Understanding Morality and Ourselves

Art by Michelle Kondrich

What does it mean to be a good person? When described as a noun, the Oxford dictionary defines the term “good person” as doing which is morally right, being someone finding righteousness of value. Through-out life, and in any thematic film in which someone analyzes and finds themselves, the protagonist comes to point where they are forced to face this question. Seen as though we are all our own story’s protagonist, we must ask this of ourselves as well. I am a firm believer that while both good and bad exist simultaneously within the world, the same can be said of a human being. Morality is thought provoking to say the least, but what causes someone to make virtue a choice and what consequences do they face because of doing so?

In the words of philosopher Immanuel Kant, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law”. Kant argued that the principle of morality should be held to the standard of rationality dubbed as the “Categorial Imperative”, a principle that we as human beings are required to follow despite any instincts we may have for our own personal gain. We must remain righteous, with other’s perspectives in mind when committing any action, but any wrongdoing would contradict this principle even if in the hopes to maintain the principle itself. While we should all remain moral to each other, refraining from actions such as lying, stealing, or purposely causing harm to another, there are some situations in which this task may seem nearly impossible to follow. The belief of Categorial Imperative can raise a number of questions in regards to the contradiction of itself, example being if one were given the dilemma of feeding a group of starving people but only if the means of obtaining said food would be to steal, then would the act be considered moral at all? Despite the overall good of feeding the hungry, the act of stealing would contradict the value of morality. While you are feeding the hungry and being good to some, you are simultaneously causing harm by committing theft. The harm would contradict the good and therefore the act of feeding the hungry would no longer be moral. As Kant describes, what makes a good person good is “his possession of a will that is in a certain way determined by, or makes it’s decisions on the basis of the moral law”, which in my opinion should be an ideology we should all follow, but there are some situations in which we cannot fully practice this law. If your wife asks you if she has gained weight, you should always say no even if she has in order to protect her feelings and self-worth, but the act of lying in Kant’s philosophy would hold the same weight as committing a murder. It may be imperative to ask; would it cause harm to be morally correct in ALL circumstances?

A question one may ask themselves when looking back at an action that caused harm without purpose of doing so, does intention come into play when considering morality? In disagreement with Kant’s law of moral imperative, Thomas Aquinas argues the doctrine of double effect in the Summa Theologica (II-II, QU. 64 Art. 7), the idea that if one does not hold the purpose of harming another and unlawful action is merely a consequence of preservation of good intent then the action itself would remain morally correct. Aquinas contends that if one were to kill another in the act of self defense then they would hold no personal guilt, quoting “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Accordingly, the act of self defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one’s life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor”. Aquinas’s dispute continues, categorizing the occurrence as an unfortunate outcome that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible”. Despite preaching that unexpected consequences would remain moral, he specifies that in the case of self-defense that if more force were used than is necessary, this violence would then in turn become unlawful, proving that the tolerability of self-defense is not unrestricted. In my opinion this theory of morality would seemingly be more applicable to the average person. If we were to live in fear of the consequences of our actions, would we ever truly be able to protect ourselves from the wrongful actions of others?

When considering a life of merely acting upon lawful action, we must also consider the unavoidable selfishness of our nature as human beings. Moral desert could be defined simply as the reward one receives simply for being a good person who does kind things without purposeful intention. Serena Olsaretti in the beginning of her anthology Desert and Justice states that “desert is a three-place relation between a person, the grounds on which she is said to be deserving (the desert basis), and the treatment or which she is said to deserve (the deserved good)” (2003). While the idea of receiving karmatic reward for one’s good actions is hopeful to say the least, it is difficult to form a strong opinion on the matter. There is no scientific proof that a person’s actions are seen and rewarded. It can be assumed that if one does well at their job they will be rewarded with a raise or promotion but while the world is unfair, there are many other factors that come into play. Those that hold more confidence despite their equal work ethic are more likely to be seen by those in a position of leadership. These people allow themselves to be both heard and seen, even if their work were identical to their coworkers. The idea of moral desert comes down to what we believe that we deserve and whether we ask and allow ourselves to be both seen and heard. We must ask to be rewarded, and with confidence must put ourselves in the position of having our work valued.

Despite personal reward, value is still held in doing good for the happiness and well being of those around you. In Joshua David Green’s book Moral Tribes, he argues that while one should at times keep the happiness of other’s in mind, becoming solely focused on doing so without some purpose of selfish intent can societally do more harm than good. Not only would one become harmful to themselves and put their own happiness at risk, they are teaching those around them their needs and wants are less important than those around them. Green argues that rather than making everyone around you happy at sacrifice of yourself, you should in fact give but set a limit on the amount you give. There’s an old praise that has always rung in my head like an old church bell, that if you fill from your cup without thought at some point you will become empty and there is no promise that another will fill your cup the same as you’ve been filling everyone else’s, nor is it their responsibility to do so. Green states, “if instead you push yourself just shy of your breaking point, you may do more good directly with your personal donation dollars, but you may undermine the larger cause by making an unappealing example of yourself”. Green brings up the idea that when others see you in turmoil over the act of giving, it may deter them from giving at all, in fear that they will become like you. Green explains that if you simply balance your good act with self-preservation, then others will recognize the joy it brings to you and will be more likely to enrich their own lives with service to others. The idea of becoming a happiness pump may provide temporary joy to those around you, but the detriment to yourself will cause an equal amount of harm. Balance is key, even in acts of kindness.

On the opposite end of the balance spectrum in relation to providing other’s with happiness we must also speak on the idea of providing only yourself with kind action. While it is selfish to only act in a way to provide one’s self with gratification, the idea of ethical egoism can show that one may equivalate their own happiness to those around them. Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness states “The achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose”. In theory, ethical egoism can be summed up in the idea that while we are selfish creatures and there is a difference between one who is would be considered an egoist and one who is an ethical egoist. While an egoist will help others with only their own interest in mind, an ethical egoist will help others because it personally positively affects themselves. While the act of doing something for one’s own interest may be considered selfish, if one is aiding others for their own benefit then there is some morality in this action. This catch 22 is difficult for me to comprehend, but if one derives pleasure from aiding those around them then I personally see this as a neutral occurrence. The act of helping others while helping one’s self would be in fact the epitome of balance.

While writing this essay I have pondered over many theories of morality and have questioned even what I personally believe in to be right. It in a sense felt discouraging to think that there were one strict set of rules one should follow when becoming a person considered to be good, but luckily discovering Locke’s theory of personal identity I felt as though my perspective were challenged with the very idea of what I had hoped to find all along. In chapter 27 of the essay Of Identity and Diversity Locke argues the importance of finding one’s own idea of morality through the principle of individuation. Locke describes that before we can understand anything, whether it be morality or even understanding of one’s self, we must think constructively of everything, even down to atomic mass. Whether literally or metaphorically, we must have a thorough understanding of both ourselves and what we choose to believe in. Locke describes that people are intelligent beings who can reason but must also be held accountable for their actions, because while we think of ourselves, we must also plan, and think of either punishment or reward that will follow. Locke argues that consciousness is what distinguishes ourselves, “in this alone consists personal identity, i.e. the sameness of rational being: and as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person; it is the same self now it was then; and ‘tis by the same self with this present one that now reflects on it, that that action was done”. I agree with Locke’s theory of personal identity more than any other theory of morality for the mere fact that it values the idea of self-awareness as well as thought. We are given free will, as well as choice, and it is up to us to decide what would be considered morality.

In conclusion, I am simply put a human being capable of my own reasoning and thought, just as I was before the study of morality. While I believe it best to commit action with thought of both consequence and reward, who’s to say what would be considered morally good? Are we to merely do for others at our own expense or to simply be selfish? I believe in the importance of balance. To know one’s self is to know the consequences of our actions whether good or bad, and simply put it is up to us to reason through our own purpose behind doing the things we do. While there is no harm in always putting others first, one must always consider themselves equally important. It is in our DNA to be both good and bad simultaneously, but it is free will that gives us the option of morality; however, it is that we choose to define it as.