During our today‘s class in that beautiful surrounding, we also discussed about the very basic ideas of philosophical theories. One of the comments in class scratches at the surface of my thoughts about one of the main problems of philosophy n general.
What do all the philosophers, we discussed so far, have in common? They give us ideas, about what we ought to do to create a good society, about how a good life would look like and what we have to do, in order to reach happiness. All in all, we can say, they give us ideas and rules to distinguish between good and bad. One of the „goods“ is oftentimes happiness, of the „bads“ mostly a selfish and unsocial behavior. These philosophers sometimes build up huge constructs of ideas and theories, about how and why we should act according to their ideas but as we can probably see every day in our lives, the one who is better off and the end of the day is not always the one, who acts according to very strict ethical rules and norms.
What do we mean, if we talk about „being better off“? Is that in terms of financial advantages, or better friendships, so to speak a better social network and surrounding or an internal better feeling, that is to say a higher self-esteem?
Let‘s assume that the better feeling, we are supposed to have, if we act according to moral rules, is a mix of all these (and probably many more) factors. Obviously, the next question that is posed here is, wether we can reach this bettering in our lives only and strictly by following one moral theory. In my opinion, this is definitely not the case. So, the final question is: Why do we have to follow moral principles, even if they don‘t serve our personal interests? (Personal interests can of course also be things like a well-working society and a good life for everyone).
Religions for example have a very simple answer to this question, for most of them (or maybe, we can assume: all of them) have a system of reward and punishment. The most simple one is of course Christianity: If you do well, that is to say, if you act according to christian beliefs, you will succeed and (very important) AFTER you are dead, you will be rewarded (heaven) or if you don‘t do well, you‘ll be punished (hell). Similar ideas can also be found in other religions, for example in Islam, in which one of the rewards can be the blessing with lots of virgins in the afterlife.
What do you think is the powerful force behind the philosophical claims? Why should we act morally, if there is nothing like a (direct) reward or punishment?
Flo,
ReplyDeleteI totally understand where you're coming from and this is a very interesting point. I also find myself wondering why it is that we absolutely HAVE to adopt a philosophical principle. What if we simply don't care about the outcome of all of mankind (which some people don't...definitely not me though..lol). I think that, if we only look at the aim of philosophy from the viewpoint of our ethics class, then we have to realize that what these philosophers are telling us is that every human has the potential to live a good life. In order to achieve a good life though, you have to adopt some set of standards for achieving it. No one has ever done absolutely nothing and turned out alright, unless they're like rich and spoiled and overseas or something. And I think we can also agree that, in the end, everyone aims for happiness or some other type of ultimate good for themselves. I think THAT, in itself, is what these philosphers are trying to help us get to, but only through the exercising of our own morality.
I believe this desire to understand and act on morality is the primary reason Utilitarianism is so popular today. It an intuitive philosophy that links happiness in general to morality - which then gives us a system to our inclinations. Furthermore, it promotes a sense of social harmony in a manner that is practical and clear cut.
ReplyDeleteThe force itself is merely our human desire to know- one that is centered on the capacity for growth and knowledge. This desire allows us to create these individual belief systems and theories, which are then analyzed in the environment of reality.
What Ivy says is correct - in the end we all aim for an ultimate good, the primary good being identified as happiness. We follow moral principles, even if they don't serve our immediate interests, for one easily identifiable reason: They serve our interests in the long run.
I believe this desire to understand and act on morality is the primary reason Utilitarianism is so popular today. It an intuitive philosophy that links happiness in general to morality - which then gives us a system to our inclinations. Furthermore, it promotes a sense of social harmony in a manner that is practical and clear cut.
ReplyDeleteThe force itself is merely our human desire to know- one that is centered on the capacity for growth and knowledge. This desire allows us to create these individual belief systems and theories, which are then analyzed in the environment of reality.
What Ivy says is correct - in the end we all aim for an ultimate good, the primary good being identified as happiness. We follow moral principles, even if they don't serve our immediate interests, for one easily identifiable reason: They serve our interests in the long run.
So, if I get both of you right, you say that the actual power, which "forces" us to behave morally is not the reward/punishment system, but the desire within humans themselves, to be happy?
ReplyDelete