The Origins of the Contemporary Political Ideologies - Essay Example

Final paper due: Final paper Question 6 Psychological egoism is the thesis that all our intentions or actions are ultimately motivated by what we take to be in our self-interest. On the other hand, psychological altruism is the main opposing view to psychological egoism which means we act out of consideration of others and not our self-interest. Ethical egoism is a theory in which an individual takes the responsibility of performing an action with the best consequences regardless of the effects on other people. Ethical altruism refers to a philosophical doctrine of living for others rather than for oneself. Many ask where do we get our morals from or what is the basis of morality? The answers to this inquiry will be found in the discussion below in details. The basis for morality is naturally altruistic as Charles Darwin addresses it in the development of a moral sense. According to Rachel (1990) in his book Created from Animals and Waal (1996) in his book Good Natured, they claim our moral senses involve our fellow members of the animal kingdom. Rachel examines the nature of social instincts and the ways in which a three step process of morality allow for greater harmony among groups. The first step is the Kin altruism that involves showing special regard for one’s family members. The second step is the group altruism; its concern extends from one’s family to include those outside the family but still in the large group in which an individual belongs. The third step is the widespread altruism in which every member of one’s species is held to be worthy of regard (Rachel, 1990). Rachel gives an example of widespread altruism from a religious point of view. He recalls the story of The Good Samaritan, who belonged to a different social group that never got along well with its neighbors. The Good Samaritan chose to help the victimized Judean just as he would also like to be treated if found himself in the same situation. Waal (1996) brings into picture the concept of reciprocal altruism such that one treats others kindly with the expectation of being treated equally in the same situation. He introduces the principle of parsimony that says all of what constitutes to the morality of human beings can be determined by examining the social behavior of fellow primates closely (Waal, 1996). Therefore, people should be good to be of benefit to others and our environment. People should be good because everyone including ourselves flourishes as the dictates of pure reason impose the duty to act. Therefore, the principles on which we act can be universalized without any contradiction whatsoever. Whether we succeed depends on our skill in choosing actions that have good consequences as they are of utmost importance to oneself and others. The basis for morality is the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, which is considered right (Besant, 2013). Question 7 Ethics is a branch of Philosophy that seeks to understand and determine how human actions are judged whether to be right or wrong. Judgments are done based on our experiences and nature of principles. The basis of ethical decision-making is on certain theories that include consequentialism, deontologism, natural laws and virtue ethics theories. This section shall discuss on deontologist’s theory that is the most convincing explanation of the basis of human morality. Deontologism theory states that an act must be put into action because it is appropriate for everyone and conforms to the formal rules used for judging the rightness or wrongness of the act itself. In the theory, certain actions are always wrong even if the outcomes are admirable. The admiration of these actions is because they are judged independently of their outcome. Human beings have a unique capacity for rationality that no other living thing posses. This uniqueness is why human beings have the ability to act in accordance with and for the sake of the law or duty. Human emotions, inclinations, and consequences play no role in the moral action. The basis of the motivation behind an action is on the obligation that is well thought of before the action takes place. Human will determine the moral worth of an action. Goodwill is performed by acting according to the moral law, consisting of principles that are categorical in nature. A good deed is good not because of what it effects or performs, not by its suitability for the achievement of some proposed end. A good will is good by simply the volition, that is, it is good in and of itself (Morrison & Monagle, 2009). The first principle states that one should do duty for duty’s sake, that is, the intrinsic moral values of an action determines its rightness or wrongness. This principle does not indicate that the repercussions of acts are irrelevant for assessing those acts. For example, a teacher may have a duty to benefit a student. He may need to know what teaching consequences would result from various skills in order to determine what would and what would not benefit the student. Therefore, we see that consequences are what action is more in keeping with what is our duty and help us find our duty. The second principle states that humans should be treated as ends in themselves and never as mere means to some other end. Most ends are not verifiable in nature as they need one to continue with if they are in line with a demand of reason that is conditional. One must maintain a moral duty to seek an end that is equal for all people. The third moral principle is an imperative that is universal, that is, it must be applicable to everyone in the same moral situation. A will is not subject to any interest, but rather it is subject to the laws it makes for itself and in regard to others who follow the same laws (Morrison & Monagle, 2009). People ought to act only by rules that harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends. Deontologism theory puts all people in the same level and is characterized by universality while the overall non-moral good brought about by the distinction of performing an act by a particular person solely determines consequentialism. Humans have a natural drive to eat. An activity that would work against this would be to eat so much, so little or even lack of food therefore putting life in jeopardy. This kind of drive suggests that human beings have the capacity within themselves for actualizing their potential (Morrison & Monagle, 2009). The deontological theory requires one to choose patterns and actions that are desirable and beneficial to everyone as opposed to other theories that require one to perform actions that may be desirable only to oneself. Question 9 Social justice refers to the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. It is justice in terms of wealth and privileges within a society. There are several types of justice namely; distributive justice, procedural justice, restorative justice and retributive justice. Procedural justice involves amending and outing into practice decisions accordingly to fair processes that ensure fair treatment, while distributive justice concerns itself with giving all members of society a fair share of the benefits and resources available. We should try to attain procedural justice where rules must be impartially followed and consistently applied to generate an unbiased decision. There also are several theories of justice, which include; Mill’s utilitarianism, Rawl’s justice as fairness and Nozick’s libertarianism theories. This section shall discuss further on Mill’s utilitarian theory of justice. Utilitarians are among those who see no major divide between justice and morality. Social welfare is advocated for as everyone’s well-being is of moral interest and seems like a good way to ensure that everyone prospers to a minimal range. Utilitarians argue that people reduce the division between owners and workers who often engage in hostile relations by sharing profits with the workers. They also argue the promotion of greater equality of income. Those with much money do not get as much benefit from each additional dollar they get. Therefore, the rich people should be taxed to help the poor and resulting to greater goodness in the end. With rights, laws and government intervention maximizes goodness and minimizes evil in the form of suffering (Mill, Bentham, Austin, & Warnock, 2003). The theory advocates the right to own property because of various needs which property plays a role in fulfilling. Also, the property is needed to have stability in our day to day plans and also in the future. Properties including luxuries make people devastated when stolen. It also raises an alarm for the right to social welfare. Every individual has the right to a level of living to cater for the well-being of himself and his family needs. These needs include the basic needs, medical care and necessary social services. As mentioned earlier, utilitarians can justify greater income equality and redistribution of wealth can lead to greater income equality. Mill says that we should behave in a way that other rational beings can follow our actions, an aspect of justice, and good morals (Mill et al., 2003). In the above discussion, we observe that mill’s utilitarianism theory of justice is best preferable to Rawl’s and Nozick’s theories. The two theories, Rawl’s justice, and Nozick’s libertarian seem to agree in one way or the other. They both agree in the sense that justice is quite separate from morality while Mill’s theory sees justice as part of morality. Another reason for the preference would be because Rawl and Nozick agree that we have negative rights but no positive rights. Rawls disagree with utilitarians that economic inequality is justified if it maximizes happiness by providing rewards to being productive members of society. Mill’s idea of rights can include both positive and negative rights that can potentially help people have greater well-being of economy in the society. Question 11 John Stuart Mill defined individual right as something that is not only right to do and wrong not to do, but as something that some individual can claim from others as his moral right. According to him, an individual right can be legitimately demanded from a society that ought to defend a person in possession of what the right is amended to act on. Rights can include both positive and negative rights. Using both of these rights can potentially help people to have a greater well-being. Mill became one of the leading thinkers of liberal ideology by addressing the need for minimal state intervention in order to respect a person’s liberties. He stresses the importance of the individual and the need for the government not to hinder these liberties through paternalism. He proposes that individual liberty is necessary as a basis for a functional government and society. He comes up with a principle and calls it the ‘harm principle’ which denotes that an individual makes decisions and lives with the repercussions, and no one else should have to put up with those consequences. The sole end warranty for a person, either individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action is self-protection and cannot be compelled to do or forbear it will make him happier. I do agree with Mill as this shows that the interests of the individual are his. He argues that the authorities has no right to determine what is best for an individual. Any individual has the right to make decisions, whether right or wrong, from which he will gain knowledge of his actions. He also emphasizes that state interference would end up granting the state more power against the individuals and remove the liberties of mankind. Mill states that an individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as they concern the interests of no other person but himself (Kahan, 1992). There are no instances where the state would act as a fatherly figure to prevent an individual from doing harm unto himself. Instead, justified paternalism is allowed because there might be reasonable doubt for harm to occur to the general public. If the acts of an individual may be harmful to others or contradicts their welfare without necessarily violating their rights, then the individual may be justly punished but by the opinion of the society and not by law (Kahan, 1992). Justified paternalism only occurs when one intrudes the personal liberties of another upon consequential to the personal rights of others. It holds true for a person whose actions are found to cause direct harm unto another person. If a person acts according to what only concerns them, he should be allowed to carry out his practices at his cost. Therefore, coercing someone to overcome drug addiction that is not harmful to others is not justified. The person should be allowed to take the drugs because his will permits him to do so. This is so because the rules that prohibit the use of drugs were put forward by people. These people are those who have tried the drugs and decided not to engage in them and, therefore, prohibit the whole society from doing so. Although the prevention of these drugs is for the advantage of the whole community, it is not the will of the person to quit drugs. A drug-induced experience of one person may be completely different from a drug induced experience of another person. Coercing someone to overcome drug addiction would only be paternally justified in a case where there would be consequences of a drug addict causing harm to another person or violating their rights. Question 12 Marxism, anarchism, and fascism are systems in which societies operate from to carry out their function. Different societies use different systems. The section below shall discuss each of these three systems differently. 1. Marxism Marxism refers to a system of economic, social, and political philosophy based on ideas that view social change in terms of economic factors. Major economic criticism in Marxism revolved around the exploitation of the majority, the proletariat or workers, by the minority and the capitalists (Sargent, 2009). Below are advantages and disadvantages of Marxism: The following are the advantages of Marxism; it motivates and gives a history, philosophy, a strategy and tactics to working people to overcome their exploitation by the ruling class. Marxism accurately predicted that unemployment and business cycles would be lasting results of a capitalist system. On the other hand, the disadvantages of Marxism shows that it posits a dictatorship of the proletariat that is understandable considering the long history of counter-revolution by the ruling class against democratic workers. 2. Anarchism Anarchism refers to the political belief that there should be little or no formal organization to society, but people should work freely together. Anarchists claim that power corrupts and that human beings are capable of organizing their affairs without anyone exercising authority over others (Sargent, 2009). Below are the pros and cons of anarchism: Anarchy system has certain advantages and these are; is the search for complete freedom as people work all by themselves. It is also an essence of power for the people where each man is for himself. The negative side of the anarchy system is that there are no rules and regulations to stop the people from committing terrible acts such as murder. There are also high chances of a dictator rising and introducing dictatorship to control things. 3. Fascism Fascism is a way of ruling a society in a way that the government is ruled by a dictator. The dictator controls the lives of the citizens who are not allowed to do or say anything contrary to the government. Fascism and National Socialism give a sense of belonging, superiority, and security to those who feel cut off, inferior or insecure (Sargent, 2009). The following are advantages and disadvantages of fascism: Fascism system enjoys certain benefits. The ruling class people are the ones who get the privilege to enjoy these benefits. In fascism, there is clear defined leadership, clear bureaucracy, low labor disputes and low business disputes to the presence of a dictator. There is also plenty of patriotism and flag waving. Fascism as a form of leadership poses different disadvantages especially to the people been ruled. In such a system, there is a hierarchical political system and no one outside the family can govern the state. There is a lack of liberalization and democratization in terms of individual rights, economic rights, and social rights (Sargent, 2009). There also is no freedom of speech as there tend to be tough consequences for anyone who speaks against the dictatorship. From a political and social perspective, the ideologies of Marxism, Anarchism and Fascism seem to be paving the way for the working class, for absolute freedom and the leader and nation respectively. I agree with the anarchists because the rights of the people are respected and are given priority. Anarchists believe in the union of workers to achieve equal rights and labor value rather than capital. References Besant, A. (2013). The Basis of Morality (Start Classics). Lanham: Start Publishing LLC. Morrison, E. E., & Monagle, J. F. (2009). Health care ethics: Critical issues for the 21st century. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Sargent, L. T. (2009). Contemporary political ideologies: A comparative analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., Austin, J., Warnock, M., & Mill, J. S. (2003). Utilitarianism and On liberty: Including Mills Essay on Bentham and selections from the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Kahan, A. S. (1992). Aristocratic liberalism: The social and political thought of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville. New York: Oxford University Press. Rachels, J. (1990). Created from animals: The moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford [England: Oxford University Press. Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Read More