Digging into the past
I often find myself in the position of wanting to looking into thoughts I’ve had in the past and their relevances to here and now. Looking back at some of the sites I once frequented, I stumbled across an old article I wrote on a Xanga site about morality and its meanings in our society. I found it interesting that so many years ago, as an undergrad, my interests in human morality came to such a decisive conclusion - a conclusion I can still relate with even to this day (although I may not agree with it). Here is the article for the benefit of those who can understand it:
———————————————————————————
While I’m not entirely partial to philosophers or their ilk, I’ve come to accept my fate as a student, and in having enrolled in Philosophy 6-Introduction to Political Philosophy, I have been subjected to the thoughts and minds of the “greatest thinkers of all time.” What have I come to find? That the common thread of humanity in thought and perversion and morals and even in persuasion are much less a thread than a rope, and in this metaphorical rope are tied society, history, culture, and other influences of environment are so closely gripping the conclusions of these minds.
Just my luck, as I happened to be taking a classes in Engineering History, its topic of course being the history of engineer from a moral and ethical perspective. What happens if the great philosophical standpoints on morals could somehow be merged into a coherent idea universally applicable to all of human kind? Well, let us first touch on the idea of egoism - the egocentric code of morals that states humankind should act upon their own passions (motives in 18th century english) without regard for the consequences it might bear upon their immediate society or perhaps even global society in general. Many philosophers suggest that such a state of existance would bear fruitless savagery that could not have lead to the great civilization that lay before us. Having this thought to hold, we embark on Utiliatarianism, the great teleological idea that humankind should act in favor of that which best benefits the greatest amount of people through various decision processes like that of “cost benefit analysis.” To this Kant responded by adding that humankind must act in a way that is universally acceptable amongst all of its kind, that is, to act deontologically.
Of course, I am no philosopher, (perhaps because I see that philosophy is more the politics of persuasion than the art of reflection) but I do sense a function of humanity that might somehow fit through all these historically accepted ideas, and to beast explain my idea, let me now suggest the following equation:
MORALITY = EGO = UTILITY
Who am I to bring up such a conclusion? I am one unit of a species of countless reflective creatures with the skill and authority of mind to be partial to any belief I will so, but not so to impose such an idea upon any other unit. This given, I here concede to objections but will not object to concession. To follow, let me draw a sketch for those who are adventurous.
(Here I follow what as been popularly done in classical works, but only briefly.) Suppose that in some natural state of order, (here I assume that nature is in order as most scientists would believe) man has found himself with the ability to live left to his own devices and as such is able to defend himself against the beasts of nature that are set to prey on him. Suppose that in this precarious situation, he were to stumble upon another of his kind in need of assistance, let’s say this one other were being chase by a wolf. In this situation there are two obvious possibilities: 1) He sees the wolf is stronger than himself but nevertheless risks endangering himself or the faculty of health that he is so reliant on to assist is fellow man. To this man we would deem the word “courageous,” in in satisfying his ego for courage, he benefits the weak and in a way deemed morally correct. 2) He is intimidated by the wolf and flees, hoping to spare himself of danger. Here, it shall be objected by most that in his passion for life, in his satisfaction of ego, he has sacrificed the well-being of another and has therefore forfeited any possibility of morality. To this I ask what would this fleeing man then do? Pick fruit and wander the forest as if the event were somehow inurgent? No. He would of course flee to the nearest village or gathering of his kind. (We know humankind is capable of society by experience and the chicken and egg question of morality and society will be avoided here.) In fear of another ambush by wolves, he would alert the village and in a cooperative effort, he would have slain the beast through the assistance of others. Here ego is satisfied, morality is so in the warning of others and utility of his society is then so reached.
Morality is acting on the premise of that which benefits man is that which benefits his society.
- LW