The Notion of Moral Saints - Essay Example

Philosophy Moral Saints Many philosophical explanations of how human beings should relate with one another have evolved. The attempt of the various theories of morals is to construct a moral identity that would suit personal life and guide people on doing good and bad in the society. While theories have expressed the need for human beings to strive to live a saintly life, others have argued that it is impossible for human beings to live an idea life like that of a saint. Notably, it would be practically impossible to live a saintly life in the world. Therefore, human beings should not strive to live a saintly life but should instead strive to treat the humanity fairly and with reverence. The role that morality should play in our lives is a topic that garnered attention from many philosophers. Wolf (419-439) is among the scholars who focused on the way human beings apply morals on their life. She states that human beings should not strive to live a saintly life as this was be too good to the extent of denying themselves happiness. She advises that human beings should treat others not as a means but an end. The implication of this is that people should strive to be happy and make other happy by treating them fairly and with respect. For instance, they should do as much good as possible, save lives and avoid killing. This coincides with the idea of Mill that human beings should strive to save lives as failing to do so is tantamount to killing (Bendle 36). On this note, there is a concession that good actions should not be in striving to saints but in treating others in a fair manner for mutual happiness. Human beings should weigh their private or personal projects on the way their consequences on others. Wolf (429) agrees with the idea of Mill that rational moral would guide people in their actions with one another. Mill proposed the principle of utilitarianism in determining the morality of actions in the society (Bendle 40). In his argument, human beings should weigh their actions on the consequences they have on the people whom they affect. In the principle of utilitarianism, the best action is one whose consequences do overall good to the society. This is similar to the idea of Wolf that one should do as much good as is possible, unlike the absolute saints who should strive to do good only. On the other hand, this contradicts the idea proposed by Kantianism on the universality of moral laws that bind each person. Kant proposes that each person must do act according to the moral laws. For instance, if lying is bad it remains bad in whatsoever situations (Rolf 598). However, Mill and Wolf seem to appreciate the fact that a lie would be good if its consequences to the people are to the good of the majority. The idea of Kant seems to uphold the virtue of a saintly life, whereas Mill and Wolf seem more reasonable and agree that an action is right as wrong as its consequences are good in the society. The question of whether the best life is one in which one acts in accordance with morality is a controversial issue. Kant regards the best life as one in which human beings abides to the universal moral principles (Rolf 596). Since there are a set of universal morality laws that dictate whether an action is good or bad, then Kant sees as the best life as one in which one obeys these autonomous laws. However, Wolf (420-422) suggests that living a life that agrees with moral laws would be a sad life. She sees this as the same as trying to become a saint, which is an ideal life of human beings. A saint strives to obey all the moral laws and strives to do good to other people even if it means a disfavor in them. Wolf sees this as a miserable life that would be too good to be true. Mill supports the idea of Wolf by stating the harm principle that requires a person not to harm themselves by their own actions. On this note, it is clear that the best life would be a life in which one follows morality with a limit such that this obedience does not cause harm in their lives. An objection the idea that human beings should not strive to live saintly lives is likely to arise. One may object on the ground that considering personal happiness may lead to selfish behavior among people. Normally, human beings are likely to consider their happiness as more important than that of others. However, it is crucial to consider the balance that exists between personal interest and that of others. The utilitarianism theory by requires that one consider themselves as part of the larger crowd. While weighing actions it is possible to consider the good of the majority and not a person Mill (Bendle 40). On this note, one should assess their actions by the impact they have on others. If an action has positive impact on a person and negative consequences on others then this action is wrong. This limits the abuse of liberty and provides an opportunity for fair treatment of the majority of the people. Therefore, acting for the good of the majority would act against selfish motives in the society. In conclusion, human beings should use morality to achieve fairness in the community and to treat fellow human beings as an end not as a means to an end. Human beings should judge the correctness of their actions on the way the consequence they have. Wolf and Mill agree that the right actions are those that do well to the majority of the people in the society. Therefore the best life is not one in which human beings pursue morals in order to live a saintly life, but one in which human beings use morals to guide their actions hut one in which that makes themselves and other happy. A saintly life would be too good to be real and would hinder personal happiness. While one may object this position by considering human beings as selfish creatures, the utilitarianism objects selfishness by judging actions based of their consequences and the way it affects the majority of the people. This principle supports the idea that an action will be right only if it is has positive consequences on the majority of the people in a group setting. Works Cited Bendle, Mervyn F. "On Liberty." Quadrant Magazine 53.12 (2009): 36-43. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. Rolf, Sibylle. "Humanity As An Object Of Respect: Immanuel Kants Anthropological Approach And The Foundation For Morality." Heythrop Journal 53.4 (2012): 594-605. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. Wolf, Susan. Moral Saints. The Journal of Philosophy, 79(8), 1982. 419-439. Read More