• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain and assess the view that morality is based on self-interest

Extracts from this document...


Explain and assess the view that morality is based on self-interest Thomas Jefferson said that "self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality" suggesting that morality is indeed based on self-interest. However, it must first be made clear what morality is. Morality is the distinction between what is good and what is bad, what is moral and what is immoral. It is the distinction between infanticide (immoral, bad) and Mother Teresa's work (moral, good). It is noteworthy to keep in mind that there are also amoral acts - acts which have no moral weight attached to them. The fathers of philosophy, Aristotle and Plato put forward a theory of morality in which they determined that it was the case that morality is based on self-interest. Although not in the way that the contractarian Hobbes suggested. Hobbes suggested that we all have a subjective view of our self-interest and this is best fulfilled by obeying the terms of the contract. Plato and Aristotle used an objective view of what was 'good' and in out self-interest meaning that it was independently defined as being as good from one's own judgement. ...read more.


Callicles at this moment accepts - most certainly down to the zeitgeist of the time which shunned those who didn't fight however this does not negate his argument. Indeed, Plato reinforces is by explaining that man who has to constantly fill his barrel with water because of a hole (the water being an analogy for pleasure and barrel for life) is less happy than a man who does not. Thus 'eudemonia' trumps simplistic hedonism and it is rejected by Plato and Aristotle. As aforementioned it must be known what our function is. Plato and Aristotle both said that we must look inside our soul to find out our function as it is determined by it. However the way they both define soul is different. Plato claims that there are three parts; reason, desire and spirit. To reach eudemonia, reason must be in control (like a chariot rider) of the two impulses desire and spirit (like horses). Once this is done we can reach the perfect Form of the Good (which all good things relate to). This form is present, like all forms, in the realm of the forms and not this one. Once this achieved, then we will be moral and just - but it is vital that the balance between desire and spirit is controlled by reason. ...read more.


This would push Plato in seeking a moral theory elsewhere away from his forms. Aristotle's theory is also not free from criticism; he suggests that each being and each thing has a function. However this does not seem to hold for atheists for it does seem plausible that everything be given a function without a designer or God (which they do not believe in). The attack launched on both of them is that they do not understand morality. For when we do something good we are doing it for self-interest but this seems to fly in the face of facts. People like Mother Teresa can not be said to act just for self-interest. Even if it seems that the person is given a reward for doing such things, it does not follow that the person did those things because they were self-interested - indeed, it could just be a consequence of what they have done and no the cause. Thus to conclude, to say that we our moral because of self-interest is both pessimistic and untenable in face of altruism (acts which are done selflessly). Not only this, but both Plato and Aristotle's metaphysical aspects of their theories have led to their downfalls and although they are highly respected and influential, the concept of 'forms' and the concept that everything has a function would not stand strong in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Plato versus Aristotle on well being

    Virtue for Aristotle is A posteriori; learning through experience, what is the mean path relative to us? Like Plato, for Aristotle we cannot pick and choose our virtues, we cannot decide to display courage and patience but not truthfulness and modesty, nor can people be virtuous if they do not demonstrate all the virtues.

  2. Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality

    Mill's assessment of Conventional Morality has serious implications for the running of the State. By saying that anything is permissible provided it does not harm another, Mill opposes the view that the state's purpose is to enforce "God-given" codes of conduct, a view that Conventional Christian Morality would champion.

  1. Introduction to Philosophy.

    These go beyond the tangible world. Socrates here says that Eros ( the god of love( was not a real god because he was made from abundance & poverty. Socrates concluded that if one of Eros's parents was poor he could not be a god, as gods lacked nothing.

  2. Evaluate plato and aristotle on well being

    This is highlighted by the doctrine of the mean; his theory that virtue exists between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. For example the virtuous mean of courage lies between the vices of recklessness and cowardice, which represent excess and deficiency respectively.

  1. Socrates’ View of Persuasion

    After Gorgias and Polus are forced to concede Socrates' claim, Callicles then argues Socrates to a draw by positing sinisterly that "might makes right." Therefore, according to Callicles, using rhetorical skill to be powerful in the city-state is "right" because the power to do what one wishes is the only reliable criterion for good.

  2. Social Contract

    For it would be right in a society to kill all the enemies if that's what society determines, in the case of the Nazis it would be the Jews, yet seldom do we find someone who would actually call this moral and not demand action be taken.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work