When we talk about morality, we tend to call out who is moral or not, without defining what is moral or not. Consider two examples of how to be virtuous.
- Do not do to another what you do not wish to be done to you. (The Golden Rule).
- Injure no one; on the contrary, help everyone as much as you can.
Let’s compare these. Both advise against causing harm, but the first considers only what we don’t like, not what our counterpart doesn’t want done to himself.
When employing this behavioral direction, our opinion is the only one that matters. The standard we choose doesn’t account for differences in likes and dislikes between ourselves and another person.
Each of us decides how to behave by assuming the other person is like us. We determine which interactions with the stranger are permissible. Another individual might disagree.
The second example presents an alternative. We aren’t instructed to define what is satisfactory conduct toward our fellow man. The statement requires no judgment. It simply tells us to injure no one and assist everyone instead.
The Categorical Imperative is a third approach to ethical behavior. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Immanuel Kant).
The words tell us to live by rules we believe ought to apply to the entirety of humanity.
There is no wiggle room here. Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) believed such requirements don’t arise from lived experience but are inherent in all rational beings.
Kant, of course, never encountered the work of Jonathan Haidt, a still active social psychologist. His research demonstrates that we are all, to a significant extent, influenced by emotions when making moral judgments.
The preceding three examples are suggestions, not demands. Nothing about them compels us to follow their direction, unless we are required by law or have taken a religious oath.
Why do we need guidance at all?
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, didn’t think we would manage well on our own. He described human existence without laws and penalties as subject to continual fear and the danger of violent death. He conceived of the life of a man as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Yikes!
Arthur Schopenhauer, the 19th-century German philosopher, added to our understanding of morality. He reminded us that motives are essential to our grasp of what constitutes a genuine moral act.
For example, we sometimes display extraordinary kindness to others in the hope of gaining a particular privilege.
In cases of this sort, the behavior of the men or women would fail the test of virtuous intention. They seek something for themselves.
Schopenhauer also points to the power of the forces of ego, passion, and desire within each of us. If we are to lead a righteous life, resisting temptation, we will need considerable willpower and self-discipline to restrain our wants.
You shall decide whether any of the views of morality offered here are valuable. Add any other one you favor or dismiss them as you like.
Before you do, you might ponder the advice provided by religion. Some ancient holy documents encourage fidelity and morality, promising prosperity on earth and in the afterlife, while threatening consignment to hell if you fail.
Google reports this:
While there are around 10,000 distinct religions in the world, over three-quarters of the global population adheres to one of these four – Christianity (31%), Islam (24%), Hinduism (15%), and Buddhism (7%).
All of them offer their own view of what an upright life is and isn’t.
Clearly, the definition of morality depends on many factors.
==========
The first image is of a Woman Being Rescued from the Ruins of Her House After It Was Struck by a V-2 Rocket in 1944 London. The photo is the work of George Roger and sourced from History Daily.
The second photo shows a Rescue in Africa from Drowning, taken by GiftedLydia.
Finally, A Young Child and Mother Watch as their Aircraft Takes off from St. Maarten to San Juan, Puerto Rico, in the Aftermath of Hurricane Irma in 2017.
The last two were sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
Thank you for the introduction to Thomas Hobbes, Dr. Stein. Your statement about Hobbes: “He described human existence without laws and penalties as subject to continual fear and the danger of violent death” feels real. Too real – like our present-day circumstance in the U.S. where too many laws are subject to interpretation, influenced by powerful bigots. 💔
Thanks, Vicki. Hobbes is best known for the last line I quoted. His estimate of the human race, absent decent governance, is grim. As you imply, Hobbes would recognize the world in which we live..
Dr. Stein, thanks for this clarifying article on morality. When we live in a world where the rules of moral conduct are turned on their head, it becomes even more important for each one of us to respect our shared human rights that promote our collective well-being.
Many thanks, Dr. Stein for your very interesting post about morality! Despite the fact that I like the
sentence and meaning of “Injure no one; on the contrary, help everyone as much as you can”, I don’t know whether I wouldn’t include also my emotions in each decision!
I agree with the value of emotion, Martina. Kant’s notion of a rational system of behavior would likely create a world of coldness. Imagine a universal system that forbade lying. If a murderer sought one’s child, there would be little room for a parent to say to the murderer, “She is not here,” if the daughter were in another room.
Absolutely!👏
Thank you, Rosaliene. Unfortunately, we live in a time reminiscent of the state of the world in many past times. The names change, but the named are dehumanized in speech, and the bigotry of mistreat that often includes murder.I agree with you in the hope that we humans find more that makes us brothers and sisters in our common journey through life.
In many old indigenous societies, crime isn’t a big issue, nor is many of the issues white communities struggled with. While Communism was supposed to remove all those ills from society, the real lived effect was that corruption continued, even thrived.
The difference between the indigenous peoples and white people is on a fundamental level of seeing good in people and nurturing that through love and community, vs. seeing a sin-filled vessel that needed to be tamed through corporal punishment and deprivation.
The fundamental views of who people are created vastly different societies.
When we can see everyone as being worthy, worthy of love, worthy of respect, worthy of success, worthy of peace, then we can begin to interact with one another on a deeper level, where we aren’t pushed and loaded i to certain behaviors because of religious statutes or legalities, but because we truly care for one another.
I hope that day comes soon, Tamara. Clearly, a fundamental change is necessary. Thank you.
I’m late to the study of philosophy, which I must admit I thought was a waste of time when I was in college. My college professor didn’t help me understand its importance, and it’s only now that I’m beginning to see that it was the start of everything (art, science, etc). There is a reason why philosophers talk about knowledge as a good thing, it helps improve our lives. I think, in essence, the four religions point us to an understanding of how we should treat others, but of course, we add our emotions to the mix, as you mentioned, to our own peril. Great post, as always; that will keep me thinking for the rest of the week.
Thank you, Edward. Like you, I took one philosophy class in college and got little from it. So many great thinkers. They will keep us both busy for eternity.
Yes, and that’s a good thing.
Indeed!
You make so many great points in this essay, Dr. Stein. Especially “When employing this behavioral direction, our opinion is the only one that matters. The standard we choose doesn’t account for differences in likes and dislikes between ourselves and another person.”
With so many different sources of guidance on being virtuous, it’s helpful to examine our personal morality choices. Thank you!
You are most welcome, Wynne. Morality seems to be in the eye of the beholder, never more than in the world of today. I imagine you do more than well in the eyes of those who know you. Of course, someone will always disagree with us. Sigh.