Morality Is Relative to Ones Socio-Cultural and Religious Paradigms and Needs to Be Perceived Objectively - Essay Example

Morality is relative to one’s socio-cultural and religious paradigms and needs to be perceived objectively Various philosophers like Aristotle, Kant, Hume etc. have promoted philosophies vis-à-vis ideologies and concept of living a moral and ethical life. According to different philosophers, the moral and ethical considerations within one’s life are important paradigms for a happy and contented life. The life’s long term goals are closely linked to moral and ethical conduct of the individuals and therefore become critical elements of individuals’ life. Due to wide disparity of ideas and ideologies across different race, culture, religion and region, the human behavior is subject to one’s approach and understanding of the issue. Indeed, broader ramifications of one’s morality and ethical behavior are significantly influenced by his socio-religious compulsions. Thus, morality becomes highly debatable and objective issue within the field of philosophy that is interpreted and rationalized differently by different individuals. Philosophy is intrinsic part of life which people exhibit through their actions and reactions to events in their life. The wisdom and individual perspective to various issues and aspects of one’s life reflects the individual’s philosophy. Each individual responds to other people and circumstances as per his values and principles based on his socio cultural and religious paradigms. Many of these values are imbibed through associations and peer relations, while others are evolved through personal experiences. These values become critical aspects of one’s life while determining the standards of good and bad things that help him in making informed choices. In the contemporary environment of rapid globalization, the wide diversity of socio-cultural and religious paradigms often results in diverse ethical and moral practices across different societies. People coming from different cultural background may endorse different ideologies and views regarding issues and their actions are good or bad would depend on the moral norms and value system of their culture. These become vital considerations for moral dilemmas in the contemporary times of multicultural societies. Thus, understanding of cross cultural value system is encouraged within and outside the society so that moral and ethical dilemma could be resolved easily and amicably. Interestingly, philosophers assert that morality and ethics could be different but the wider ratifications of the same are designed to have similar outcome which is to ensure that happiness is the result. Morality can broadly be described by rationalizing one’s actions and evaluating whether one is inflicting evil on others or having adverse impact on their happiness. Emmanuel Kant has emphatically claimed that moral obligations are imperatives and his two Rules define the categorical imperatives: Rules of Universality; and Rules of Respect1. The first one exhorts that people at all time must act appropriately in the wider welfare of people in general. The second rule promotes the value of respect and says that well being of all individuals is important and therefore, one should not use others for their own vested interests. The actions must maximize happiness for maximum number of people. Then again, the concept of happiness vis-à-vis moral behavior and ethics is also relative to one’s philosophy of life. Aristotle insists that happiness is attainable and would be reflected in the way people would lead their life in their old age. If they are in good health and have healthy family life which facilitates them to be contented, then they are happy. Aristotle’s idea of happiness therefore, is long drawn picture of life that emphasizes on quality of life rather than short spurt of pleasures. It endorses moral and ethical values which would greatly enhance the happiness of man in his or her old age. He affirms that ‘there is required not only complete virtue, but also a complete life’2. He believes that ultimate happiness is not relative but same for all. He further elaborates and says that ‘happiness is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else…. is something final and self-sufficient… He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life’3. Aristotle strongly believes that happiness is the vital paradigm of one’s life that is significantly influenced by one’s moral and ethical actions. The major determinants of happiness of one’s life therefore heavily rely on the good and ethically right actions. While I agree with Aristotle’s concept of happiness, I am skeptic of his philosophy because it is not often that people act from the perspective of reaping good results in their old age! People need to understand and rationalize their actions as per the wider welfare of other people. They need to make conscientious decisions based on informed choice and values which are intended to increase people’s welfare or at-least do not adversely influence their well being. Kantian’s philosophy of maximum happiness is much more realistic because it takes into considerations the metaphysical and epistemological considerations of one’s actions. It makes efforts to interpret events and issues as per the wider empirical consideration of our experiences of conscious and unconscious manifestations of our being. Indeed, Kant’s moral philosophy is highly pertinent because he emphasizes that people rationalize their actions according to what they deem as morally good. He asserts that morality is dependent on rational will of the person and decisions must be made on principles that are generally acceptable to people at large. He endorses the philosophy that one must act in a manner which one would expect others to act towards oneself. In the ‘Metaphysics of morals’, Kant has discussed the ethical obligation. He has espoused the theory of categorical imperatives that have universal appeal and authenticity because they are founded on the rationality that govern our actions. Onora O’Neill has justifiably interpreted this as ‘Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end’4. It explores the human behavior on the wider context of human relationship based on moral and ethical values. The persons are not just a means to an end but they are an end itself which encourages one to develop more honest dealings with each other rather than promote exploitation. Thus, Kantian philosophy calls for accountability based on our ethical obligations. Utilitarianism is another important philosophical paradigm which is based on the consequences of actions that are good. Early philosophers like Aristotle have focused on happiness and assert that it is something that is universally accepted as good. Therefore utilitarian philosophy advocates that one’s judgment is good if one’s actions produce happiness for oneself and others. Jeremy Bentham, an eighteenth century thinker, had based his utilitarian philosophy on morality and justified actions. According to Act Utilitarian of Bentham, ‘when choosing a course of action, one should always pick the one that will maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness for the greatest number of people’5. Thus actions that intensify pain are morally wrong and people at all time must take heed of this. Kantian ethics and utilitarianism are important pillars of modern philosophers’ thoughts which have made a great contribution in interpreting human behavior and actions. Both the philosophies promote the importance of actions based that are universally accepted as good. But their major disagreement is in the ‘means’ through which the ‘end’ is achieved. Kantian ethics emphasize on the morally correct actions and ethical obligations as the basis for human interaction. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, stresses the fact that the action must result in happiness to the majority of the people. In businesses also, ethically correct practices encourage dissemination of correct information to various stakeholders. Violation of academic trust through plagiarism, falsifying information or aiding and abetting in any of the reprehensible activities are now serious offences and they are considered as totally unacceptable conduct in all areas of work. The moral objectivity is one of the most critical factors of contemporary society. The wide diversity of socio-cultural and religious paradigms within the emerging new formats of multicultural societies across the world has greatly altered the perception of right and wrong. What could be easily deciphered as ‘wrong’ within the western society could be construed as ‘right’ for others coming from different value system. Indeed, polygamy is normal in Moslem culture but it is morally and legally wrong in West. Thus, morality of actions does become relative to one’s value system and needs to be understood from the wider perspective of cross cultural understanding. The relative objectivity of morally and ethically right actions broadly caters to the fact that the end justifies the means if the actions are able to generate happiness for people at large. It confers that ethics promotes value based conduct that helps one to lead a worthy life leading to happiness. At the same time, one could never deliberately choose evil and therefore it can be correctly concluded that one would always make efforts to choose things and actions that are good. Thus, it can be concluded that morality is relative and needs to be perceived objectively for rational outcome of actions. (words: 1489) Read More