Friday, September 9, 2016
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Throughout Plato’s Republic, Socrates repeatedly makes the claim that a moral mind is one in which the different parts of the mind are working together and the rational part is in charge. While this definition of morality is simple enough to trick one into thinking it is correct, there are many flaws in the logic Socrates presents. The part of the argument that bothers me the most is the role of the rational part of the mind. Socrates argues that if the rational part of one’s mind is working correctly, it is being resourceful, acquiring for the self what is needed, and “looking out for the whole of the mind” (Plato 441e). He then goes on to say that in a moral mind, it is this part of oneself that must be in charge, ruling over the desires and appetites of the self. While this may seem like a recipe for success, a self-help guide to a moral life, there is one thing Socrates neglects to take into account, a fundamental question he ignores: How does one know how to be rational? Where does this notion of ‘correctness’ come from, and how does one distinguish from an action that is right and one that is wrong? By dodging this question, Socrates creates a paradox: Does morality come from inside the mind, or outside of it? Are our actions moral because our rational mind is doing its job? Or is the rational mind doing the job of carrying out moral actions?
ReplyDeleteTo understand this better, consider the following experiment. Alone on the street at night, you come upon a hundred dollar bill. As no one is around, and there is no clear sign of to whom it belongs, you decide to take it. Is this an immoral action? Looking at the parts of the mind concerned with desire and appetite, they certainly play a role, as perhaps it is greed that causes you to take the money. But is the rational mind in charge and doing its job? Clearly, the answer is yes, as it is doing its best to provide for the self with what it can. Unless there is something intrinsically wrong with taking the money, the rational part is working out fine. But an innate association of this action with immorality would imply morality to be external to the mind, so this case can be ignored. Since the rational part is still running the show, therefore we can conclude this to be a moral action. But ask anyone whether or not it is, and chances are they’ll tell you it’s not the right thing to do, so we’ve arrive at a contradiction. In this lies the fundamental flaw of Socrates’ notion of the rationally moral mind: The argument doesn't talk about morality or its origins, leaving the question of morality and the mind wide open to other interpretations.
Socrates’ definition of morality is much closer to my definition of Self-Mastery or Self-Discipline. I think that in order to master oneself, one must use their wisdom and rational thinking to put their mind in order. Once that is done, one may begin to organize the rest of the aspects of their life, and from that organization and order, one can begin to put their moral life in order. In order to do that, however, the part of life from which morality comes, the conscience and religion part of life must be dealt with. Morality is more than just controlling one’s body with rational thought. That is certainly part of it. But the rest of it comes from personal theologies. In order to be moral, you have to believe that being moral is inherently good. Believing that it is the logical thing to do and being moral out of social obligation is not really being moral. It is the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. In order to truly fulfill the law of being moral, one must have to have a goal of morality to strive for. For me, that goal manifests itself as an opportunity to inherit the kingdom of heaven from my Heavenly Father once I have fulfilled my mission and my test here on earth. That knowledge of the goodness of god and his plan of happiness allows me to want and to believe in morality. Without that knowledge and belief I could not be a moral person. That being said, I think Socrates was definitely on the right course. Without order in all things, one cannot find the knowledge necessary to form a belief in morality; neither can they act morally because of other desires which will put the rational thinking in check. But once they master self-discipline, then they can move on to perfecting their moral life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter, rather than defining morality in terms of actions or decisions, Socrates describes morality as a state of mind. He does this by first describing the “perfect city” by arbitrarily choosing four virtues and applying them to different classes within the city. He then applies the city to the mind of a human being. This is where his definition starts to fall apart, because this definition suggests that a moral person will act like an isolated community. Socrates doesn’t discuss how the perfect community will act towards other communities, but I would assume that the actions of this community will be completely selfish and self-serving- the rulers would act in the benefit of all the members of the community, the military would protect the community, and the common people would serve the community. Every job benefits the community itself, rather than other communities. The community, or the mind, would benefit with this definition of morality. In Socrates’s definition, a moral person is completely self-serving- which would actually lead to immoral actions. Socrates’ definition just reaffirms the idea that immorality is superior to morality. I think there must be an aspect of how a person acts towards others to be included in the definition of morality. I believe that a moral person is someone who helps those who are less advantaged than him/herself, regardless of how that benefits him/herself. Socrates thinks that morality is each part of the mind doing its’ correct tasks in order to create the maximum rewards for that person. David Gold is right to a degree, in that a moral person according to Socrates could carry out immoral actions. But this is a function not just of the rational mind, but of ALL parts of the mind. Morality should not be defined in terms of the mind, but rather in terms of the actions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 6 of the Republic, Socrates puts forth his definition of morality. He believes that there are several different parts of the mind, and each one is in control of something different, with the rational part being in control over the other parts. To me, this is pretty close to my definition of morality, however, I do not agree with the rational part being in control of the other parts. Socrates describes the rational part as being the one that is in charge of the resourcefulness of the individual. If this part were to be in charge, then one would surely act only for oneself and never care for the wellbeing of anyone else. An example of this would be the ring of Gyges example that was discussed in the novel. If one were to come across a ring that could make them invisible, one would surely expect that since the rational part is in control that everyone would steal whatever they wanted since there is no chance of being caught. To correct this, I would add another part of the mind to Socrates’ idea, a part that cared and considered about the wellbeing of other people. This part would be able communicate with the rational part to decide and weigh the outcome of an action and how it affects oneself and others. Going back to the ring of Gyges example, using both of these part would allow one to choose the moral action of not stealing anything. Having said this, I believe that the connection between morality and mental health is greater than Socrates would have argued. In order for morality to happen, both the rational part and the part that considers the wellbeing of others have to be in good mental health to create a good balance of the two. If one or the other fails, then one would either act selfishly or give everything they have away. There must be a balance of the two for morality to happen.
ReplyDeletePlato’s definition of morality is incorrect. Morality should be a set of rules whereby following them makes one moral and not following them makes one immoral. On the surface Plato’s argument may seem like it follows that definition since it lays out requirements that one must follow, but the requirements that he presents are impossible to cause one’s self to follow or ignore. Plato asks that our mind be in harmony, but the only way the parts of the mind would have harmonious effects is if they happened to all conclude that the same thing is best, and since it is impossible to force an individual part of your mind to “desire” one thing over another, what Plato asks is impossible. Plato’s argument that harmonious minds lead to happiness and disharmonious minds lead to sadness may be accurate, but are not relevant as it has already been established in earlier chapters that happiness and morality may not correlate, in fact they may be mutually exclusive given that the desirous part of the mind demands what can only be obtained immorally so it is up to the logician part of the mind to determine whether to be moral or happy in those cases. If it is the case that the desirous part of the brain happens to desire what is also morally good then and only then does the ordered mind commit the morally good, but Plato fails to show that this occurrence consistently exists so his argument fails.
ReplyDelete