generally acceptable behavior in a society. Since it is linked to society, it implies that the individual has little control over what they do. Taking an instance of sexuality and sexual escapades, society generally regards it as immoral. Especially it is done outside wedlock or matrimonial home. However, when you question the individual of the escapades, they are likely to answer that they were acting based on their personal interest that requires them to make sacrifices in so far as morality is concerned. In my opinion, it is evidently clear that it is hardly in one self-interest to act morally. Since morality is a rule, there are most cases where one’s self-interests have to be foregone.
Works Cited
Bloomfield, Paul. Morality and Self-Interest. New York, NY: University Press, 2007. Print.
Goodman, Arnold. Some Moral Minima. The Good Society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print.
Robert, Nozick. Philosophical Explanations. London: Cengage, 2010. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.