The common habit of criticizing other cultures is sometimes not fair enough, at least from the perspective of Mary Midgely. In her article Trying Out One’s New Sword, Midgely (p. 116) states that it is impossible to understand other people’s cultures other than ours, thus the inability to make a concrete judgment of what these cultures contain or how they are likely to occur. It could be argued that a cultural perception we normally exhibit against others is not ethical and has immoral connotations considering the limit of our knowledge. Culture in every aspect helps in the description of attitudes, psychology, beliefs, and values, and experiences in any society. Culture shows the collection of norms and values shared by groups and people in a society and at the same time, it controls how people interact amongst themselves and with others from other cultures. It is critical to observe that no culture is superior and therefore an analysis of cross-cultural differences should inform the need to develop a critical view and belief that no culture should be criticized.
Friedrich Nietzsche gives this idea a different perspective using the difference between the culture of the poor and that of the rich. According to his views, Nietzsche believes that cultural difference criticism is something that only comes out of convenience. For example, the poor would criticize the culture of the rich, yet deep within his or her conscience, there is a constant desire to be in the same position, with lots of wealth and extravagant lifestyle. The failure to understand other cultural practices that would create more awareness of the other side of the view is what will lead to blind criticism.
For a proper understanding of other cultures, it is realized that one has to acknowledge that the term ‘understanding’ is just but a matter of degree that would inform the judgment. Furthermore, the concept of degree of understanding depends on the length of time in the process of observation, which will inform the judgment. This form of judgment is not a yes-or-no issue but relies on the isolationist’s view of culture that depicts a complete lack of understanding of the entire concept.
But how can we not criticize yet we are all aware that getting absorbed in the concept of understanding all depends on the time taken to learn the issue? Do the limits of time allow us to exhaustively study all cultures? It is a definite NO. We cannot have all the time to study other cultures. Well, it is possible to have a range of alternatives to make judgments but one cannot have all the cultures well understood. In other words, it is illogical to claim a full understanding of all cultural practices. However, one would also ask if we all judge our culture that we are all much conversant with.
According to Midgley, we cannot judge our own cultures because that ability has been destroyed by the fact that we have limited knowledge of other cultures to allow us to have the basis for comparison. But, does it mean that we must have alternatives to make good judgments. In other words, according to Midgley, it is not possible to judge a member of my own culture because we do not have a range of alternatives to make such judgments count. It must be acknowledged that there are differences among the people of our own cultures. But we cannot avoid judging them simply because we are unable to understand their characters. For example, an alternative to steal is not to steal. Hence, we are not required to understand a deeper concept and meaning of theft to give us the moral authority to make a judgment.
Moral judgment as regards justice in society is dependent on the ability of one to acquire wealth, according to Glaucon. In other words, although people in the society would criticize their rulers for immoral and societal injustice, they would want to be like their rulers and exploit the societal wealth at their whims. So what makes the difference between our moral judgments? It is simply our lack of access that matters, otherwise everyone would be busy looking for wealth to fulfill their insatiable needs. In summary, Glaucon argues that everybody has the potential of meeting injustice, given the opportunity.
But does this argument have much basis, considering the need to have a positive image in society? As demonstrated by many modern leaders, not everyone would be dictator allowed to lead. Take the case of business leaders of the modern world. It is known that global business has become very competitive in the recent past. While some businesses have succeeded in ethical business development; others have found it difficult to cope with the increasingly difficult demands of society in terms of sustainable business. In the view of moral advocates, a business venture can observe the prevailing ethical issues that will determine its success. Glaucon would have constructively argued that the fear of moral judgment from society is what has forced the leaders to act in a manner to promote good business. But is it not possible that even a human being’s instinct can lead to moral behavior? Take a look at a scenario where one has encountered a situation where his or her action has caused many deaths. Here, the person in question is likely to see the difficulty of having peace because his or her actions have caused tribulations to the population.
The individual leader’s ability to take responsibility is what informs the need to care for the population. In business, the ability to take responsibility for what happens is referred to as corporate citizenship. The idea is that a business organization that makes a lot of profit should be in a position to share with the entire community, normally referred to as “stakeholders.” However, some people have questioned the role of this corporate citizenship as an ethical initiative, with a unanimous acceptance among critics that businesses leaders participate in the destruction of the resources and then later cover up their unethical deeds through such actions.
However, according to Plato, just men are happier than those who are unjust, hence the desire to accomplish the goal of happiness by cultivating the virtue of justice. In the dimension of political justice, it may be expanded to mean that the desire to increase an understanding within the political practices is what informs the quest for justice. In this way, the leader will most likely be interested in building the desired reputation to fulfill his or her instinct of justice. However, many modern scholars have reacted to Plato’s Republic, especially on his proposals of how women, children, and property should be treated. Plato argued that women, children, and property should public utilities, or what he referred to as common guardians. In his argument, Aristotle claimed that Plato’s republic was contrary to human nature, hence did not hold much base as far as common sense is concerned.
John Mill has been criticized for his stand on the meaning of utilitarianism. According to Mill, there is an overall misconception about utilitarianism- that there’s a lot of misunderstanding as far as the term utility is used to apply the idea of pleasure. He has consequently defended his position that utility is in itself happiness or little or no pain in the life of an individual. His Great Happiness Principle is the source of lack of pain among the people. That is, any form of action is as good as its end product, where the person pursuing happiness is right as long as the outcome is right.
Despite being accused of reducing the meaning of life as just having pleasurable moments, Mills states that pleasure is more animalistic in itself because the moment people have been made aware of their innate ability to be happy by acquiring more, they will not stop pursuing their goals of happiness. After all, no one would want to be an animal with lower faculty. Though it is acknowledged that usage of higher faculty as humans do is more painful and difficult to maintain, no one would willingly retain the lower-level existence allowed to pursue higher existence. Furthermore, they pursue such goals with gastro to maintain higher dignity within the society.
The argument opposing Mills’s idea of happiness is based on the belief that happiness can never be fully attained. However, Mills defends himself that happiness is within every person’s reach, and that lack of it is due to people’s selfishness and lack of ambitions to nurture values needed to achieve it. He believes that most evils like poverty and disease can be eliminated through a well-organized, hardworking, and knowledgeable society willing to pursue happiness for all. He, therefore, agrees with the argument by his critics that most of those virtuous people in history are those known to be happy. He explains that some sacrifice their happiness for the happiness of the larger community or other people’s happiness. The problem only comes when such people’s efforts go to waste, i.e. not much happiness is achieved in the long run. He, therefore, states that a person should not value his happiness more than others, for doing that is more like going against the principle of utilitarianism.
According to Mills, the other common misconception as far as utilitarianism is concerned is the fact that many confuse it with contentment. This means that one with a higher level of faculty will not be contented with whatever he or she has because of the close image of the limitless world. Furthermore, pursuing a higher character is better than staying contented like a satisfied pig. In this perspective, the pig would only be contented because she knows not beyond one side of life- lower faculty.
It is quite not clear when Mills states that utilitarianism is mainly concerned with the general increase of happiness of the larger mass and not only to individuals. In this perspective, Mills is just more like basing his argument on the notion that morality is on the overall good of society. Furthermore, morality should be based on the context of people’s interrelationships or should be based on a particular subject. Finally, Mills’ argument that the idea of the sacrifice of one’s happiness should only lead to better things has been equally criticized. The reason is there is value in any form of life, irrespective of its eventual outcome.
Many philosophers have argued that it is the institutions that guide moral behaviors, and not the reasoning ability of an individual. Some have also stated that moral behaviors are guided by conditional factors, thus a leader who is not guided by the principles of good morals is not likely to follow the natural moral guidelines (MacKinnon 121). According to Kant, “goodwill” is the principle of developing a set of behaviors at the individual level that is based on moral judgment. In this perspective, it is possible to separate our rational behaviors from institutional behaviors and still develop a moral standing. Goodwill according to Kant is the only criteria that do not need a qualification to accomplish. It, therefore, follows that the demand for goodwill is based on the personal instinct of good conduct and not guided by set laws.
The other idea about Kant’s argument is that moral law is instinctively developed and does not need institutional guidance to be effective. However, can a person’s tendency to lie qualify lie as a universal law? Lying may be deemed to create more and greater problems for the liar. This situation indicates that a person may fear the consequences of a lie that makes him or her avoid the act in itself. Other candidates for the good, such as health, intelligence, prosperity, and many others may also not qualify as a moral law since they can never be universal just like a lie. One person’s spiritual health may be impeded by his or her cultural and religious beliefs. Moreover, although many people’s ability to interpret moral law may be low, human beings’ natural intellect shows that this ability is innately in-built and that any lack of social justification may be the principal reason why it is not possible to develop any support for Kant’s theory. This is irrespective of the fact that many people are never aware of the moral law in their natural consciousness.
Kant believes that any action is moral as long as it the person involved feels intrinsically fulfilled that such as act is good in itself. In other words, if a person has a strong feeling that whatever he or she is doing is not good, then the result will not be good in the long run. This view places humans in the position of being an end in itself, and not just a means of achieving an end. For instance, if action is believed to be good for the human, all the actions done to achieve the ultimate goal are focused on the good of humanity. This means that humans become the end rather than the means to the ultimate goal.
This belief means that human beings can involve themselves in an impure motivation if they are the end in themselves. This kind of view has a universal validity since it can never be applied to all areas of human life. For example, if one lies, it is a form of contradiction because he or she expects other people to believe the lie. This is against the principle of universal acceptability of morality. It, therefore, means that we do unto others what we expect people to do to us, hence the guiding principle of moral behavior.
The theory of natural law has presented one of the most discussed areas of philosophy in modern theories. It, therefore, means that it has taken various forms as scholars are trying to give their views of the interpretation of the concept. Jonathan Aquinas’s understanding of natural law is based on the idea that it is governed by the eternal law of nature. That is, the concept of nature is derived from the idea that there are things that are just by nature and those which are defined to be just by convention. According to this view, humans are governed by the abundance of nature and that every human is reliant on nature that offers the reasoning capacity. Since humans have the free will to choose what they want, they may not necessarily respect the law, especially if they act according to their level of reasoning, without which they will just be following nature in its entirety.
However, due to the increased development of reforms and changes in society, the natural law theory has naturally evolved and found a new basis in the reasoning to the capacity of human ability. The first form of evolution comes from the fact that humans have developed a sense of natural rights which suggests that nature is free for all humans, yet they still feel insecure when in it. It, therefore, means that when they engage themselves with nature, humans will only surrender what they feel will not interfere with their natural lives.
With the increased concept of human rights in the contemporary world, natural law has gained a lot of concepts in the belief that all humans have particular rights as far as nature is concerned. Our idea of natural law is based on our reasoning, where individuals have the limited by their belief of what is right or wrong for them in the perspective of what nature provides.
The concept of natural law varies in many forms in practical formulation and application. Aquinas advocates the application of the secondary side of the natural law, where there are specific ideas on issues that are not needed for immediate application. For example, the education of children is a universal and continuous process that is limited with time as long as humanity exists. When applying natural law, its specificity is more beneficial as the people are made to learn new areas in detail, making it easy to understand the concept as a whole. This is because the additional passage of time always involves revelations of new ideas that eventually lead to multiple ideas as concerns the natural law theory. For example, in the past slavery was normal and natural to the people who practiced it. However, the contemporary belief is that slavery is not natural and unacceptable. When natural law is applied in this context, it becomes an easy concept to understand than when it is applied in general. I believe that just like slavery, one-day capital punishment will be against the concept of natural law and that any form of it will be condemned in the societal setting.
It is common knowledge that humans’ knowledge of natural law is incomplete and that its application will depend on the continuity of its good judgment. Aquinas states that one of how one can judge whether an issue is good or bad is through classifying the secondary aspects of natural law. For example, one side of the natural law is based on our ability to demonstrate our belief in good judgment such as stable families, good education, and hospitality among many other issues. This helps us gain the inherent knowledge of bioethics.
The concept of psychological development in women and men has generated a lot of ideas as far as man and woman existence is concerned. According to Gilligan, a woman is designed to attract the man, who will eventually define her status. In this perspective, a woman’s self is defined by the relationship with the man, thus leading to the concept of interdependency. She draws an idea that while men will develop their ideas on the moral judgment as far as rights of individuals, and the abstract idea of what is wrong or right, women have a moral judgment based on the context of human needs, empathy, and relationships that depend on one another.
There was a common belief that contemporary liberated women would basically assume the roles of men and that nothing will change as far as the belief inability of men will remain intact. She is also against the idea that women’s idea of personal values is primarily based on their personal views and not universal views. In other words, men’s ability is based on obligation that they should not hurt, while women’s instinct is lined with the notion that they should be in a position to help others. In other words, a morality of rights and no interference is what holds the society together.
At a personal level, I have encountered a scenario where the personal behaviors of individuals have differed from this theory. It is not logical to acknowledge that the personal behaviors of individuals are designed by gender orientations. For example, at my university level, the student’s activism has generated some difference in the overall belief of the student fraternity in that participation of individuals in the active politics had several women who presented more aggressive traits than their male counterparts.
I was involved in an incident where I played the role of mediating a friend’s relationships with his fiancĂ©e. The common notion that I have always adopted is that women are more understanding and accommodative in terms of views and opinions. However, this notion was disapproved when it emerged that the lady was argued and responded with more aggression, with little empathy even though she was logically on the wrong. While the man seemed composed and empathetic, she acted more like an aggressor in a scene that became difficult to handle in many incidences. The ultimate approach I gave was to treat the two parties with equal measure and remove the notion that they are differently oriented in terms of social integration.
Nicomachean Ethics- Aristotle
The ethics of production and the result is based on the belief that all that is produced must be better than the process. In this perspective, actions in the pursuit are always thought to be aiming at a certain degree of good, which is based on standardized results. However, certain outcomes are lead to different ends even if the process is the same. Others will result depending on the activities that produce them, thus leading to different outcomes that were neither desired nor intended.
For example, if a scientific experiment is carried out and the result is expected to be positive, a simple error may lead to a destructive result, jeopardizing the result of the entire process. We may desire certain ends to be good, with the appropriate process, to have a positive result. At this rate, it may be difficult to be virtuous because the end will justify the means, if the means are abrasive and destructive to a few individuals but the end is beneficial to a majority or a powerful group, it is considered good. This makes the virtue of preserving everyone’s rights becomes difficult.
The practice of euthanasia has degenerated into a much controversial concept in contemporary society. While the American Medical Association sees the difference between passive and active euthanasia, some scholars have refuted the claim of this difference as it is seen as an attempt to make it acceptable. But how can one determine to die to have his or her life shortened abruptly? On moral grounds, it is not logical for one to assume that it is no longer useful for one to be alive. Furthermore, a life taken away before its right time is immoral, irrespective of the nature of this death. For example, those who advocate for the death of individuals deemed to die have devised a way of separating passive and active euthanasia. If one is denied medicine because he or she is believed to be dead-in-waiting, it is more or less like poisoning the person or starving a person to death.
The debate on abortion has been one of the most controversial debates in the recent past. While some people have seen it as the source of moral conflict between two opposing views, others have taken the view that it is an issue of human rights. The former looks at abortion in the dimension that it is immoral to terminate a life yet to see the earth. This view is highly entrenched in society. Furthermore, people like Don Marquis believe that abortion is a barbaric act that affects society but no one wants to take responsibility.
The pro-abortion on the other hand have developed an argument the so-called life only begins after a child has been born. Moreover, pro-abortion is based on the belief that it’s the right of a woman to choose whether to have the child or not. If anything, the choice to have the child or not maybe fueled after the prospective mother has assessed her ability to bring up the child.
Basically, with a clear understanding of what may or may not be the reason for abortion, I tend to believe that in most cases the reason to abort is justified. It is not right; to force a person to have a baby she is not ready or may not be able to take care of. Moreover, in some cases, it is done to save the mother’s life.
Works Cited
MacKinnon, Barbara. Ethics and Contemporary Issue, 6th Ed. New York: Wadsworth Publishing, 2008.