Morality In The Odyssey
Moral value derives from the observation of human behaviors that evolve over generations of time. It is knowledge that has a fine balance between practical. Productive and theoretical elements of human experience that results from wisedom of ethics. The evolution of morality along with wisdom operates in the background of social evolution bringing change and understanding to more formal systems of ethical knowledge.
Wisdom is a potent form of human knowledge, being a distillation of not only human knowledge, but experience as well that leads to being moral towards society and all of humankind. If you distill experience you arrive at what is "real" and what is "apparent." What is apparent can be real, but there is no consistent evidence to …show more content…
prove that. What is apparent can also be an illusion or predatory deception. For instance, an unwise and rational shopper sees a bright and shinny car that is spotless inside and out. He believes it is a "good" car based on its appearance. The car has all the symbols of being "good," but in fact the car has hidden engine problems. It is not a "good" car to buy. Learning the difference between what is real (substance) in the world, and what is apparent (symbol), takes considerable learning. So, wisdom involves not only how to see, but how to behave without being moralistic in the process. Here, it is only human for people to be deceived by people selling automobiles, leaving much of the responsibility to the buyer to make good choices. Part of making good choices, therefore, is realizing there is more to life than "appearances." Wisdom involves ethics, but it goes well beyond it and morality involves wisdom and ethics as a whole.
Wisdom tends to have its hand on the pulse of the moment. In this respect it is concerned with practical aspects of knowledge and experience while morality tends to infuse moral observation and experience with belief and a visceral reaction to events. On the other hand, formal ethical theory is an intellectual response to what wisdom and the cultural morality have discerned and discussed over generations of time. Ethical theory analyzes a wide spectrum of moral and ethical ideas culminating in various schools of thought. But, ethics as such is not responsive to the complexity of a moment in time when decision-making occurs. In general, ethical theory is detached from the "moment" (context) of a particular human action. Uniquely, theory questions the validity of any belief or observation of human behavior that might lead to the conclusion of what a person ought or ought not do. Were it not for insightful questioning of moral beliefs they would run rampant subject to social whim.
Ethical theory of the last several centuries has had a tendency to find its logical validation in terms of the analysis of words such as goodness, good, moral, ought and should. This preoccupation with words alone has set formal ethics on a collision course with science. For instance, a child possesses a gun which they fire and harm another person. In the strictest sense of logic one cannot say that this is wrong. Likewise, the formal logic of the is/ought dichotomy has concluded that "what is" cannot logically lead to what one "ought" or "ought not" do. "What is" in this example is a child pointing a loaded gun at someone and firing. What one "ought" to do about it, now or in the future, is indeterminate because no logical connection can be found between is and ought. It is here that evolutionary science enters the picture to solve the puzzle of logic. Darwinian evolutionary theory emphasizes the idea of struggle for survival and the survival of the fittest. Focusing on survival as an aspect of ethical development gives ethics a whole new set of arguments to deal with. If the long-term survival of a society is important, human beings in that society will have to make choices that determine what others ought or ought-not do. If humans are to survive and flourish they are compelled to a certain extent to embrace the notion that life has value.
In my belief of morality, I assume that morality is tied to responsibility while ethics is to truth. To further my assumption about my own moral beliefs, I would like to narrate the dialogue between the representatives of Athens, which was then in a position of strength, and the representatives of the city of Melos, a former ally of Athens that was in a position of weakness. The dialogue strikingly shows the essence of this view.
After the city of Melos fell under siege, the representatives of Athens went there to conduct a dialogue and talked with the elders of the city. An excerpt of the dialogue is as follows:
“What we want is to make it clear to you that we have come here for the expansion of our empire and are conducting this dialogue so as to maintain the safety of your city. To prevail over you is not difficult for us, but at the same time, we want your safety since this affair is beneficial to both of us.”
The representatives of Melos replied, “How could it be just as good for us to be the slaves as for you to be the masters?”
Representatives of Athens: “You, by giving in, would save yourselves from disaster; we by not destroying you, would be able to profit from you.”
Representatives of Melos: “Hence, according to the people of your city, just behavior lies in not differentiating between the cities that have nothing to do with you (neutral) and those that are either your puppets or have revolted against you, and you have gained control over them?”
Representatives of Athens: “From the viewpoint of right and wrong, our people do not make any difference between them and they believe that the cities are still independent as they are strong, and the reason why we do not attack them is that we are afraid of them.
So, by conquering you we shall increase not only the size but the security of our empire as well. We have mastery over the seas and you are a small and weak island. As such, it is only natural that you should surrender to us.”
Therefore, since the people of Athens are more powerful than the people of the island of Melos, the power itself gives them the right to occupy the island and make its inhabitants their slaves. The view of the separation of ethics from morality is more explicitly associated with Machiavelli, the Italian thinker. He not only insists on this dichotomy but also recommends, in his concise and famous thesis named, The Prince, to the ruler or prince to trample upon every ethical consideration so as to fortify his …show more content…
power.
Although I think of morality as essential for the life of the individual and indispensable for the continuity of society and social life, I regard attachment to it as dangerous for the prince and I wish I could caution him (the prince or monarch) against the danger of piety and say: anyone who wants in all conditions to be virtuous, in the midst of all this wickedness, has no destiny except disappointment. Thus, a prince who would not like to relinquish his crown should learn wicked methods and utilize them wherever needed. Even though in my view of the possession of virtues is good for the prince, it is so as long as it does not amount to the collapse of his rule. Even though, as morality suggests the Greeks to leave Melso on its own, the fear from their own society to rebel, insisted them to conquer Melos. This is what happens when fear and reality surpasses morality.
I would like to include another example based on modern times.
Traffic lights and signs are installed to preserve safety of people as well as vehicles and public property and serves as a way to test morality of modern day dwellers as well. On a empty road with no vehicles when the traffic signal is GREEN, will you cross the road? I would certainly do that. Even though I am bounded by my moral values and views, I hesitate to wait until the sign turns RED I also assume that no one is watching me as I cross the road on red light. As society cannot see my behaviour, I certainly will be okay while crossing the road. Similarly, a driver wouldnt stop at a RED sign if he assumes no one is watching him and the security camera is out of order. People would say they will go by moral values and stop, but in reality, perception differs from morality and person acts according to his perception of the current reality not his morality. I believe to follow ethics in real live and live practically rather than boast about my moral beliefs. People will look me via intense perception if I give this example to support my moral beliefs but in reality, most person act according to
situation.
Thus, since we think optimistically, we see it as an attribute which is regarded as a virtue. This is while there is also another attribute which is viewed as callousness although it engenders security and success. Thus, one must always move in tune with reality, know the value of moral beliefs and act accordingly.
Wisdom is a potent form of human knowledge, being a distillation of not only human knowledge, but experience as well that leads to being moral towards society and all of humankind. If you distill experience you arrive at what is "real" and what is "apparent." What is apparent can be real, but there is no consistent evidence to …show more content…
prove that. What is apparent can also be an illusion or predatory deception. For instance, an unwise and rational shopper sees a bright and shinny car that is spotless inside and out. He believes it is a "good" car based on its appearance. The car has all the symbols of being "good," but in fact the car has hidden engine problems. It is not a "good" car to buy. Learning the difference between what is real (substance) in the world, and what is apparent (symbol), takes considerable learning. So, wisdom involves not only how to see, but how to behave without being moralistic in the process. Here, it is only human for people to be deceived by people selling automobiles, leaving much of the responsibility to the buyer to make good choices. Part of making good choices, therefore, is realizing there is more to life than "appearances." Wisdom involves ethics, but it goes well beyond it and morality involves wisdom and ethics as a whole.
Wisdom tends to have its hand on the pulse of the moment. In this respect it is concerned with practical aspects of knowledge and experience while morality tends to infuse moral observation and experience with belief and a visceral reaction to events. On the other hand, formal ethical theory is an intellectual response to what wisdom and the cultural morality have discerned and discussed over generations of time. Ethical theory analyzes a wide spectrum of moral and ethical ideas culminating in various schools of thought. But, ethics as such is not responsive to the complexity of a moment in time when decision-making occurs. In general, ethical theory is detached from the "moment" (context) of a particular human action. Uniquely, theory questions the validity of any belief or observation of human behavior that might lead to the conclusion of what a person ought or ought not do. Were it not for insightful questioning of moral beliefs they would run rampant subject to social whim.
Ethical theory of the last several centuries has had a tendency to find its logical validation in terms of the analysis of words such as goodness, good, moral, ought and should. This preoccupation with words alone has set formal ethics on a collision course with science. For instance, a child possesses a gun which they fire and harm another person. In the strictest sense of logic one cannot say that this is wrong. Likewise, the formal logic of the is/ought dichotomy has concluded that "what is" cannot logically lead to what one "ought" or "ought not" do. "What is" in this example is a child pointing a loaded gun at someone and firing. What one "ought" to do about it, now or in the future, is indeterminate because no logical connection can be found between is and ought. It is here that evolutionary science enters the picture to solve the puzzle of logic. Darwinian evolutionary theory emphasizes the idea of struggle for survival and the survival of the fittest. Focusing on survival as an aspect of ethical development gives ethics a whole new set of arguments to deal with. If the long-term survival of a society is important, human beings in that society will have to make choices that determine what others ought or ought-not do. If humans are to survive and flourish they are compelled to a certain extent to embrace the notion that life has value.
In my belief of morality, I assume that morality is tied to responsibility while ethics is to truth. To further my assumption about my own moral beliefs, I would like to narrate the dialogue between the representatives of Athens, which was then in a position of strength, and the representatives of the city of Melos, a former ally of Athens that was in a position of weakness. The dialogue strikingly shows the essence of this view.
After the city of Melos fell under siege, the representatives of Athens went there to conduct a dialogue and talked with the elders of the city. An excerpt of the dialogue is as follows:
“What we want is to make it clear to you that we have come here for the expansion of our empire and are conducting this dialogue so as to maintain the safety of your city. To prevail over you is not difficult for us, but at the same time, we want your safety since this affair is beneficial to both of us.”
The representatives of Melos replied, “How could it be just as good for us to be the slaves as for you to be the masters?”
Representatives of Athens: “You, by giving in, would save yourselves from disaster; we by not destroying you, would be able to profit from you.”
Representatives of Melos: “Hence, according to the people of your city, just behavior lies in not differentiating between the cities that have nothing to do with you (neutral) and those that are either your puppets or have revolted against you, and you have gained control over them?”
Representatives of Athens: “From the viewpoint of right and wrong, our people do not make any difference between them and they believe that the cities are still independent as they are strong, and the reason why we do not attack them is that we are afraid of them.
So, by conquering you we shall increase not only the size but the security of our empire as well. We have mastery over the seas and you are a small and weak island. As such, it is only natural that you should surrender to us.”
Therefore, since the people of Athens are more powerful than the people of the island of Melos, the power itself gives them the right to occupy the island and make its inhabitants their slaves. The view of the separation of ethics from morality is more explicitly associated with Machiavelli, the Italian thinker. He not only insists on this dichotomy but also recommends, in his concise and famous thesis named, The Prince, to the ruler or prince to trample upon every ethical consideration so as to fortify his …show more content…
power.
Although I think of morality as essential for the life of the individual and indispensable for the continuity of society and social life, I regard attachment to it as dangerous for the prince and I wish I could caution him (the prince or monarch) against the danger of piety and say: anyone who wants in all conditions to be virtuous, in the midst of all this wickedness, has no destiny except disappointment. Thus, a prince who would not like to relinquish his crown should learn wicked methods and utilize them wherever needed. Even though in my view of the possession of virtues is good for the prince, it is so as long as it does not amount to the collapse of his rule. Even though, as morality suggests the Greeks to leave Melso on its own, the fear from their own society to rebel, insisted them to conquer Melos. This is what happens when fear and reality surpasses morality.
I would like to include another example based on modern times.
Traffic lights and signs are installed to preserve safety of people as well as vehicles and public property and serves as a way to test morality of modern day dwellers as well. On a empty road with no vehicles when the traffic signal is GREEN, will you cross the road? I would certainly do that. Even though I am bounded by my moral values and views, I hesitate to wait until the sign turns RED I also assume that no one is watching me as I cross the road on red light. As society cannot see my behaviour, I certainly will be okay while crossing the road. Similarly, a driver wouldnt stop at a RED sign if he assumes no one is watching him and the security camera is out of order. People would say they will go by moral values and stop, but in reality, perception differs from morality and person acts according to his perception of the current reality not his morality. I believe to follow ethics in real live and live practically rather than boast about my moral beliefs. People will look me via intense perception if I give this example to support my moral beliefs but in reality, most person act according to
situation.
Thus, since we think optimistically, we see it as an attribute which is regarded as a virtue. This is while there is also another attribute which is viewed as callousness although it engenders security and success. Thus, one must always move in tune with reality, know the value of moral beliefs and act accordingly.