Moral and Rules: Comparison and Contrast

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.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
Work cited

Introduction

Man has always been concerned with morality: what is right and what is wrong. Human beings do not live in isolation; they have to live with other people sharing in their lives and also interact with their environment. It is commonly agreed that humans have higher faculties than other animals and are capable of cooperation and moral conduct. However, in their interaction human being are faced with conflicts. The conflicts are concerned with their relationship with other human beings and also with their relationship with their environment. The issue of right and wrong has to be raised. To guide conduct in human beings and their relationships, then rules have been developed. In most cases when we think of morals, the issue that is raised is that of rules. In most cases, people evaluated their moral conduct concerning rules; conduct is considered to be moral if it is by rules and wrong if it is against the rule. Although rules are important, morality cannot be defined in terms.

Discussion

Personals Stand

Rules are important to the moral development and moral conduct of human beings. They have a moral value by synthesizing the principles used in the morality of a certain community or socials setting. The synthesis and restating of moral principles into rules are used to create certainty and reduce error and conflicts that can result from individuals following their own morals rules. Thus, rules are guidelines that are used to generalize the moral principles of a certain community. Guidelines are important for cooperation between human beings. This is important when many people have to cooperate since it reduces conflict and allows easier coordination between stakeholders. For example, in a school children require a rule to guide them in their conduct. Lack of rules in a school may lead to conflict between students and educators and also among themselves. Students expect schools to have rules and when the rules are not there students may not be held accountable for their actions.

Rules are commonly accepted and many people agree that it is right to follow rules. However, it is a common understanding that we are not supposed to follow certain rules when we believe them to be wrong. This raises another higher source of morality. Although it is moral to follow rules, the rules themselves may not be moral and man has to use other higher sources of morality for guidance.

Morals rules differ from one society to another. This is evident in various institutions that such as religion, governments and others. Something may be considered to be good in one institution while it is considered to be wrong in another institution. This relativity implies that human beings must have principles that they use to guide them in their moral conduct. This also implies that man is capable of moral conduct even without rules but the conduct must be guided by some principles innately believed by an individual.

Rules are morally right even though a particular rule may not be right. Rules act as a reference through which moral conduct is referred to. Each individual has principles that guide them in their moral conduct. However, individual moral principles cannot be trusted when people have to live together and cooperate. Therefore, rules should be used to generalize the moral issues that affect most individuals in society. However, rules should be used as long as they lead to the overall good of society.

John Stuart Mill Moral Principle

John Stuart Mill believed that moral conduct should be guided by the principle of utility. The principle of utility asserts that individuals should act in such as manner that will bring happiness to the majority of people. Utilitarianism, the moral principle proposed by Mill relies on the ability of individuals to act in those ways that will promote utility (Mill 2). It assumes that in morals actions, individuals have an option which they have to make and that they should take the option that would lead to the greatest happiness for them to be considered to be moral. The basics of this morals principle are the ability to define happiness or good. It is assumed that a moral action is capable of bringing good or happiness. The quality of pleasure differs, some pleasure is higher while others are lower(Mill 2). The lower pleasure includes those pleasures that are shared with other animals while higher pleasure is that which is rational and unique with higher beings. The ability of a person to act morally is based on their ability to choose higher pleasure over lower pleasure. In this morals principle, utility is not assumed to be an agent alone but a good by itself (Mill 4). The ability to use this principle needs a noble character that can choose the greatest happiness for the majority than selfish interest.

The principle of utilitarianism does not assume the existence of rules in judging moral actions. Rules are premeditated and used to guide the judgment of an action. However, utilitarianism uses the consequences of an action as the only criteria for judging whether an action is right or wrong (Mill 7). The person involved in a moral decision should be able to foresee the consequence of moral action and act in such a manner to promote the greatest good.

Immanuel Kant moral Principle

Kant’s moral principle is based on the motive of moral action. An action is considered to be morally good if the will is good. Kant argues that every other good except goodwill requires qualification (Kant, Ellington 399). This implies that goodwill is the absolute good. Other qualities such as intelligence, courage, and wisdom are good and desirable. However, the same qualities can also be extremely bad if the will in using them is wrong (Kant, Ellington 408). The same effect can also be observed in other gifts such as wealth, power, and health. For example, although wealth is good, it can be used for the wrong intention and lead to bad effects. Even qualities that are good for the will, such as self-control, also require qualifiers; which implies that they are not good by themselves (Kant Ellington 403). Goodwill is the only quality that does not require being qualified. Thus, It is good not because of its effects or its ability to achieve a certain goal but by the will itself. In consequence, even if the effect of an action that had resulted from goodwill is bad, it does not imply that the will was wrong.

Despite the absolute best of goodwill, it should be subjected to reason. This is by the truth that goodwill may be uninformed or misinformed leading to bad effects. However, the reason is not sufficient to guide the will to attain its goal and satisfy human needs. Thus, there is a need for a reason to be presented in a practical way that would influence the will. The practical faculty of reason should be able to produce goodwill but it should also be goodwill by itself (Kant, Ellington 408). In consequence, the reason should be able to control the attainment of other secondary goods such as happiness. Rules are the culmination of reason. According to Kant, rules should be respected as a duty; not because of what it proposes but out of the motive in them.

Comparison

In most cases, rules aim at a good. Utilitarianism assumes the ability of humans to know the absolute good of their actions; which is not always the case (Mill 5). Comparing utilitarianism with my position on rules, rules should lead to the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Since most rules are aimed at a good, they should be obeyed as a duty. This will lead to harmony and give guidance in moral decisions. Mills’ position is more appealing to me. The intention is the most important element in moral judgment.

Conclusion

Morals are an integral part of human beings. Many philosophers agree on the importance of morals but differ on their sources, process, and objects. Rules are very important to man. They give guidance on morals judgment, promote human cooperation, and minimize conflict in human relations. Mill’s Utilitarianism evaluates an action depending on the consequences. An action is considered to be good if it leads to the greatest good. On the other hand, Kant’s moral principle is based on the will. An action is considered to be good if its intention is also good. To Kant, the reason is important to control the will and rules should be followed as a duty if they are well-intended.

Work cited

Kant Immanuel, Ellington James. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. New York: Hackett Pub. Co., 1981.

Mill John. Utilitarianism. Oxford: Longmans, 1867.

Click Here To Order Now!