Moral Thinking; Politically

Moral Thinking; PoliticallyParker Van Roy

Im a Photoshop master. I spent half an hour on that. But hey, its close enough, right?Moralistic thinkers have paved the way for modern thinkers to propose societal ideals. Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, and other political philosophies came about during the European enlightenment. John Stuart Mill is one of the most prominent developers of utilitarianism, and John Locke a developer of libertarianism. Immanuel Kant developed the Metaphysics of Morals, which is neither utilitarian nor libertarian. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, believed that people should receive what they deserve for their actions, almost on a karma-level basis.Political derivatives of Utilitarian and Libertarian movements have had major impacts in world ideals, with the ideas of Communism and Capitalism at the fronts. To the extremes, we can look at Ayn Rand, the developer of objectivism, and Karl Marx, the developer of communism in the modern world. These are polar opposite political systems that have their bases in the moral philosophies.To start with, we shall examine the ideas of John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is the simple idea that in society, the most correct action is one that generates the greatest total happiness minus unhappiness in the society. Happiness would be defined as pleasure and absence of pain. Mill differentiates himself from prior utilitarian by stating that pleasure and absence of pain should be separate values, with pleasure having a greater value in making decisions than the contentment, or absence of unhappiness. He also states that higher forms of pleasure, such as higher forms of art over simple pleasures should receive more focus in society, as they are more preferable to the society as a whole. Mill advocates the removal of censorship of media, as it lowers the standing of higher forms of art, thus reducing the greater goal of reaching a higher mode of existence. Mills theories hold some merit, however, they are very flawed. He has a greater value of happiness held for more sentient beings. While at first glance, this may seem fair, as those people are more important in societys progress, it leads to a caste-type system based on intelligence which, aggregated with Mills own belief of free markets and equal taxation to create a massive social gap between the more intelligent/educated and less intelligent/educated peoples. On a basic level, utilitarianism is extremely successful at improving the happiness among a society; the ideas of Mill to reward the more intelligent are found in Capitalism as well as Socialism, but the problems that plague utilitarianism on a small scale have a major impact on the effectiveness; I would propose that on a large scale, for major decisions in government regarding many people, utilitarianism would be a crucial ideology to be held, but in personal affairs it fails, even with Mills attempted bandages over those problems.To move to a nearly polar opposite, we can examine the ideas of John Locke. Lockes ideas of libertarianism, unlike those of Mill, reverberate at an individuals level, but in major decisions, they fail. Locke proposed that people have unalienable rights, found in examples such as the constitution. He thinks that by nature people are free and government is based on the peoples will to uphold it. Locke theorizes that property is based on the individuals labor towards it. He felt that personal property was untouchable by governmental forces and that people can accomplish their own goals to increase happiness in society.Lockes theories have major aspirations; Locke agrees that people are selfish, and thus currency exists. However, this point is brushed aside in many of his points. If all people do want to help society, then Lockes theories hold significant merit. However, Locke himself states that people are selfish. Without a powerful government to enforce fair regulations, anybody can declare ownership over anything that they work on. If people do not individually agree with the government because it blocks their personal gain, they will come to depose of the government, leading to either a split in governments or anarchy.Lockes libertarianism do not give enough power to control the people, and would lead to many political fractures. Imagine the city-states of ancient Greece; constantly warring, and fighting for supremacy. If the 50 states of the U.S.A. were all individual and constantly warring, the entirety of North America could be ravaged by war- or it might not, and the society would be successful. Libertarianism is problematic because it is uncontrolled, and based on individual wills.Immanuel Kant is a bit of a wild card in the argument between Utilitarian and Libertarian. Kant feels the ultimate goal is not happiness or personal goals, but directly the benefit of humanity. While Locke and Mill used the benefit of society as a means to propose their goals, Kant uses society as the goal. Kant also feels that the benefit of society must be the goal of the people for their actions to be considered good; there has to be no selfish reason for an action, even pleasure derived from an action. The intention of an action must be the benefit of society for it to be morally correct.Kant decrees that only by peoples free will, it is moral of them to help society. Kant proposes interesting points, but his philosophy is very implausible to enact. Similar to Lockes libertarianism, people who derive pleasure from immoral actions, such as stealing the newest iPhone because they are too poor to purchase it, would break Kants society because most people do not necessarily want to be moral just to be moral. Kant wants people to help society freely; without advertising or influence towards that action. However, how would people know to help society if the moralistic gain is not advertised to them? People need to be taught morals, but that itself is against Kants own proposal.Aristotle, a Greek philosopher predating the other philosophers discussed, had his own thoughts on societal arrangement. He feels that moderation is key in all actions, but that the ultimate goal of an action is prioritized to whatever the greatest benefit of that action lies. To Aristotle, currency is meaningless; food should go to who needs it most. The most moral person has a personality balanced between reason and desire, and that virtue should be held above material possessions.Aristotles theories are majorly pertinent; the type of society they propose would be nearly impossible to implement, but would be successful if it were implemented. It would follow a Utilitarian viewpoint, because it would directly increase happiness as the society progressed. It would support Libertarianism, as people would be free to follow their morals, but has that government support of the people wanting to have other people have their goals accomplished because they are prioritized in the system. It would even follow Kants philosophy because all benefits individual benefit society with the purpose of benefitting society. However, implementing Aristotles system is nearly impossible like Kants, as changing the viewpoints of the masses is very difficult morally.The political derivative of Utilitarianism is Communism, developed by Karl Marx. Marx felt that all people should be judged as equal and reward should be based only on being a functional member of society. He felt that all people should be treated equally and that was the most morally correct society.Marxs society is very ideological, but impossible. Those who dont work at all would still receive equal benefit, and thus the society would become dysfunctional; if the farmers receive food without doing enough work for more than one person, how can the society ever develop past everyone being a farmer? If there is no intrinsic goal of an action, people see no reason to work at that action. As stated by these philosophers, people can be assumed inherently selfish; why would they work if they can not work and get the same reward? The society has no momentum, and like many of the other proposed societies, is difficult to purely integrate into society.The polar opposite of Marxs ideology and the derivative of Libertarianism is Ayn Rands Objectivism. Objectivism can be simply described as pure Capitalism; where business is all. In objectivism, man is entitled to the sweat off his brow; anything a person individually works for is theirs. However, this causes objectivism to become a glorified anarchy; there are no real rules other than those artificially set; as Marxs communism contains the similar problems to where it was derived from, Objectivism suffers from Libertarian problems. There is no control of the society, and if falls into the cycle of falling apart with no formal rule. Ayn Rand attempts to fix Libertarianisms basic problems by giving power to business, but the businesses themselves, even if large enough to control the people, can suffer from similar city-state style conflicts as the Libertarians could. Moral obligations are very powerful forces. Libertarians such as Locke would say that there are loyalties to everyone that are mandatory, and voluntary obligations we impose upon ourselves, that we must follow our promises. This would mean treating all people fairly, and not being unfaithful to people. There should be no prejudice among people, and all regular conditions should be followed for all circumstances. I feel that there should be an obligation to people with shared identities; forming relationships with people is a massively necessary value to humanity, and the ability to do this should have apart in judgement in which would allow people to evade punishment or gain some special privilege based on people whom with there is a connection with; however, I do not feel a negative prejudice towards people of a certain group is morally correct, as there is nothing in that negative connection but a prejudice based either on experience or passed down with experience with others in that group.I think that people obligated to multiple conflicting actions should use judgement in deciding the correct action; for example, if two people are about to die, and you can only save one, and you share a religion with somebody, and know that another person is a very important and moral person, you would not know anything about the person with whom you share a religion other than that fact that says very little about them; it would be a better idea to help the moral and important person. This is similar to the ideas of Aristotle, in which the more important goal of the action is the result.There are necessary intrinsic obligations; saving a life versus not, and just lying on a couch is an example. If you can save a life by walking to a lever and pulling it, but receive no personal gain or happiness, whereas lying on a couch and being entertained would make you happier, you should still be obliged to save the person. This is a very basic example of what every philosopher discussed would agree on.Libertarians would propose that government stay uninvolved in controversial moral issues, and allow people to make their own moral decisions. Utilitarians would argue that the government should have the final say in those controversial matters, to improve overall happiness. Kant would find that the people together should find a solution to the problem, and Aristotle would argue that the controversy should be handled by the intelligent. In this argument, the similarities between libertarians and Kant, and between utilitarians and Aristotle become more apparent.I would agree with both the Kant and Aristotle ideologies here; similar to a presidential election, which itself is a controversy between different thinkers taking control, there should be a public showing of the favored choice, followed by second opinions by the upper members of society, to reinforce or contrast the decision of the people, to allow for popular desires as well as intelligent reason to be valued.Economics is a major part of any government. Libertarians would argue that cash should be important, because people have earned that; Aristotle would not necessarily disagree, as he feels that money would just be representative of who deserves privileges, however costs of products should be relative to the people paying and the situation. Utilitarians would not agree that money should give privilege, as it is an unequal distribution that leads to unfair privileges, causing more unhappiness than happiness. Kant would agree with the utilitarians, because money is a source of personal selfishness.I believe that cash should be important for all matters of luxury and supporting a lifestyle that has more privilege, but I do not think that money should be able to buy things that are obligary actions, such as a military draft. However, money should be able to purchase anything non-governmental, assuming it is being sold; something owned by a private institution can be bought, whether other people agree with the purchase or not. However, I think that costs can fairly be varied based on person, like taxes are, to compensate for different conditions. This reduces a socio-economic gap by allowing for greater gain by purchasing from percentages of wealth, instead of set values.

Parker Van RoyFor a bit of a different paper than your norm, I am going to be very politically focused when writing this piece.