Sympathy and Morality - Term Paper Example

Sympathy and Morality Introduction Sympathy and empathy are two different terms usually used with same meanings. While sympathy is the act or power of sharing the feelings of another, empathy is the identification with and understanding of anothers situation, feelings, and motives etc (Robin, 2009). In any case both sympathy and empathy are definitely connected with morality which is concerned with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong (Morality, n. d). Even though morality has different dimensions with respect to religion, politics, culture etc, generally it is associates with some kind of code of conduct for a social cohesion. Morality and its meanings have changed a lot in the current world. It is entirely different from the concepts formulated by Immanuel Kant and Socrates like philosophers. Commercialization has intruded into the whole areas of human life and the moral domain is also not an exception. Change is happening in all the segments of human life because of the rapid advancements in technology and innovations. The increased influence of these changes has forced human to change even the moral rules. Hume argues that sympathy (or empathy) is the way in which other people’s concerns become reasons for us. On the other hand, Kant argues that sympathy alone cannot be a motive for morally worthy actions. Then what are the other motives which can affect the morally worthy actions apart from sympathy? This paper analyses the relationship of sympathy with morality and then tries to identify certain other domains which may contribute to morally worthy actions. Relationship with sympathy and morality Our moral evaluations of persons and their character traits arise from our sentiments. Moral sentiments are emotions with a unique phenomenological quality, and also with a special set of causes. They are caused by contemplating the person or action to be evaluated without regard to our self-interest, and from a common or general perspective that compensates for any distortion in the observers sympathies resulting from physical or temporal closeness to or distance from the person judged, or extra degrees of resemblance (Humes Moral Philosophy, 2004) Human by birth itself inherited with good and evil. In other worlds the emotions of human are a mixture of the traits of animals and angels. When he exhibits more of the angel side we call him as a person who follows certain moral rules. On the other hand when he demonstrates the characters of the animals, we judge him as an immoral person. Sympathy is the concern of others which arises from our inner hearts. Only a person who has the awareness about the moral laws will be able to develop sympathy like emotions. For example, the Holy Bible has cited the example of Good Samaritan to explain morality. Even the preachers of moral laws failed to help the injured person because of their lack of sympathy towards him. On the other hand, the Good Samaritan has developed sympathy when he has seen the pathetic conditions of the injured person and has given him the necessary treatment out of sympathy by spending money from his pocket. The Good Samaritan has n worry at all in sacrificing his self interest for the sake of the injured person.The above example clearly states that sympathy can lead towards morally worthy actions. All human beings, regardless of their differences, are generally similar in body and in their possession of parallel passions. The observed or considered person and myself may further resemble one another in more specific shared features such as character or nationality. Because of the resemblance and my contiguity to the observed person, the idea of his passion is associated in my mind with my impression of myself, and acquires great vivacity from it. The sole difference between an idea and an impression is the degree of liveliness or vivacity each possesses. So great is this acquired vivacity that the idea of his passion in my mind becomes an impression, and I actually experience the passion. When I come to share in the affections of strangers, and feel pleasure because they are pleased, as I do when I experience an aesthetic enjoyment of a well-designed ship or fertile field that is not my own, that pleasure of mine can only be caused by sympathy (Humes Moral Philosophy, 2004) Mother Teresa, the Nobel Prize winner who was born in Albania has acquired the Indian citizenship and worked for the development of leprosy patients across India. She has established an organization called Missionaries of Charities which is operating in more than 120 countries at present. Mother has taken the pain and sufferings of others as her own and has showered immense sympathy and mercy towards the sick and needy people not only across the Indian streets, but across the world as well. Mother has realized that all the humans regardless of their skin color or gender differences are similar in their body and possessions. She has concluded that the emotions of the entire human also have these similarities. Because of the above philosophy, mother has not found anything different in the feelings of human being. She has derived pleasure out of helping others because she found herself in others. This kind of pleasure deriving is possible only for those with immense sympathy towards others. Sympathy is a natural trait. The presence and absence of sympathy are the source of our approval and disapproval of others (Hawthornes Theory of Moral Sentiments, n. d). Everybody likes to have the sympathy of others. But while returning it, the case is entirely different. In other words, everybody wants to be assisted by others when they are in need. But even the same person who received favors from others may not return it. The difference in views about morality is the barrier for such people in helping others. Moral disapproval prevents human contact with the person of whom one disapproves. It does so in two ways: First, such disapproval is essentially hostile in nature and, consequently, tends to prompt the person disapproved of to withdraw from the one who does the disapproving. Second, it constricts the apparent identity of the object of the disapproval to features with which it is impossible to sympathize (Hawthornes Theory of Moral Sentiments, n. d) Hume has argued that sympathy (or empathy) is the way in which other people’s concerns become reasons for us. Hume was right in his argument as in the absence of sympathy, nobody will think of others. The needs of others may not be considered seriously by us if we don’t have sympathy or empathy. But sympathy alone may not be the motive for morally worthy actions in Kant’s opinion. There other domains also which can lead us towards morality Other domains which may contribute to morally worthy actions Apart from sympathy morality is concerned with faithfulness, truthfulness and Honesty. Moreover, it has direct relationship with the actions and the consciousness of a person. If a person who had lot of sympathy towards others failed to keep honesty and faithfulness in his life, he cannot be considered as a moral person. For example, in our society we have lot of examples in which even good and sympathetic people failed to keep honesty towards their partners. Former American president, Bill Clinton who was supposed to be a sympathetic person compared to George Bush, failed to keep honesty in his family life. We cannot consider Mr. Clinton as a moral person even though he is still engaged in lot of social activities. So, sympathy alone may not be enough for labeling one person as a moral person. Consciousness is another domain of morality. Some people perform the ritual of animal sacrifices in order to get salvation. The holy Bible says Abraham has performed animal sacrifices to get favors from God. In other words, animal sacrifice or killing of animal is not a morally wrong act for the Abrahamic religions, Christians, Muslims and the Jews. On the other hand, most of the Hindus, Budhists, and the Jains are against the killing of animals. Hindus consider cow as eve their God. So in Hindu’s perspectives, killing of any living thing is an immoral action whereas the Abrahamic religions identify nothing wrong in it. In other words, morality has strong association with consciousness. Another major factor which determines morality is the religious principles. As mentioned in the above example, same actions could be perceived differently by different religions. For example, Hindus worship several Gods. They are making the statues of several Gods and worship them all. On the other hand Christians are against the belief of the existence of more than one God. Moreover they are against the worshiping of statues. For them statues are the creations of the human whereas the humans are the creations of God. Creations can never be the God of the creators. In that sense worshipping of the statues is prohibited in Christian religion. Thus religions principles and beliefs have a major role in defining morality. Actions are another entity which has relationship with morality. All actions may not bring the goods always. In fact we regret for some of the actions performed in the past. Actions which make us regret can be termed as immoral actions. For example, consider a person has stolen some money when he faced poverty. The above action can haunt him even if he became wealthy person later in his life. At the time of robbing the money, he may not think about the moral side of his action because of the urgency of the situation. Actions are the driving forces of morality. Many people has criticized American stand against Iran’s nuclear experiments and the enrichment of Uranium. America argues that Iran’s efforts were intended for making nuclear bombs which are harmful to the global peace. On the other hand, America conveniently forgets about their possession of huge nuclear weapons while accusing Iran. In other words, America’s arguments do not have the support of morality. On the other hand, a country like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia can accuse Iran for their actions because these countries do not have nuclear weapons and they have the moral right to accuse Iran. In short, action is an important entity which determines morality. Muslim men can marry more than one woman in their life. They can easily divorce their wives citing some silly arguments. Islamic law has not seen anything wrong in divorcing a female and marrying another female. On the other hand, Christians strictly argues for single wife philosophy. In their opinion, those who marry another woman or engage in sexual relations ship with a woman other than his wife is committing adultery, a serious offense against the Christian principles. “Jesus himself said, "You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed” (Sin of adultery 7 Articles, 2009) Immanuel Kant has defined morality in terms of certain norms which he referred as “categorical imperatives”. Categorical imperatives are principles which are intrinsically valid and also good in and of themselves. It must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe the moral law. It is an unconditional obligation and has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires (Kant: The Moral Order) Kant believed that human being has a special place in the creations of God and morality is the core of every actions or duties performed by human being. As per the Kantian theory of universal law formulation (ULF) "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." In other words maxims be chosen only if they may true everywhere. Another perspective of ULF is "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." (Categorical Imperative) Conclusions Kant was successful in incorporating many dimensions to morality; but Hume has focused mainly on sympathy while defining morality. Sympathy is definitely the foundation of moral actions; but sympathy alone does not guarantee morality. Morality is a multifaceted entity as per Kant which needs truthfulness, faithfulness, commitment to consciousness, supportive actions etc. References 1. Categorical Imperative. Retrieved on 08 December 2009 from http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~hedmonds/lecture%20notes/kant%20lecture%20notes.htm 2. Hawthornes Theory of Moral Sentiments, (n. d), Retrieved on 08 December 2009 from http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/HAWTHORN.htm 3. Humes Moral Philosophy, (2004), Retrieved on 08 December 2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/ 4. Kant: The Moral Order, Retrieved on 08 December 2009 from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm 5. Morality, (n. d), Retrieved on 08 December 2009 from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=morality 6. Robin, (2009), Grammar Mishaps: Sympathy vs. Empathy, Retrieved on 08 December 2009 from http://hubpages.com/hub/Sympathy_vs_Empathy 7. Sin of adultery 7 Articles(2009), Retrieved on 08 December 2009 from http://www.helium.com/knowledge/128891-sin-of-adultery Read More