Authenticity of Morality and Its Problem - Essay Example

Authenti of Morality Introduction What are the real dimensions of morality? Differentiated persons and philosophers portly diverse perception concerning morality as a perception. To some extent, the question of justice fails to clear the controversy between historical leaders in the political and social arena. Arguably, there are different ideologies that try to exhume and explain the real definition and scope of justice. For instance, some common law statement, “mercy tampering with justice” may take the position of real justice. Alternatively, the certificate of authenticity of justice may take the position in purporting the right direction in case justice becomes the question of a certain scenario (Abramson, 2009). Different scholarly works feature what justice is to some historical people. For instance, Aristotle is one philosopher who aims at claiming and establishing sobriety within the helm of justice. His philosophical works of Plato also play the part in the context of determining the viability of being moral. The essay aims at discussing the problem of morality and the appropriate ways to consider justice within all contexts of life, especially that of political leadership. It will consider the significant and distinctive ideologies issued by the subject philosophers and compare with the understanding about the entire scenario. Scholarly evidence indicates that there are different approaches to morality, especially with respect to practicing of justice. There are myriad scenarios where morality counts. For instance, the leadership and practice of professional activities such as medicine require utmost practice of morality. Arguably, their myriad scenarios call for different approaches towards achieving moral standards (Abramson, 2009). Moral standards ought to be detached from any other influence. Such inference can be supported by the Plato’s and Aristotle’s concepts regarding morality. One of the character traits of being moral is observing unobstructed justice. However, there are some contradicting issues regarding how one ought to take or consider being moral. “Socrates in shorter order will teach him that justice is a different and higher virtue than friendship, that justice in fact operates as a moral brake on what one can do to help friends, family and country.”( Abramson, 2009) The political arena considers distinctive approaches towards morality. Different political literature features some historical or philosophical derivations of what the art of morality entails. Thus, the issue ends with a situation of where Plato, under the influence of Socrates establishes the authenticity of morality for one side of the views. For instance, Plato instituted that it is paramount for individuals to assume or subsume corrective responsibility within the context of the actions taken (Abramson, 2009). He believes that all the individuals who have paramount or leadership position ought to establish a sense of subsuming personal interests for the sake of the society. It is the only solution towards drawing a perfect path leading to a stable government. Plato’s Republic establishes the essence of a utopian society. The entity of the society comprises of three comprehensive classes. They include warriors, workers and philosophers amongst others. They have the responsibilities of passing or establishing a stable society and governance. The responsibility of governance goes forth to be fortified with regards to best-qualified personnel for the responsibility. Therefore, the most instrumental rulers, according to the Plato’s Utopian induction are philosophical. Plato intensively fought against the oligarchy. Accordingly, Plato’s philosophies instigate that the most elite form of morality and justice depends on the extent to which one takes care of the less capable (Abramson, 2009). The inference established by the philosophy of Plato is that the level of morality in a political leader ought to respect the philosophical approach. There is the need to alleviate the martial path or leadership if any form of perfect governance is likely to emerge. “The diversity of legal systems shows us that justice is not natural but a product manufactured by politics. The only constant is that each city, rulers manufacture the rules to fit their interests.” ( Abramson, 2009) Alternatively, Aristotle brings about an individualistic approach towards political leadership. According to him, the basic political unit is established as a city or polis. The major trait of Aristotle’s city is that most issues receive precedence from the family. Additionally, the philosopher’s individualistic approach to leadership fails to acknowledge intensive measures of morality in ensuring due justice and fairness in the ruling context. One controversial statement that Aristotle used to imply that man always represented a political animal by default (Abramson, 2009). Thus, there was little need for the political leaders to avoid political challenges. The inference drawn from the philosophical inference of Aristotle is that politics is more of an organism than it is of a machine. Therefore, the major purpose of political leadership is not to drive and offer justice, as well as economic stability to the public. Accordingly, the nature of politics and leadership, according to Aristotle differ from that of Plato’s in the fact that justice is an option. The major focus of the philosophical derivation is that people just deserve a life and the ability to perform suitable arts. The ideas he derives differ in the context of justice and the meaning of being moral. Literal meaning and understanding of being a moral leader inculcates the need to take substantial consideration the degree of authenticity with regards to justice (Abramson, 2009). What is it that a leader ought to do to reflect practicing justice? Arguably, there are some aspects that are borrowed from the Aristotle’s regarding what most political figures consider important. Alternatively, there is another aspect that dominates the answer to a justifiable society encroached by morality. Initially, it is paramount to appreciate the Plato and Aristotle direct link to philosophy in the context of political insurgency. Most of the theories offered by Aristotle are no longer considered valid. However, a set of arguments can suffice with regards to the political understanding of morality can borrow a few findings brought forward by Plato. Being moral is what justice tries to establish. However, there are moments and instances that fail to show morality. For instance, some personalities appreciate the derivations provided by Aristotle concerning justice. According to him, justice does not always mean that one is fair. It depends on the individual preferences on the particular issue of concern. In this case, such a will choose the family, friend and those that he loves over being moral (Abramson, 2009). Such an individual, justice is what he thinks is best for his friends and worst to his enemies. Such a person means to execute vengeance as a way of instituting justice to the enemies. Such an individual will always seek the need to go for the friend who wrongs him rather than an enemy who means well this time round. “Justice must be prepared to answer tit for tat, to defend, to retaliate, yet, even to use unjust means if that is necessary to achieve just results.”( Abramson, 2009) The approach by Aristotle and Socrates meant that the virtue of justice ought to rhyme with the human nature to the extent of representing the dire needs of human beings. Further approach to the inference is that some consider the need to seek personal satisfaction at the expense of the others. That is no longer moral justice, but prejudice. It is wrong to have one to have personal interests and ignore what others consider paramount in life. Plato in support of Socrates depicts that that is a bad behavior and that it ought to be alleviated before it installs more harm to the society (Abramson, 2009). There are a series of issues that the moral jurisprudence means with regards to Plato and Aristotle. However, the most appropriate approach is that which most leaders fail to appreciate by considering it to be a feeble approach to political problems. For instance, the psychological approach towards the issue that discern and demand justice is a very instrumental in determining good governance. The increased probability of a leader to adore incorporative justice that does not suffer intrusions will always provide a platform necessary for issuing peaceful resolutions. Such a case calls for sobriety even amongst the close allies who would wish to commit atrocities with the belief that the leadership will side with them. Plato’s side of justice and moral practice demands that the leaders show full support of true justice to ensure that people avoid adverse effects such as poverty, as well as pain (Abramson, 2009). The important aspects of moral leadership, especially in the political world include the need to inculcate transparency concerning decisions made. Some stringent beliefs such as the need for war in order for one to prove leadership and dominance are just a justification of the human nature. Aristotle’s approach to morality is hearty in the sense that individual interests dominate the entire helm of justice. Alternatively, the Plato’s incandescent philosophy provides the need to inculcate a psychological perspective in the search for justice and moral practice. His approach means that appropriate or moral leadership in the political section of governance easily results in a peaceful and economically stable society. References Abramson, J. B. (2009). Minervas owl: the tradition of western political thought. Harvard University Press. Read More