The Moral Examples of Good and Bad - Essay Example

Morality of actions is one of the important aspects of moral philosophy dealing with the way we perceive morality of the actions and their consequences. There are different approaches, which deal with how we may negotiate with different actions and their morality. However, underlying principles may be different for each approach. What is also significantly important to understand that individual and collective responses to each action and to judge that action’s moral standing is deeply rooted into the generally held beliefs of rationality of individuals and the society as a whole? This paper will present a moral principle based on the moral examples of good and bad and to make its comparison with Utilitarianism and Kant’s principles of moral philosophy. Moral Examples Morality of actions define whether an action is considered as morally correct or not therefore it is important that some practical examples of actions which can be considered as good or not are presented. In this section, I will enumerate three examples each of actions which can be considered as morally right or wrong. Following are the examples which can be considered as morally right: 1. War on terrorism is one action which to me is a morally correct action. 2. Giving one’s blood as donation is an example wherein individuals, without any significant benefits provide their blood to save lives. 3. Donation of Organs such as Kidneys and eyes is one action which is morally correct and right to me. Following are the examples of action which can be morally wrong: 1. Buying and selling Human organs for trade purposes. 2. Submitting wrong or false documents. 3. Reporting false or wrong information in financial statements of a company. Moral Principle Above examples indicate that the morality of each of the actions described above are based on their relative connection with the individual perception of good and bad. Individuals may perceive and internalize the truth according to their own mental perception of how they view and process the facts from moral perspectives. The underlying moral principle which I believe can succinctly define above actions is the relativistism of these actions with good or bad. Actions can be considered as good or bad based on the way they are related with acceptable ways of doing things. I, therefore, believe that my underlying moral principle based on the above actions is related with relativistim of actions with acceptable norms and values. For example, war in its strictest sense may be morally wrong, however, considering the circumstances around 9/11 event and loss of innocent lives, it may be a morally justified war because it is based on a contextual point of reference. The moral principle described above therefore is a direct derivative of the examples mentioned above. The basic underlying principles of Utilitarianism advocate on the utility of the actions regardless of their consequences, therefore, any action under utilitarianism is considered as morally right, which can create greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is regardless of the fact the consequences of the action may not be entirely favorable or good, and it was because of this reason that utilitarianism endorses actions, which have significantly different consequences for minority. My principle is similar to the utilitarianism in the sense that both the principles endorse actions, which can be harmful to the society as a whole. For example, illegal organ trade can be harmful or unethical for a society given the fact that it will lessen the number of people who can produce greatest good for the greatest number of people, i.e. it is assumed that if healthy and able persons are forced to trade their organs, society will face the shortage of the able and skilled labor force. Similarly war on terror is an action which may be endorsed by both the principles because it is waged in order to save countless innocent lives and is morally right because it is done in order to purge the world from those elements which may be a threat to the future of the free world. However, my moral principle is different from Utilitarianism in the sense that it considers the consequences of the actions also. If an action can have significantly different consequences, my principle will reject it as morally correct action. For example, trade of human organs can benefit patients however; this practice may involve the exploitation of poor and needy. As such the overall consequences of organ trade can be detrimental for the society as a whole. Kant’s basic arguments are based on the morality of actions based on rationality and any actions, which deviate from the categorical imperative. Thus the moral duty of individuals is one of the basic assumptions behind the philosophy of Kant, and all actions are judged as to how these actions supports the moral duty of an individual. My moral principle of viewing the actions of individuals relatively therefore is similar to this principle that both the principles endorse those actions which are moral obligations or duties of individuals and are based on rationality. Rationality is the bases of the actions to judge the morality of the actions. However, my principle is dissimilar to Kantianism in the sense that it does not endorse unconditional obligations as it is based on the relativitism of the actions and view them in a particular context. One of the objections which I believe may be made against the moral principle outlined above may include the assumption that moral obligations of actions shall not be judged from a particular perspective. Judging actions relatively therefore may limit their universal applicability, and each person may take actions, which may seem ethical to him under different circumstances. For example, selling one’s children in poor countries is a common practice because parents cannot afford to raise them is a clear example indicating that it may be morally right for such parents to sell their children given the circumstances they may be going through. However, on the other hand, such practice may outline the failure of State and society as a whole that people are not been able to support their children and are resultantly selling them as commodities. Second objection that may be raised against this moral principle is the relative definition of good and bad. Viewing actions relatively may underlie that individual may perceive good or bad according to his own understanding and regardless of the well established principles as set by the society. This objection can be critical given the fact that it may highlight inherent weaknesses of the principle and may outline the potential ways in which individuals perceive good or bad. To reply to this objection, it is to be noted that my principle sees every individual as a separate and unique individual that has already formed his mature and solid opinions and understanding about the world. He shares the same universal understanding about the good and bad however, the actions that he takes are based on the individual circumstances that are faced by that individual at a particular given time. Thus the universality of understanding is assumed in this principle, which is based on rationality and rational opinions developed over the period of time and according to the circumstances in which an individual or a society as a whole developed itself over the period of time. As discussed above that this moral principle will judge the actions of individuals according to the circumstances faced by everyone or society as a whole therefore the moral issue of abortion shall also be viewed within this perspective. If individual parents or woman believe that she can carry out the responsibility of bringing up the child and can provide necessary facilities required by a child to grow as a healthy and mentally fit individual, she may not go for abortion. However, if the individual circumstances of a person are such that they may not allow that person to take the responsibility of feeding the child and taking care of the child with absolute certainty than abortion may be a plausible option. This shall also be viewed from the perspective of how society contributes towards accepting such children and whether it comes forward to help single parents to take care of their children or not. If the State is a welfare State and guarantees that education, food, shelter and health facilities will be provided to each citizen than again abortion may not be a viable option and may be morally incorrect. Thus individual circumstances as well as the role of society plays a greater role in contributing towards making a decision by the individual mother, whether to go for abortion or not. The moral strength of the action therefore will be viewed from this perspective. It is also assumed here that fetus is not considered as a fully grown human until born therefore my argument refers to newly born child. It is assumed that fetus will be normal and a normal human being will be given birth and subsequently if a person adapts the route of abortion, it not be considered as the killing a human being rather it will be considered as separation of fetus from human body as a result of abortion. Morality of actions is based upon the way individual or society is faced with the unique circumstances. In different situations, same actions can lead to different conclusions about the overall morality of these actions. This paper and underlying moral principle discussed in this paper therefore discusses the manner each individual is faced with a given situation. For example, if an individual does not have the resources to feed their children and may find it difficult to give birth to new children, it may become moral for them to adapt the abortion. However, if despite having the resources to bring up the children and then choosing the option of abortion may consider the same action as immoral because despite favorable circumstances adapting a route which can result into the loss of an innocent life can be unethical action. Read More