How Should One Decide What Is Wrong and What Is Right - Essay Example

How should one decide what is wrong and what is right? How people’s moral perspective of wrong or right is determined hasoften been described as a moral compass in the sense that anything that works as a guideline for people’s decisions mainly based on virtues and morals is what is described as the moral compass. This can be anything from website or book advice from a religion or person. However, the use and application of the moral compass most commonly usage lies in our conscience. Thus, our moral choices of right or wrong are mainly triggered by an inner sub-consciousness and almost continuous dependency on the way that inner compass works. This paper will discuss how one should decide what is wrong and what is right. It will also compare the views of Plato and Kant and give the preference that I choose with the reasons to support it. Comparing and contrasting the views of Plato with those of Kant shows that the basic features and arguments in the moral philosophy. As proposed by Kant’s ideology, moral issues are mainly (rule based) or deontological and normative in nature. They are mainly concerned with forming the differences between wrong, right, and making moral rules, as compared to practical ethics that for example mostly highlight people’s moral issues, while trying to decide what the correct ethical answer could be. Values autonomy proposes that people can never be used to justify an end to a means that is even if it is for a greater good; people cannot be manipulated or killed while proposing that in ethical situations rationality is the key to making the correct choices. The fact that this theory offers people a relatively simple decision-making procedure that can be implemented while making ethical decisions, and its criticism for lacking emotion and being rigid has often seen Kant’s ideology receive global praise (Hooker 65). Plato’s ethics, by contrast, are eudemonistic and virtue-based just like most philosophers in ancient Greek. The ethics of the ancient Greek never got involved much with how people should behave as compared to how they should live. They instead got involved more with well-being or wisdom as compared to morality. Works of philosophers like Plato are mainly concerned with how people’s lives could be happier as compared to sorting out the main difference between the right and wrong morality issues. Their aim was more on how to meet eudemonia, which for any human is the optimal state of being, and help others attain it as well. A belief they all shared was that being a good person was necessary for achieving this. They were for the idea that eudemonia could be attained through eliminating vices and nurturing various virtues (Mackenzie, 88). Virtue ethics therefore is about creating a character that is strong. This usually involves nurturing typical moral characteristics like compassion and bravery, (but it can also entail creating aspects such as excellence at winemaking or cobbling). In the modern sense, when people started viewing it as an ethical theory, developing good character has been argued as allowing an individual to act accordingly without putting much thought to it in the sense that the character becomes instinctive. Its better, therefore, to focus on becoming a good person rather than thinking rationally about right or wrong in any situation. One of the main differences between Kantian and platonic ethics is that Kant proposes that the ideal way of making good decisions in life is through taking time and rationally thinking about them (Korsgaard 360). Plato’s view, on the other hand, argues that usually there is no time for stopping to think every time we are faced with an important decision. Mostly, we have to depend on instincts. Therefore, they ought to be our main focus. One will act the right way by training to be a good person without having to think much about it. With this in mind, Plato like the other ancient Greek philosophers was very proud of rationality. It is important to note that Kantian virtues and ethics are not equally exclusive. Rational examining of moral situations in the Kantian practice can be an important tool in virtue development. The focus of each theory brings out their main differences. One analyzes the person while the other the person’s action. A fairly Platonic virtue ethic can be adopted by a person and decide that it is honorable to know the difference between what is morally right or wrong, and then use Kant’s categorical imperative to understand this. Plato, however, was not a strong supporter of autonomy. In the Republic, his ideal state is expounded on which he points out that the governing class has a say on everything people do, be it waging war, or how to live, and giving them little choice on the matter (Mackenzie 88). It is clear that both philosophers are rationalists. In my opinion this leaves the only difference to be on the fact that in the mental rationality, Kant locates and finds good from a higher being, while in Plato’s perspective, being good is a beings mind-independent form that makes the universe understandable, whether there are minds to understand it or not. Plato takes the matter/form, while Kant is on the head, a common metaphysical general difference, globally. After reviewing the two philosopher’s perspectives, I believe that Kant offers a more solid and simpler theory, as compared to Plato’s, which is hard to understand and it is clear that he probably does not mean what he is verbally portraying. I support Kant’s View because his theory is motivated by his belief that it is not only within the power of human beings, but also possible for people to do the right thing and avoid wrongdoing. If one has good intentions and does a right act, he should be credited for that. On the other hand, if someone had the right intention but consequently did a wrong act, they should not be blamed for that. When a person has bad intentions but ends up doing the right deed, he should not be credited for that. When he has a bad intention and does a wrong act, he should be blamed for that. Therefore, Kant’s view is applicable in a real life situation, therefore, I support it. Work cited Korsgaard, Christine M. "The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil." Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory (2012): 360. Mackenzie, Mary Margaret. "Platos moral theory."Journal of medical ethics 11.2 (1985): 88. Hooker, Brad. "Kant’s Normative Ethics." Richard Journal of Philosophy 1 (2002): 65. Read More