Research Topic 3: Morality
The third topic I researched was 'morality'. I was motivated to research this with the knowledge of just how many different perspectives there are on what is and isn't moral, and wanted to investigate a few key rationales. Even if I did not agree with them all, exploring different mindsets was engaging.
At the most basic level, morality is the standards by which we distinguish what is right and wrong. What is considered moral is quite subjective and personal, but societies also have moral standards by which people within them live (such as 'murder is wrong', as a rarely controversial one).
Source: Cambridge English Dictionary
Christian Virtues & Vices
A very commonly known concept is the idea of 7 virtues (and vices) in Christianity. What I didn't know before, was all of the different vices and virtues emphasised in Christianity.
​
Firstly, there are the seven heavenly virtues, combining four cardinal virtues (temperance, justice, prudence, and fortitude), with three theological virtues (faith, hope, and love) that were identified in the New Testament.
The theological virtues are understood to be not fully accessible to us without God granting them to us.
​
There is also the concept of the seven capital virtues that are opposed to the seven capital sins, more commonly known as the seven deadly sins. This first became popular as a result of the poet Aurelius Prudentius Clemens writing a poem about Christian morality as a struggle between seven vices and virtues. The virtues and vices he included were as follows:
Virtues
-
Chastity
-
Faith
-
Good Works
-
Concord
-
Sobriety
-
Patience
-
Humility
​
The capital vices and virtues were later
revised by Pope Gregory I to be what
we know them as today:
Virtues
-
Chastity
-
Temperance
-
Charity
-
Diligence
-
Kindness
-
Patience
-
Humility
​
Whilst it has been attempted, the capital vices and heavenly virtues are rarely contrasted with each other in literature, more often going with more directly mirroring virtues and vices respectively, something that the capital virtues are an example of.
​
I have seen quite a few examples of media with the capital sins being represented by the antagonists (some examples being the anime Fullmetal Alchemist, and the game Overlord), but I have not noticed any media around the heavenly virtues, so it might be an area to explore in future ideation if I go further with morality as a theme.
Opposing Vices
-
Lust
-
Idolatry
-
Greed
-
Discord
-
Indulgence
-
Wrath
-
Pride
Opposing Vices
-
Lust
-
Gluttony
-
Greed
-
Sloth
-
Envy
-
Wrath
-
Pride
Virtue Ethics
Next, I looked into virtue ethics to broaden my understanding of virtues outside of Christianity, and to see how they influence the way some people choose to live. Virtue ethics is perfect for this, as it is an approach to ethics that places the concept of moral virtue at the centre (note, this does not necessarily mean virtue is considered the only valuable measure of what is ethical, simply the most valuable).
​
In this approach, vices and virtues are not perceived as everyday habits. They are core character traits of someone's personality. As a result, who you are matters more than what you do. If your motivations are corrupt in some way whilst performing a good deed, you are still being unethical. An example of this in everyday life could be the 'nice guy' who only shows significant kindness to a woman when he wants to be with her romantically and/or sexually. To be truly virtuous has both intellectual and emotional factors.
​
There are four main groups of people:
-
The virtuous - those who know what is right and are emotionally compelled to do right. (The ideal)
-
The vicious - those who have a poor understanding of right and wrong, and have emotions that compel them to do wrong.​
-
The incontinent - those who are tempted by their feelings to do wrong even though they know it is wrong, and what is right.
-
The continent - those who are tempted by their feelings to do wrong, but resist those feelings through willpower, doing what is right in spite of their desires.
As a minor note, there is already a very good example of a video game character posing the question of whether it is better to be born virtuous or to be continent in the game 'Skyrim', from a dragon named Paarthurnax, who must resist a bloodthirst and desire to dominate that is instilled into his kind by a god.
The ability to be perfectly virtuous is rare, with many ways to come short; and so most consider there to be degrees to having a virtue.
​
Being virtuous is in part what Aristotle called 'natural virtue', which is the emotional inclination to do be virtuous, but can lead to doing wrong by accident (lying in an attempt to be kind, for example). The other part to being truly virtuous is 'practical wisdom', which in summary is a learned trait to have the knowledge on how to consistently take the most virtuous action in specific situations.
​
From what I could gather, another important component of virtue ethics is the seeking of 'eudaimonia', believing it to be the proper goal of human life. This word however, can translate to a few different things: well-being, happiness, or flourishing. Each definition has its own issues, however. Flourishing is possible for animals and plants, happiness is something only the subject can determine is true, and well-being is also something of some debate.
​
A large issue with virtue ethics is that what things truly are virtuous, is not something everyone can agree on. There are many different views on what is right and wrong even among virtue theorists, making virtue ethics hard rules to truly live by, at least on a societal level. Aristotle had proposed that each virtue existed as a mid-point between two vices that represented the deficiency and excess of that virtue. A list of some examples on Wikipedia can be seen below or by clicking this link. Whilst having no well defined answer is not super useful to virtue ethicists, it is something that made the topic more interesting to me, as it leaves plenty of room to explore what answers there could be to 'what is virtuous?'
Other sources: BBC on Virtue Ethics, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy on Virtue Ethics
Consequentialism
This is the belief that the ultimate basis of judgement for whether an action is right or wrong, is the consequences of said action. For an act to be deemed right, it must cause more good over evil than any other actions one could take in any given situation. However, what is considered morally good is not consistent between all consequentialists. Some view it as the absence of pain, pleasure, satisfaction of ones preferences, etc.
​
There are many consequentialist theories. One is that of utilitarianism, which I found conflicting information on, the first and least reliable is from Wikipedia, saying it takes the stance that people are driven by their interests and fears, with interests taking precedent over fears. Happiness is defined by them as the maximisation of pleasure, and the minimisation of pain. The BBC on the other hand, stated that it states people should maximise human welfare and well-being. 'Hedonistic' utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that happiness of everyone/the majority is more important than the happiness of any one individual. Some other examples include:
-
Rules Consequentialism: One must follow certain rules to behave morally, with the rules chosen based on the consequences of them.
-
State Consequentialism: The moral worth of an action is based on how much it contributes to the welfare of a state. The basic 'goods' are order, material wealth of the overall community, and a growing population.
Some other views, such as egoism (placing the consequences for an individual higher than any other result) and altruism (placing the consequences on others higher than the consequences on oneself), can also be interpreted as consequentialist theories.
​
It is also notable that most consequentialist theories view that deliberate inaction is no different from action, and can be judged as if an action in itself. People also can't accurately assess the future consequences of every single action they take because there simply is not the time for it. Our lives are simply too complicated, with too little time, to be able to account for every consequence of what we do.
Some other issues include that it is easy to show biases, does not account for other factors we often deem ethically relevant (such as personality or past actions), and it can be inconsistent with human rights.
One thought experiment relating to consequentialism is the 'trolley problem'. Killing one person to save five would be considered good in most consequentialist theories, but non-consequentialists might see it as inherently wrong to kill, viewing it to be worse than to let those five people die. Even the specific circumstance can change how people see it, even if it is fundamentally the same: such as instead of a trolley, the person has to kill one person for their organs to save five people needing organ transplants (an example of being inconsistent with human rights).
Other sources: Britannica on Consequentialism
Deontology
Also called 'rules-based ethics', it states that the morality of an action is based on whether it is considered right or wrong under a series of rules. The consequences of the action, or the intent of it, generally do not factor into whether it is ethical. A moral obligation could originate from multiple sources, depending on what system –or systems– of deontology one follows. One could believe in a set of rules they believe inherit to the universe, religion law, or a set of personal and cultural values.
​
Immanuel Kant believed that one should act from duty. He believed that the highest good is to have a good will, being when someone acts out of respect for moral law because it is their duty to do so, not just because it is convenient at the current point in time.
​
Divine Command Theory is a cluster of theories surrounding religion, stating an action is right if God/a god has decreed it is right. Performing the decrees of one's god is a duty, and therefore falls under deontology. To me, the 'divine commands' of many entities seem to conflict with what is seen as moral in by many people (especially myself), but it does seem to take a place in shaping how some and their cultures shape their laws and perceptions of right and wrong, even used as a weapon at points. In my opinion, it is a rationale that is very easily twisted by human nature.
​
David Ross believed there is a plurality to determining if something is right or wrong, having multiple duties. Some examples being:
-
Duties originating from previous actions, such as fidelity (promise-keeping) and reparation (making amends for wrongs committed)
-
Duties that arise from the actions of others, such as duties of gratitude.
-
Some others that are meant to generally apply to life include the duty of non-injury (not hurting others), self-improvement, and upholding justice.
One problem for deontological pluralists, is that a moral dilemma can occur when fulfilling one duty would violate another. One might have to break a promise to meet a friend, because their mother was in an accident, for example. For this reason, Ross makes a distinction between 'prima facie duties' (those which I listed, serving as general principles) and absolute duty, which applies to one specific situation, taking everything into account on a case-by-case basis. It is absolute duty that determines right from wrong.
Sources: Wikipedia on Deontology, Britannica on Deontological Ethics