The Views of Popular Theorists and Theories on Morality, Justice, and Human Nature

The Views of Popular Theorists and Theories on Morality, Justice, and Human Nature

VIABILITY OF UTILITARIANISM THEORY

Utilitarianism is a viable theory because it is founded on rational principles that are universally accepted. One of the principles is that happiness or pleasure is the only thing with intrinsic value. Many may agree with this principle because happiness is a good thing that many desire, thus making it good. According to Bartlett and Collins (16), feeling pleasure is linked to the soul, thus making happiness the most pleasant and noble thing. The second principle is that an action is considered right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it promotes unhappiness. This principle raises the issue of morality, which is linked to acceptable behavior in many societies. According to Shafer-Landau, morality is defined by moral facts and moral principles. Moral facts are instances of rightness or goodness (56).

Moral principles are conditions that govern human behavior based on the outcome of an event. The conditions include moral rules prohibiting unacceptable actions such as murder and theft. The third principle of utilitarianism may raise controversies because it assumes that everybody’s happiness counts equally. People may argue that happiness is more valued by those who experience it and that some people’s happiness is more important than others. However, despite the possibility of such critiques, the utilitarianism theory presents a reasonable interpretation of what is right and wrong, thus increasing the likelihood of overcoming the litany of critiques.

 KANTIANISM VERSUS UTILITARIANISM

According to Sandel (23), the main idea behind utilitarianism is that the highest principle of morality is maximizing happiness to get more pleasure than pain. The rationale behind the theory is that human beings are governed by the feelings of pleasure and pain that determine the selected action. It recognizes that human beings dislike pain and like pleasure. On the other hand, Kantianism posits that a person’s motivation determines the morality of a decision or action. Therefore, one of the differences between utilitarianism and Kantianism is that while the motivation behind an action determines morality in Kantianism, morality in utilitarianism is determined by the consequences of an action. Another difference is that Kantianism considers an action good if it is motivated by duty and goodwill. Consequently, in utilitarianism, an action is considered good if it provides more happiness. Utilitarianism is also founded on the principles of consequentialism and hedonism, which emphasize considering consequences when evaluating an action.

According to the utilitarianism theory, an action is ethical even if the intention for doing it is not moral as long as it results in happiness for other people. Based on the arguments supporting the interpretation of morality in the two theories, Kantianism makes more sense of our moral life. For example, Kantianism acknowledges that humans should use rational thinking and reasoning to make decisions. Therefore, people engage in morally acceptable actions when guided and motivated by duty and goodwill. This argument applies in most instances in people’s lives, particularly in fulfilling their duties and obligations. For example, parents will choose actions that protect the welfare of their families, thus demonstrating motivation by duty and goodwill.

KANT’S INTERPRETATION OF MORALITY AS A CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

The categorical imperative is a moral principle suggesting that people should only act as they expect others to act. Therefore, when Kant says morality is best understood based on the categorical imperative, he means that people should avoid actions they do not want others to do. He argues that an action is morally acceptable only if it can become a law that everybody is willing to follow. According to Kant, imperatives are the formula dictating an action, and all imperatives are expressed through a specific duty. The imperative can be hypothetical or categorical. A hypothetical imperative is a practical need and is not connected to a moral obligation.

A categorical imperative means that an action is necessary. Therefore, in categorical imperatives, the end action is not considered. Kant argues that moral duties are categorical imperatives because they are not dependent on the result but on the action that needs to be taken at a specific time. Kant’s interpretation of morality as a categorical imperative is a good way to think about morality because it considers the pure reason for doing things instead of focusing on the consequences. It also considers universally accepted actions based on the assumption that people should consider whether their actions can be acceptable to everyone if they become a universal law. Therefore, it defines morality based on universally acceptable behaviors.

 PLATO’S VIEWS ON PIETY DEFINITION AND THE NATURE OF THE GOOD AND OF THE GODS

Plato does not define piety but guides Euthyphro on what should be considered to define it correctly. He asks Euthyphro whether piety can exist without justice (Grube 16). Euthyphro defines piety as acting in a way that charges are brought against a person who has done wrong despite the relationship the person has with the one bringing charges. Plato raised concerns about this definition because he believed that a proper definition should include all instances of virtue. Plato suggests that doing good includes doing what one can do to promote the spiritual and moral development of human beings. He argues that the purpose of religion is to ensure that a person’s life is in harmony with God’s will.

Plato posits that there is a close link between morality and religion and that neither can function independently. He says that gods are perfect and abstract, which is why there is no logical argument for how human beings can serve their gods. He suggests that the argument that piety is defined by what gods hold dear is not persuasive because gods have different opinions and beliefs. Therefore, it would be hard for a person to achieve piety because motives and circumstances can alter the moral foundation for a specific action. Plato is correct about the nature of good and gods because the motivation to do good is influenced by the willingness to meet God’s will.

GLAUCON AND THRASYMACHUS’ VIEWS OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN NATURE

Glaucon suggests that human beings are unjust and selfish by nature and that justice is only a consequential good. He argues that injustice is naturally good and nobody is willingly just. He also states that human beings have selfish desires and focus on only what is good for them (Plato 52). Therefore, human beings are more likely to commit injustices and not worry about what is good for others. In his opinion, human beings only do the right thing because they have to, and people with the power to do good would act unjustly. Plato responded to Glaucon’s view by proposing that human beings prefer justice due to its intrinsic value. Plato considers Socrates’ view that humans care for their souls to achieve good. Socrates also argues that justice is a cardinal human virtue and that virtues are part of the human soul. Although Socrates and Glaucon have a valid argument on justice and human nature, Glaucon and Thrasymachus are correct in their assessments because they consider selfish desires that are universally acknowledged in understanding human nature.

 SANDEL’S ARGUMENTS FOR JUSTICE AND MORALITY

Sandel reviews justice based on three approaches. One of the approaches is the welfare of the community. This approach considers the injustices in the community and their impact on the community. The second approach is the rights of an individual. This approach focuses on justice based on protecting the fundamental rights of individuals in a community. The third approach is the value of good citizenship. This approach focuses on people’s role in fulfilling their duties in the community. He argues that it is not wrong to desire to create a good life which is why people focus on meeting their needs without considering how their actions may affect others. He acknowledges that moral conduct may be undermined by the need to have a good life and suggests that there is a broad interpretation of justice and morality based on his proposed three approaches.

In the argument that welfare and liberty are not enough to unpack the nature of justice and morality, Sandel means that justice cannot be achieved by eliminating oppression imposed by the government and improving people’s welfare. He supports this argument by stating that social injustices cannot be eliminated if the gap between the poor and the rich increases. His argument is correct because injustices in society exist because of government policies. Therefore, justice can only be achieved if people engage everyone in society’s moral convictions. Strong moral beliefs can help eliminate injustice and shape moral conduct based on the level of goodwill and the willingness to meet a specific duty. Sandel’s argument is also correct because welfare and liberty are more linked to the outcome of a person’s actions. This creates a difference in how people perceive justice and morality because what could be just for one person may be considered an injustice by another, and a person’s values and beliefs may influence the perception of morality.

Works Cited

Bartlett, Robert, and Susan Collins. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. The University of Chicago Press, 2012, p. 16.

Grube, George. “Euthyphro.” Plato: Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo, Hackett Publishing, 2002, p. 16.

Plato. “BOOK II.” The Republic, The Floating P, 2009, p. 52.

Sandel, Michael J. “Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism.” Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Macmillan, 2010, p. 23.

Shafer-Landau, Russ. “Where Do Moral Standards Come From?” Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? Oxford UP, USA, 2004, p. 56.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Bookl:
Russ Shafer-Landau: What Ever Happened to Good and Evil? ISBN: 0195168739

2. Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, translated by Robert Bartlett and Susan Collins. ISBN: B006J8QAT2

3. Michael Sandel: Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (any edition) ISBN-10 : 0374532508

The Views of Popular Theorists and Theories on Morality, Justice, and Human Nature

4. Plato: Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo (Hacket) ISBN-10: 0872206335

1) Is utilitarianism a viable theory? Can it overcome the litany of critiques, or is it dead on arrival?
2) Compare Kantianism and utilitarianism. Which theory better makes sense of our moral life?
3) Kant says that morality is understood by way of the categorical imperative. What does he mean, and is this a good way to think about morality?
4) Plato says that piety is a perfectly fine virtue, provided that it’s properly defined. But does he ever define it? What’s the problem with Euthyphro’s definition(s)? What is Plato saying about the nature of the good…and of the gods? Is he correct?
5) Glaucon, playing devil’s advocate in support of Thrasymachus, argues for a particular view of justice and human nature by way of a story involving a ring. What’s this all about? Are Glaucon and Thrasymachus correct in their assessments, or should we take Socrates’ side and consider justice more objectively?
6) Sandel argues that welfare and liberty aren’t enough when it comes to unpacking the nature of morality and justice. What does he mean, and is he correct?