Wednesday, September 12, 2018
The Definition of Morality
In Chapter 6 of the Republic Socrates defines morality in terms of the proper functioning of the mind. He states that "[i]ts sphere is a person's inner activity; it is really a matter of oneself and the parts of oneself"(443d). A person is moral if and only if the parts of her mind work together and the rational part guides and directs the other parts. Given such a definition, Socrates proceeds to show that such a mind is healthy and a disordered mind leads to unhappiness. Yet is Socrates' definition of morality correct? Is that definition close to your working definition of morality? If he fails, where or how does he fail? Is the connection between morality and mental health as tight as Socrates argues?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Socrates' definition of morality is correct, because if the components of someone’s mind are functioning in harmony, then that person has done all that they can to act morally. Let us consider a situation that was brought up in class. My bicycle has been stolen and I am trying to determine the culprit. After questioning possible witnesses and carefully analyzing the data that I have, I decide to report the suspected thief to the police. However, that suspect ends up being completely innocent! One could argue that this example shows a fault in Socrates’ take on morality because I have committed an immoral action even though my rational mind was in control. I do not accept this stance—despite making an ultimately false judgment, I have not done anything immoral because I have taken appropriate actions given my perspective. Socrates states that “Where each of the constituent parts of an individual does its own job, the individual will be moral and will do his own job” (441d-e). In the problem of the bicycle, I have done my job. It is human nature to make mistakes. One cannot possibly know every angle of an issue, so one can only strive to do the best they can with the information they have. This definition is close to my working definition of morality. When I have to make a moral decision, I try to carefully consider what will happen if I choose option A over option B and vice versa. I think about whether my emotions and desires are swaying me, thereby ensuring that my rational mind is in control. I sometimes end up realizing that what I did was wrong, but I do not hold this against myself for too long. If I did, I would be constantly worrying about various things I said and did. I would argue that it is better to make an honest effort to be moral rather than live in fear of making a false judgment.
ReplyDeletePlato’s definition of morality runs into the problem that different people have different physical minds. Even operating under the assumption that everybody has three initially healthy parts to the brain, Plato himself believes that different people operate and think in different ways. This is evidenced when Plato constructs his ideal society, since he explicitly says that different people are inherently better apt to do certain jobs or tasks. Given this premise, I would contend that one brain operating naturally, and therefor morally, could come up with a different conclusion than another brain operating just as naturally and just as morally; it would be possible for two different people to come up with completely different conclusions as to if an action were moral or not. This complicates Plato’s argument, since a morality is usually thought of to be an objective set of rules or guidelines one must follow in order to be a moral person. This leads to contradictions in how we can even talk about morality, because we can no longer talk about morality in terms of what is objectively good, but rather subjectively thought of to be good. For example, it is generally thought that stealing is immoral. Plato would say if a healthy mind comes up with the conclusion that stealing is good, stealing would be a moral action. If another person concludes that stealing in the same scenario is bad, stealing would be an immoral action. Obviously no one action can be simultaneously moral and immoral, so Plato’s definition doesn’t hold true. Plato could respond to this criticism saying that two rationally thinking people could not come up with different conclusions to the same problem. I would contend this could happen, since the healthy mind everybody starts with is not the same, and there is significant room for subjectivity. To provide an example that prove this claim true, I would say most people think there is no objectively ‘best’ color, however most people also have their favorite color. One’s subjective thoughts on a particular claim they hold to be true, in the example this would be the color blue being the best, doesn’t actually change the nature of what is objectively the best color, or if there even is such a thing. To summarize, the main problem with Plato’s definition of morality is that he fails to define morality and instead says that morality is doing what you think is good, even when that may not in fact be good.
ReplyDeletePlato´s definition of morality is suspect in large part because of the view that one’s morality is defined by their ability to play a role in society. Plato’s argument is flawed because he fails to acknowledge that one’s behavior and actions dictate their morality, or at the very least play a significant role in defining it. Plato defines this in his own words by saying "every individual has to do just one of the jobs relevant to the community, the one for which his nature has best equipped him" (140). This quote comes in the context of Plato making his case about how one’s morality is solely based on whether or not that person fulfilled their respective duty in society. Here he explains that every individual has a specific duty, and that their physical and mental makeup is the way it is to play their role in society.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with Socrates’s definition of morality, is the fact that his model makes morality something that can vary from person to person simply depending on how their mind works. In reality, morality is more of a social construct used to try and enhance the living conditions of a community as a whole, yet Socrates does not take this into consideration. Morals in and of themselves come from groups of people who share similar beliefs and work to uphold them, so what is or is not considered moral depends on the community. Some people might believe it is immoral to take your neighbor's goods, but in another society, this might just be considered sharing. A moral action is only moral if the majority of people who it affects believe it is indeed moral. Based on Socrates’s definition, if a person’s whole mind is working together and their rational mind guides it all, something is not immoral. Even stealing could be justified as moral as long as someone’s mind is all in agreement; however, as a society, we have agreed that stealing is immoral, which overrules one person’s idea and makes the act immoral. Simply because one’s mind functions properly, does not mean they are acting morally, today’s definition of morality goes beyond this and takes the final outcome of someone’s actions on an overall community, into account.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem with his argument focuses on the fact that he believes immoral people are not mentally healthy and therefore cannot be happy. Based on Socrates’s definition we offered up several justifiable premises in class: if someone is moral, their mind is properly functioning, if immoral, the opposite is true. We also stated that if someone’s mind is properly functioning then they are healthy. Both of these are valid statements using Socrates’s definition. However, two other premises we created through Socrates’s logic are just not true. The first, saying how if you are not moral you cannot be happy, can be disproven if an example can show that this is not always true. Earlier in one of their conversations about whether or not morality was ever in someone’s best interest, the point was made that a person who immorally cheated and did not pay their taxes would have more money and be happier than his moral neighbor. In this case, this immoral person is indeed happy proving the premise invalid. The second premise we created, saying how someone with an unhealthy mind cannot be happy, is false based on the same logic that since all fish swim, anything that swims is a fish. Even if it is true that immoral people are unhealthy mentally, there is not a direct correlation between this kind of mental health and happiness.