Morality is a difficult concept to even define. At its heart, it is an attempt to determine the correct way to act. Of course, the difficulty in this is that we must deal with the idea that people do not agree upon what constitutes moral and immoral actions. From here the main problem is to discern if and how we are able to decide upon moral and immoral actions. There are many different approaches that various philosophers have taken. In considering moral philosophy, the philosophers Gauthier and Narveson have stated that the Contractarian outlook on morality is the only rational basis for morality. I personally feel that the Contractarian outlook supplies us with a strong basis for morality, though I would not go so far as to say that it is the only rational way to approach morality.
[...] It involves both empiricism and rationality, as does most anything. We cannot come to the most advantageous system through one or the other, but we also must realize that we are unable to find the most ideal system; it is always changing as the definition of morality changes throughout the ages. In ancient Greece, older men slept with young boys, but this wasn't considered immoral. Greece, which helped define ideas which would eventually turn into the social contract, had a social contract in which our modern society would find to be absolutely immoral. [...]
[...] If they feel as though they are in danger of losing their food and shelter, then they might feel as though turning to actions which break the social contract might be the better alternative. As such, we can still allow for people to attain their maximum work efforts and still ensure that people feel secure enough to not encourage the breaking of the social contract. To maximize the social contract, we must allow for people to maximize their own status will still ensuring the basic necessities for everyone without the same advantage. [...]
[...] Just as people should not devalue the right to not be harmed even if they have not personally had to worry about it, people should not devalue the right to not go without necessities because they have not had to worry about going without necessities. To what extent do we actually sacrifice liberty for equality? In a completely communist state, we are sacrificing most of our liberties for equality, but this is not the sort of system that we are actually talking about in our own country. What we need to consider is that one person being at an advantage does not simply and automatically put another person at disadvantage. [...]
[...] because, if we choose to act in ways that are only advantageous to ourselves, then everyone will act in such a way, and in the long run acting advantageous for only for ourselves is not advantageous four ourselves. Everyone else is acting in a way that is advantageous for themselves counteracts whatever advantage would have been initially obtained. Also, we must not act in a way that is advantageous to everyone because we are expecting something in return from other people. [...]
[...] In the end the contract is kept intact, and people who choose to stay within the confines of society are retroactively agreeing to the contract. Hume questions the idea that the social contract is valid because governments tend to in origins be brought about through violence: face of the earth is continually changing, by the increase of small kingdoms into great empires Is there anything discoverable in all these events, but for force and violence?” (768). However, it is less important to consider a contract's origins than what it accomplishes. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
