Skip to content
Philosophy

Before you start reading...

Hello and welcome to my new post discussing moral. Keep in mind that I've translated this on Google Translate and that it may have some grammatical errors or it would sound unnatural; since all my original research texts are in Serbian. And if you find anything that isn't true or something missing in this blog post, please let me know in the comments, I would appreciate it very much! And now, without further ado, enjoy reading.

Origin

Morality originates from social norms that have been explored by modern philosophers. Each norm consists of 2 parts: rules, which are a description of acceptable behavior, and punishments, which are the consequences of not following the rules.

  • Legal norms - Written norms prescribed by the community, violation of these norms is followed by a specific and organized punishment.
  • Usual norms - Unwritten norms that naturally arise in the community based on everyday life, punishments are spontaneous. Some unwritten norms are written down, and sometimes written and unwritten norms clash.
  • Moral norms - They apply separately to each individual because they are internal, the punishment is a guilty conscience.

Moral autonomy and heteronomy

Moral autonomy and heteronomy are the ways in which an individual will respect their norms in relation to their actions in given situations. One who acts according to moral autonomy will not violate the moral rule and will not be guilty of conscience, although they will be punished for their actions. One who acts according to moral heteronomy will break the moral rule, they will feel guilty, but they will be rewarded or spared of punishment.

Example

Imagine a teacher who had students read a philosophical text. Do not imagine your teacher, but a very conservative teacher who does not allow their students to freely interpret the text, but always thinks that they are right and that their interpretation is the only correct one. The teacher read the text many years ago and formed a certain opinion about the text. They expect students to interpret the text as they do.

Most students read the text and interpreted it independently. During the lesson where the teacher talks about the read text, some of the students realize that their interpretation is different from the teacher's. What is the right thing for them to do?

Start considering the given situation using 2 options:
1. The student will interpret the text as the teacher expects, even if they do not agree with it.
2. The student will openly say that they do not agree with the teacher and interpret the text according to their understanding.

The first possibility in ethics is called moral heteronomy. A person with heteronomous morality adapts their actions to the situation in which they find themselves. In this case, the student will break the moral rule to avoid punishment or get a higher grade. In this way, they will avoid an unpleasant situation, but they will feel guilty.

Another possibility is called moral autonomy. The student will not violate the moral rule and put themselves in danger of receiving a lower grade. On the other hand, their conscience will not sting them because they broke a moral rule.

Deontological and consequentialist teachings

Deontological teachings emphasize moral autonomy, and consequentialist moral heteronomy. Both teachings are forms of perspective ethics, both prescribe which behavior is morally acceptable and which is not.

Kant's deontology

Kant's deontology focuses more on duty, goodwill and autonomy. Which favors respect for individuals, rationalism and moral clarity. However, the downside of this ethical view lies in the neglect of consequences, the neglect of emotions and relationships, and the inflexibility of rules, which can lead to conflict.

Aquinas' deontology

While Aquinas' deontology also focuses on duty, it differs in that the individual's duty is there for the sake of belief in God. Like Kant's, Aquinas' deontology also respects individuals, emphasizes rationalism, and provides moral clarity, but because it is linked to religion and emphasizes natural law, the benefits are also human flourishing (eudaimonia), encouraging a virtuous life, and the integration of ethics and religion. However, the flaws of this ethical vision are similar to Kant's deontology, namely: lack of flexibility, disregard for consequences, rigidity of human purpose, reliance on a theistic basis, and potential conflict with scientific understanding.

Utilitarianism

Unlike deontological teaching (Kant's and Aquinas' deontology), utilitarianism, as a consequentialist teaching, focuses more on the consequences of actions, hedonism, equality of happiness/well-being and on maximizing happiness through action. Famous utilitarians were: Jeremy Bentham (founder), John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidgwick. While utilitarianism may be practical, universal, and flexible, it also requires sacrifices to maximize happiness, which makes it unfair, has problems measuring and comparing happiness, and is uncertain about determining long-term effects, which it ignores. A well-known thought experiment of this kind of ethics is the trolley problem.

Other moral-related teachings

Aristotle's virtue ethics

Outside of deontological and consequentialist teaching, there is a type of ethics that is teleological, meaning that it is focused more on purpose and goal. Aristotle's virtue ethics focuses on character, rather than the question "What shall I do?" the real question this kind of ethics asks is "What kind of person should I be?" Aristotle begins with eduaimonia, which he recognizes as the ultimate goal of human life. Virtues are character traits or qualities that enable an individual to live well and fulfill their potential. Phorensis as practical wisdom allows a person to discern the correct course of action in any situation, which Aristotle points out. Aristotle says that virtues are not innate, but that we accustom ourselves and practice the possession/use of virtues over time. The strengths of Aristotle's virtue ethics are: a focus on moral character, recognizing the complexity and diversity of ethical situations, and providing a holistic view of human flourishing. While the flaws are: the vagueness of the mean in practice, the lack of guidelines for resolving moral dilemmas, and the lack of contemporary concerns about individual autonomy or diversity.

Metaethics

And one philosophical discipline that exists next to ethics is metaethics. It does not give rules of behavior or commandments, but deals with the logic of moral judgment and the meanings of ethical terms. It does not provide practical solutions or prescribe norms of behavior.