The Definition of Morality
In Chapter 6 of the Republic Socrates defines morality in terms of the proper functioning of the mind. He states that "[i]ts sphere is a person's inner activity; it is really a matter of oneself and the parts of oneself"(443d). A person is moral if and only if the parts of her mind work together and the rational part guides and directs the other parts. Given such a definition, Socrates proceeds to show that such a mind is healthy and a disordered mind leads to unhappiness. Yet is Socrates' definition of morality correct? Is that definition close to your working definition of morality? If he fails, where or how does he fail? Is the connection between morality and mental health as tight as Socrates argues?
I do not believe that Socrates' definition of morality is always correct. For instance, sometimes what's deemed the moral thing to do/action to take, isn't always rational. An example of this would be if, let's say, a baby was in a burning building. The rational thing to do for one's own well being would be to call the fire department or if they're already have them try to put the fire out in time to save the baby. However, how could view standing by and waiting for others to do this task as moral. It could be viewed in no way moral to let a baby burn/die in a fire - thus the public would view one running into the building and saving the baby the moral (and heroic) action to take. But, in the same context that would be a very irrational thing to do - thus meaning that the rational part of the mind is not directing the other parts but rather another part is in control. This being so, sometimes, in order to make the "right"/moral decision you have to allow the other parts of your mind take over. However, I do believe that Socrates was partly correct in the sense that the rational part of the mind should be in control most of the time, since it is the part that takes care of one's personal well-being and in many cases that is just as important as(and many times more important than) looking out for others in need. I also, generally agree with his statement about how many people with organized, rationally ruled minds tend to be/are healthy. However, I find falsehood in the idea/claim that a disordered mind leads to unhappiness as one who rules with their spirited/passionate side of their mind could in turn live a happy life as well. This being said in the sense that they lead their life doing/helping others or in other words willingly laying down themselves so that others may have a better future/present. Take those who work as missionaries or volunteer doctors in Africa - some give up all they have to go in aid those in need and put their well-being at risk to save others and are content and happy and excited to see all the wonderful things they've done. However, I do believe that unhappiness would eventually find anyone and everyone who allows their desirous part to be in charge. Besides that I believe that Socrates' definition of morality was very accurate - just at points it failed to mention the few exceptions. But for the general population, his definition was great.
ReplyDeletePlato’s definition of morality does not truly answer the question “what is morality?” but instead only offers the idea that using rational reasoning is the best way to make decisions. Plato believes that in order to be moral one’s mind and body must be ruled by the rational portion of the mind as neither the spirited or desirous can be trusted to look out for ones best interest. However, I am not convinced that looking out for your own best interest is actually moral. After all Plato himself, has pointed out in previous chapters that things like lying and cheating, things he considers immoral, often serve to gain someone more than if they had followed the morally right and honest route. For example, a man is walking down a road near his house when he comes upon a sick man lying next to the road asking for help. The man knows that even with treatment the sick man may still die. The man feels pity and takes him back to his home to try to nurse the man back to health. Would anyone argue that this man has not acted in a moral manner? According to Plato’s definition of morality he has acted irrationally and immorally. Looking at situation, the man has just brought a source of disease into his home that could result in him or one of his family members catching the disease. Besides if he were to leave the man he would be no worse for wear. By helping the man he has listened to his spiritual side of his mind over that of the rational side and yet it would still appear to the majority of people that he has still made a moral decision. Even more so the fact that every culture has determined its own set of morality proves that in the end one man’s rational is another’s irrational and we cannot base a sense of morality off of something so variable from person to person.
ReplyDeleteOverall I mostly disagree with Socrates’s definition of morality. One of my main issues is correlating morality to mental health. The main problem here is that the majority of mental health issues are treatable but not curable and take place in the subconscious of one’s mind. If we were to take Socrates’s argument literally, then anyone who is moral can become immoral and vice versa. This may be true in terms of the control of one’s rational part of their brain gaining or losing control, but equating this to mental health makes no sense. Granted at the time they did not know nearly as much medically as we do, but to claim that an insane man can become sane is impossible. There is no shift between the rational part of one’s brain that can change mental health, and this is assuming that someone suffering from mental illness has the ability to actually change this about themselves. Another big problem I have with this argument is that it can be destroyed by simply asking, “If we have a constant definition of morality for everyone, does morality really matter”? If everyone’s thoughts and actions were guided by their rationality, then would we not all act the same? Would there even be a point in morality being necessary to discuss? Socrates’s definition does give guidance on how one can be moral, but it fails to address the significance which I feel is needed in order to convince me why I should even try to act moral. This argument alone shows not only why Socrates’s definition of morality is incorrect by generalizing it, but by completely falsifying his ideal outcome of societal morality as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAll quotes taken from the R. E. Allen translation:
ReplyDeleteAlthough Socrates makes a good argument for defining morality, I am would say his definition cannot be applied to all circumstances, and that his conclusion that immorality is a disease is false. During his argument on the internal nature of justice and morality Socrates states “the just man does not allow any element in himself to do what properly belongs to another, nor the kinds in his soul meddle and interfere with each other.” This means that a just and moral man is able to let the parts of his mind govern themselves by working harmoniously with any one part overpowering the other. On the unjust man he states “injustice must be, in turn, a kind of faction among the three elements, an interference and alien encroachment, an uprising of part of the soul against the whole so that it may rule in it improperly.” From these two points he concludes that a just and moral man has a healthy mind because the parts of the mind are able to work together, whereas an immoral and unjust man would have an unhealthy mind because one part of the brain would over power the other. I disagree with these conclusions because in saying this Socrates is also claiming that an immoral man would have no desire to be moral. Socrates’ argument shows that if all parts of the mind are working together than anyone would be able to balance both rationality and desires and understand that morality is a more favorable way of life; On the contrary, his arguments is also showing that an immoral person would not have the desire to be moral because they would not be able to think rationally. A counter example to this point would be addiction. Say for example someone had a smoking addiction, but when they were not smoking their mind was just as healthy and able to work harmoniously like any other. By Socrates’ definition they are immoral because they allow one part of their brain to govern another and because of this Socrates would say that this man would not have the desire to be moral; however, it is clear that it is possible for any smoker to have the desire to stop smoking but not have the will power to do so. For this reason I disagree with Socrates’ conclusion. Another counter argument to Socrates would be the idea of Mjölnir. Mjölnir is a mythological hammer given to the god Thor so that he may have immense power. It is said no one is able to lift Mjölnir unless they are deemed worthy by the hammer. If such an object truly existed how would it work in accordance with Socrates’ argument? According to Socrates only moral people would be able to lift it; however, using the example of the smoker, if the world was in great danger and he was the only one able to save the world using the hammer, would he be able to lift it? He acts just as morally as anyone else when he is not smoking, so could he really be considered immoral if he is moral majority of the time?
Morality should be the deciding factor in every aspect of our lives according to Plato. Morality in the most basic sense is defined by doing the "right" or proper action at the proper time. Plato calls me to question what this means in different situations. As an individual i have a role in my life and in society. The first step that i need to follow in order to be moral is to recognize what my role in my life is, and how I can best benefit myself and others. Morality in Plato's mind is always beneficial for an individual even if the action required to be moral requires some self sacrifice. Morality is also being able to distinguish between the different parts of the brain to be either wise, courageous, or self disciplined depending on the situation. In all cases morality is the most rational course of action and will always have positive impacts on an individual or community. Overall Plato calls all individuals and societies to be moral in order to thrive personally and communally.
ReplyDeletePlato’s definition of morality has a few strengths but a few weaknesses as well; it is a good starting point, but it does not completely capture what it means to be moral. One of its strengths is that it is easy to say that the parts of your mind must be in harmony if you are to be moral. If you have a conflict between the three parts of your mind, you will find it hard to do anything, let alone be moral. However, there are multiple examples to disprove Plato’s definition, specifically that the rational part of the mind must be in control to be moral. Firstly, picture a stranger hanging from a crumbling cliff near you, about to fall. The rational thing to do would be to leave and ensure your safety, but the moral thing to do would be to endanger yourself and save them. Next, imagine that you are very poor and pass by a closed store in the middle of the night with no security and no witnesses. The rational thing for you to do, because of your condition, would be to rob the store, but the moral thing to do would be to keep walking. Through these examples, the divide between rationality and morality becomes clear. The two are similar, though, and rationality usually comes with morality and vice versa- there is no doubt about that- but there are differences which must be addressed. In order for Plato’s definition to be one which is always true and that stands up against arguments, it must be elaborated upon to state the times when morality and rationality are divided.
ReplyDelete