can rationality and morality coincide

979 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Compare and contrast the ethical theories

To begin, one can define rationality as a quality of being agreeable to reason. It is when a person does the correct or valid reason in his or her head. It is the correct thing that one honestly considers to be the right thing. On the other hand, morality can be defined as the quality to act properly, it is the way a person conducts or behaves. Morality is about the rightness or the wrongness of something. A good example for morality is that the way a person treats another which can be like if a person needs respect from another, he or she has to show respect to others.
One can say that the demand of rationality is to help one evaluates his or her actions which will be centered on good causes and evidence. The demand for morality is when a person behaves or acts in a certain way to others for that person to receive the same treatment from others. As a fact, one can say that most of the laws are basically originated from morality.
There exist moral requirements and also rational requirements. But the thing is that it would be hard for one to understand that there is nothing similar between the requirements of moral and rational that could make one calls them both requirements. It is more likely for one to assume that morality and rationality are on the contrary two examples of one obligation relation. By that, one can say that it does not mean that moral and rational requirements are supposed to have the same characteristics. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226097498_The_Difference_Between_Moral_and_Rational_Oughts_An_Expressivist_Account
According to Marx and Nietzsche, “If we take morality seriously, we are no longer free to act as we please. Rather we have to think about what we ought to do, and not just what we ...

... middle of paper ...

...things just because they think it is fun or cool, even if an elder try to tell them to stop, they will refuse because they think that they are doing the right thing. But, as they are getting older, they will start to develop some sense of morality, they will realize that what they have being doing were wrong and they will start to act or behave in a more proper way.
One needs to think properly before he or she acts, because the better a person thinks the better he or she will behave. It is by thinking the right way a person will succeed or will get a better result.

Works Cited

• Bennet, Christopher. What Is This Thing Called Ethis? London: Routledge, 2010. Print.
• http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226097498_The_Difference_Between_Moral_and_Rational_Oughts_An_Expressivist_Account
• Smith, Michael. The Moral Problem. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. Print

Show More
Related

  • Examining Good and Bad Conscience in Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals

    1631 Words  | 4 Pages

    Friedrich Nietzsche is recognized for being one of the most influential German philosophers of the modern era. He is known for his works on genealogy of morality, which is a way to study values and concepts. In Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche mentions that values and concepts have a history because of the many different meanings that come with it. Nietzsche focused on traditional ethical theories, especially those rooted in religion. Not being a religious man, he believed that human life has no moral purpose except for the significance that human beings give it. People from different backgrounds and circumstances in history bend morality's meaning, making it cater to the norms of their society. For example, the concept of what is "good" in the ancient Greek culture meant aristocratic, noble, powerful, wealthy, pure, but not in modern era. Meaning, in the past the term “good” was not applied to a kind of act that someone did but rather applied to the kind of person and background they had. Nietzsche’s project was to help expand one’s understanding by re-examining morality through genealogy of morality; helping one to be more aware of a potential confusion in moral thinking. He feels that the current values and concepts that have been instilled into a society are a reversal of the truth, forcing him to believe that one’s moral systems had to have been created within society. In the works of genealogy of morality, Nietzsche traces out the origins of the concepts of guilt and bad conscience, which will be the main focal point, and explaining its role in Nietzsche’s project against morality. It will be argued that guilt and bad conscience goes against Nietzsche’s role against morality because it can conflict with the moral co...

    Read More

  • Morality In Martin Luther King's A Letter From Birmingham Jail

    1188 Words  | 3 Pages

    Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the

    Read More

  • Improving Society: Mill’s On Liberty and Marx’s Communist Manifesto

    1690 Words  | 4 Pages

    Society is built and run on social and moral obligations and while these two are closely related, both impact cultures around the world in different ways. Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Mill’s On Liberty demonstrate the relationship these obligations have with successful and unsuccessful social constructs. For the purposes of this paper, a moral obligation is a consideration of what is right¬¬¬ and wrong and can vary depending on pressures from external sources such as religion, while a social obligation is a responsibility the individual has to act to benefit the best interests of their class as well as supporting the stability between society and the individual. Marx and Mill differ greatly in their opinions on the role and effects of both moral and social obligation, with Marx claiming that social obligation is one’s responsibility to one’s class and Mill claiming that it is one’s responsibility to further the society by expressing one’s own ideas because doing so is key to preventing society from becoming stagnant. Both authors also have differing views on moral obligation since Marx also claims that morality as a whole is a social construction used to oppress the Proletariat and that it is therefore invalid, whereas Mill claims that moral obligation is one’s debt to oneself to express their opinion, since not doing so would leave one’s character undeveloped.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Meditations By Rene Descartes

    1003 Words  | 3 Pages

    Human beings are tempted. One is generally in a conflict between the realm or morality and immorality. At times, one disregards reason as the intended result was not what one wanted. One can conclude that reason is justified in situations where one expects to be treated morally and will treat others morally. Essentially, Kant expects all human beings to be able to reason. Reason is the justification to morality. One who reasons asserts the beliefs of morality. One can conclude that reason is absolute. Immorality is based on one’s personal desires. Reason cannot be coincided with immorality, since each party is not treated morally. Reason is universal, since each individual expects to be treated morally and will treat others morally. It is applicable to all entities. The Categorical Imperative establishes the ideal that one should act from maxims that are universalized. This ideal leads to the Formula of Humanity; individuals of morality seek to live under the law in which one’s self-worth is protected. One should act from maxims in which order is applicable to

    Read More

  • Plato And Thrasymachus And Plato's Theory Of Morality

    1010 Words  | 3 Pages

    Morality is a key within all principles that it balances wrong and right behavior and the goodness or badness of any human character. Morality is essential; it has guided the evolution of humanity. It is to be judged differently by all human being. Plato and Thrasymachus had different opinion when it came to the notion of justice. Thrasymachus focused on obedience and Plato defined in two analogs.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's Analysis

    1486 Words  | 3 Pages

    With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there

    Read More

  • Rationalism Vs Rationalism

    1461 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rationalism derives from the idea that accepts the supremacy of reason, as opposed to blind faith, and aims at establishing a system of philosophy, values, and ethics that are verifiable by experience, independent of all arbitrary assumptions or authority. The principle doctrine of rationalism holds that the source of knowledge is reason and logic. Thus, rationalism is contrasted with the idea that faith, revelation and religion are also valid sources of knowledge and verification. Rationalists, in this context, prioritize the use of reason and consider reason as being crucial in investigating and understanding the world, and they reject religion on the grounds that it is unreasonable. Rationalism is in contradistinction to fideism;

    Read More

  • Military Persuasive Essay

    1088 Words  | 3 Pages

    What is morality? Merriam-Webster dictionary states that morality is/are the beliefs about what right behavior is and what wrong behavior is

    Read More

  • Joan Didion's On Morality

    677 Words  | 2 Pages

    To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Nietzsche's Mr. Daredevil-Curiosity

    1651 Words  | 4 Pages

    It is a striking project; comprised of three essays- each with the aim of stripping the reader’s pre-conceptions of morality, and instead offering the reader an account of the true nature of morality. In this essay I will particularly focus upon the first essay of Nietzsche’s On The Genealogy of Morals that, through the use of metaphoric and dramatic language, cites ‘ressentiment’ as the catalyst of our modern day morals. I will primarily outline Nietzsche’s argument (with particular focus upon his metaphor of the workshop in section 12), secondly identify some internal inconsistencies in his argument (looking in particular at his slightly confusing portrayal of ‘masters’ and ‘slaves), and finally attempt to salvage Nietzsche’s argument through a re-evaluation of how to interpret his writing (appealing to Christopher Janaway’s interpretation of the Genealogy of Morals).

    Read More

  • Philosophy: Ethics and Morality

    2484 Words  | 5 Pages

    To act morally means one must think and act in such a way that always considers, supports, and attempts to improve general welfare; furthermore, such thoughts and actions must occur because of moral intentions, not just because one has to. Also, pre-defined rules exist for the common good and these rules help with moral judgment. Such rules would include “no killing”, “no stealing”, and “no lying”. These don’t exist to provide an advantage or cause disadvantage—they exist simply for the good of every individual. To have morality means one must always adhere to these rules no matter the consequences, who is affected, or how it happens, because they only ensure the most good for everyone. However, one’s own standards for morality must also remain considerate of that of others’.

    Read More

  • Genealogy Of Morals, And Thrasymachus In Plato's Republic

    1780 Words  | 4 Pages

    Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals can be assessed in regards to the three essays that it is broken up into. Each essay derives the significance of our moral concepts by observing

    Read More

  • Kant's Views on Morality

    961 Words  | 2 Pages

    Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. While hypothetical imperatives deal with motivations and actions that lead to a particular end, categorical imperatives are a product of rational behavior in human beings. Kant considers such categorical imperatives to be the moral basis for life.

    Read More

  • Ethics and Moral Reasoning

    2113 Words  | 5 Pages

    Aristotle in his virtue ethics states that a virtuous individual is someone with ideal traits. These characteristic traits normally come from an individual’s innate tendency but should be cultivated. After they are cultivated, these character traits supposedly become stable in an individual. Moral consequentilaists and deontologists are normally concerned with universal doctrines that can be utilized in any situation that requires moral interpretation. Unlike these theorists, Aristotle’s virtue ethics are concerned with the general questions such as “what is a good life”, “what are proper social and family values”, and “how should one live” (Bejczy 32). Aristotle developed his virtue ethics based on three central principles; eudaimonia, ethics of care, and agent based theories. Eudaimonia stipulates that virtues can be seen in the way an individual flourishes; flourishing under this concept refers to one’s ability to perform their functions with distinct accuracy (Bejczy 33).

    Read More

  • What Does Ethics Mean?

    1265 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be ethical also meant that one has to be reasonable. Although most people would relate the term ethics with feelings but feelings can be unstable making it hard to make rational decisions. No doubt that emotions are powerful, but they’re also temporary causing regrets if unwanted actions does take place. When one is angry, frustrated, jealous, or sad, it’s hard to separate what is right from wrong. People have been killed or seriously injured only because they have cut someone off on the road or say some things that the other person did not like hearing. "Reason" on the other hand are supposed to guide people in the right direction and avoid what is bad. People have to live their life with reasons. Take a war, for an example, if people were going to war just because they feel like it then thousands of people would end up dead but for what cause? One of the criteria for a “j...

    Read More

More about can rationality and morality coincide

Open Document