Having thoroughly studied six philosophers and their theories, it’s time to compare and contrast. As these philosophers guide the reader through their reasoning, they portray their theories as ways to accomplish a “moral” society (though they may define “moral” rather differently). But what if everyone is not a follower of the same moral theory as is the case in reality? How does each moral theory stand if only one individual out of many pursues it?
Plato’s idea of moral actions being a byproduct of a perfectly ordered soul seems independent enough from other individuals. But he also painted a picture of a perfectly just state that would help shape just individuals as well as be shaped by just individuals. In this sense, an individual might have a very difficult time cultivating perfect order within oneself as long as that order is not reflected in society.
Aristotle’s theory says that individuals should aim at ultimate happiness (eudemonia) through acting virtuously in strict adherence to reason. Habituation is an important part of fostering practical wisdom (phronesis), and, I think, could be practiced even if other individuals were not acting on the same theory.
According to Epictetus, a person should use human reason to be completely in accordance with nature, meaning that pathetic attachments to things or ideas are caused by ignorance and only bring unhappiness. This theory almost implies that everyone will not act in such a way, and so seems to be one that could be practiced by an individual alone.
Epicureans, I think, could also pursue their ethical theory even when surrounded by non-adherers. The goal being freedom from physical and mental pain, the theory puts more stress on the individual’s feelings than any larger group.
Utilitarians, on the other hand, place all the importance on the greatest good for the greatest number. Because of this accountability toward others, I don’t think a person could affectively work for the greatest good if others are not doing the same.
A Kantian follower would be able to pursue the theory affectively even while others do not. To constantly have a good will that depends on a maxim that fits the categorical imperative does not in any way imply dependence on others.
Are these implications about each theory true? If a theory can be pursued affectively by an individual despite the practices of the greater society, does that speak to the trueness of the theory? Or is dependency on others being ethical the sign of a theory that is a truly universal truth?
Plato is my favorite of these philosophers, so I'll comment on him. I think that an individual could adopt Plato's theory effectively even while not living within Plato's idea of a just society. I don't think Plato's Republic is a good idea on the state level, but on the individual level it is very powerful. Plato argues that Reason should rule the emotions and appetites of the individual. If Reason rules, he continues, just actions will follow. An individual adopting this position would benefit regardless of his societal context. Therefore, even though Plato calls for an analogous arrangement on the state level to reinforce justice in people, this theory could be put to good use by an individual in in an "unjust" society.
ReplyDeleteYour question “If a theory can be pursued affectively by an individual despite the practices of the greater society, does that speak to the trueness of the theory?” is a question that has popped up in one way or another various times so far this semester. One of the points of Aristotle that stood out to me the most was that he said the study of human character has to focus on the actual world around us and that through observations of the world, we can get to the truth of the world. Until one is faced with a real moral dilemma, I think it is difficult to predict how one would act in the situation. If one sticks with their moral theory and uses the theory in its entirety, without influence of other theories, to work through the dilemma, it seems that theory should be labeled effective. However, I’m not sure how common this situation is. Although it may be appropriate to pick one philosopher’s theory and use only it as a guide, it’s probably is very rare.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Esha, in that it would be very difficult to follow only one philosopher’s theory as a guide to your life. There are too many debates and exceptions to each philosopher’s theory to solely be committed to one. Although yes, “if a theory can be pursued affectively by an individual despite the practices of the greater society” then that does speak to the trueness of the theory. However, the trueness is not as important as the effectiveness. So I believe in order for the theory to be a universal truth the philosopher must have followers and believers. That is what really determines the moral theory and how affective or true it is.
ReplyDelete