|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by John Boleyn
In considering ethical systems, and in the attempt to establish an objective, and reasonable ethical system as is possible, it must be recognized that the object of any ethical philosophy is human beings -- the human good or those goods which human beings need in order to live a good, successful, human life; the establishment of human institutions, and most importantly, human happiness. As we observe human nature around us, we the various types of human goods we need and goods that institutions attempt to help us secure. For example, in economics, we talk about goods as in goods and services. By economic goods we mean commodities, the things that people buy and sell, and those things which have value. And in politics it is a good society and good government which should be valued first. With this conception of society and government, we have some idea of justice in meaning. A good society and a good government would be a just one. Then in ethics, we would speak of the term good in relation to the character of human beings, such as a good person leading a good human life. Now this notion of a good man raises certain questions. Is a good man a happy man? Does the notion of a good man tell us that there are certain "goods" inherent in the life of a human being or certain "good' acts which a person engages? Are some things only good because we desire them or can we understand that there are good and bad things and we should desire only the good? What do we mean when we call anything good? What would be the specific answer to that question? With human nature as a guide and with all the potentialities in which those potentialities are realized, we can say that human beings seek or should seek only those things, which are good. It would be "right" to seek only those things are good. This is desirable in itself. The good should be the object of our desires. Now how do we define good in a way in which there can be objective moral truth which takes in regard the needs of all human beings or a common human nature? Is it possible that there are goods which are necessary for all human beings to build what we could call a "good" life for ourselves; not just for survival but to enrich our individual lives -- goods that help us build political and social institutions which enable us to build a good society; a organized society where can obtain a good life for ourselves? If all human beings should desire and need certain, specific goods because we are all human beings then we can call these real goods. We should desire them because they would be to our advantage and benefit whether we desire them or not. The real good is the objective good. The real good is something I have knowledge about; I know it to be good even when I'm not consciously desire it because it is the object of my natural desire as opposed to my conscious desire. Now we introduce an important component of human nature: our desires. What do we consciously desire as opposed to what we naturally desire? There are many things we desire simply because we want them. A new home, a new job, maybe a new car. These are conscious desires. Of course, in and of themselves there is no immorality in desiring these things. Not only do we need them; they make our lives more enjoyable. But then there are our natural desires which are built into our nature, our natural, biological life. We have a natural appetite for food, so food is a real good. Knowledge is a real good; we must have knowledge and we have a natural appetite to know. We have a natural appetite to know people, to be cared for, to have friends and close relationships so this is part of our social nature. Whether I consciously desire them or not, I need them. Some of these real goods can be desired to excess and some we can never have enough of them. In many societies or cultures, these real goods may be more necessary than others. And we know now that automobiles maybe too much of a "good thing," because of the unhealthy state they make the air which all human beings have a common interest. So we see that real goods correspond to those things or objects which satisfy our natural desires, the desires which are constant in human nature. Indeed, if they are constant they must be the same for all human beings everywhere at all times. So, it seems that the real good is what human beings naturally do desire and consciously should desire. And therefore one can measure our conscious desires as themselves either good or bad according as they conform or do not conform to our natural desires -- the things we should desire. Of course there are other ethical theories which disagree. Philosopher Benedict De Spinoza asked the question, do we call something good because we desire it or do we desire something because it is good? Whichever way we answer Spinoza's question, determines our idea about the subjectivity and objectivity of good and evil. Spinoza answered this question by stating that the good is only that which we desire. It is that which pleases us because it satisfies our desires, so the good is entirely relative to our desires. There is no way to distinguish between those goods which are really good and those which are apparently good (real goods and apparent goods.) Then there is the theory of Utilitarianism, as developed by John Stuart Mill. He identified the pleasant with the good and that which satisfies us as good. But does Mill make any distinctions between the different types of goods or the different types of desires involved in human life? At one point, Mill esteems the individual's good as the highest good, then he says that the general happiness of society (i.e. the happiness of others) is the final goal. Two different final ends of human happiness. But happiness depends the not on the common good of the community alone, but the recognition of, and the ability of people to obtain those real goods which are necessary for a good life and even a certain amount of those apparent goods in which each individual must know of how much would make their lives good. In what ever measure, the possession of the totality of real goods, even though some may possess them in different degrees -- different numbers. I think we can identify these real goods in general: Goods of the body, goods of the mind, goods of character and goods of personal association. These four categories are internally based, meaning they belong to the private will of the individual. They are primarily dependent on ourselves as to whether we receive them, though in some quantity and quality, the political and social systems we live in will effect our ability to possess them. Then there are political goods, such as institutions of political liberty, civil and legal which protect the rights of individual choice. There are economic goods, such as a decent supply of and means to subsistence living and the working conditions important to our health; means to good medical care, means to goods of the body and the mind. Last, there would be social goods. These would ensure equality of status, of opportunity and treatment in matters affecting the dignity of human beings. And these goods would afford us access to pleasures of our senses, pleasures of play and aesthetic pleasures. These last three classes are external; our means of obtaining them is primarily dependent on the number of and quality conditions of public life -- the actions of our institutions. This is a blueprint for happiness, a happiness whose chief consideration, while recognizing our psychological nature, is based on an ethics which is based on a common human nature. It allows us to understand that human beings have natural rights -- the right to pursue happiness and that the goodness of a organized society must be considered on a basis in which it secures the natural and the political rights of its members -- the general welfare. This ethical philosophy should not go beyond these simple points to the extent of developing a detail specific plan for every society, culture and for people's lives. Every human being is different, but at the end of the day we are all still human beings. Yes, in some ways it is inadequate to solve the complex problems, situations and conditions of particular societies and cultures in a given historic time and place. It can't provide all of the answers. But it allows us to formulate and ask the right questions. It gives us an outline to develop sound solutions to problems; it helps us to move in the right direction. It can give us road map on how to consider what are sound or unsound policies in making decisions about virtue in human life. This system does not purport to make any final judgments about other ethical systems, either their validity or about their supposed immorality or morality. But it does maintain that this premise about the human good and what should be and is desirable for individuals and society must be considered when thinking about and judging other ethical systems.
Mr. Boleyn is a journalist and writer in philosophy, ethics and education.
You can respond to this essay in The Radical Academy Forum
|
|
Philosophy Resource Center Main Page |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.