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

'It pays to be moral.' Discuss. (30)

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'It pays to be moral.' Discuss. (30) Whether or not it pays to be moral is something that has been discussed and debated for a long time - some argue that it pays to be moral as it enables you and others to flourish however others argue that being moral is useless. In Plato's Republic, one character, Thrasymachus, claims that justice (morality) is simply 'the interests of the stronger'. In other words, our morals have been imposed on us by those who have the power throughout history to control our moral beliefs. Because of this it could be said that morals lack legitimacy, as in reality they are simply the values that the strongest (who imposed the morals) desire. As an example, Marx believes that the middle class promote individual freedom (to own property) because they are able to exploit the benefits whereas the poor would prefer less freedom and more support. So, if morality reflects both social and cultural bias, why should we be moral? There are different theories. Egoists believe that we should act morally and it pays to do so because it is in our own self-interest. As part of our self-interest, we may need to make a contract with others; so acting morally is justified by the contract that we have made and agreed to. ...read more.

Middle

condition we was living in that preceded authority and the rights/obligations of the social contract. The social contract is a tacit agreement between individuals and their elected government, made by a process of mutual consent. It is a metaphorical contract made where everyone agrees to abide by rules and accept duties to protect themselves and one another from violence, harm, etc. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Rawls all have different ideas on what the world was like in the State of Nature and how it is once the social contract has been introduced, however both Locke and Rousseau share quite a similar theory so I will illustrate what they think in detail in order to illustrate why it may pay to be moral. Locke and Rousseau both believe that the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is 'a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others'. This however does not mean that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all, or even anything that is judged to be in one's self-interest. Although in the State of Nature there is no civil or authority or government to punish people, it is not a state without morality - it is pre-political but not pre-moral. ...read more.

Conclusion

We do also not necessarily have to sign into a social contract in order to be moral, for instance, we obey moral rules when it comes to caring for both young children and animals even though we can not enter into a reciprocal relationship with them as they can not agree to the social contract. It is also worth considering the nature of altruism, if morality is entirely based upon a form of egoism, then this leaves no room for helping others because it is the right thing to do. Egoism claims that it may and may not benefit us to act moral - not because it is best to pursue our self-interests for our own personal gain, however it may benefit us because it will make us feel good. There are both arguments for and against whether it pays to be moral, however being moral seems like the best thing to do - you can still benefit from doing so without the risk of being punished for breaking the laws of the social contract or without the risk of even being killed within the State of Nature due to property, it is in our self-interest to act morally because it is mutually beneficial for everyone. ...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. Synoptic Study, Satre, Engels and Marx

    This does not impinge or limit my freedom I am still entirely free to create my own purpose and essence I just have to do it in the physical situation I am in. facticty is not so much a limitation of my freedom, rather the frame in which I can exercise my freedom in.

  2. Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion Discuss

    They say that because when asked to defend our actions we blame ourselves whether we could have acted differently. We would only blame ourselves if we believed we had other ways of acting.

  1. What are the principles of natural law? Every adult has the right to become ...

    To argue against IVF, it is asserted that separating procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act is morally unacceptable. Procreation involves engaging with each other, which IVF removes. The fact that IVF treatment often leads to spare embryos is perhaps one of the greatest reasons for objections.

  2. What are the limitations on our personal liberty? Are all of them justified?

    Although law actually dictates that any actual or grievous bodily harm caused is subject to conviction, as long as it fulfils the highly subjective criteria of being more than 'transient or trifling', Lord Jauncey clearly condemned a minority in a situation in which he would have let off someone partaking

  1. John Rawls Bio.

    Rawls's Contribution to Political and Moral Philosophy Rawls is noted for his contributions to liberal political philosophy. Among the ideas from Rawls's work that have received wide attention are: The two principles of justice (the liberty principle and the difference principle).

  2. An embodied life in heaven is entirely possible. Discuss.

    Mind substance can cause matter substance (i.e. the body) to act and matter substance (i.e. the body) can cause mind substance to have certain 'sensations' most often by itself being acted on by other material objects. For Descartes, the essence of matter is extension (i.e.

  1. Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of ...

    So for Mill, the central problem is therefore to establish the legitimate extent to which the state can interfere in the affairs of individuals whilst maintaining acceptable levels of individuality. Mill's answer is clear and is demonstrated through his "Harm Principle" which states that "the only purpose for which power

  2. Philosophy - analysis of Nietzsche, Sartre and Tolstoy

    More things in the world to explore. He should not think of the negative aspects of his life and focus on the present things going on through his life; family. He knows the meaning of his life is through faith. QUESTION 26 What is the difference, for James, between the ?healthy minded? tempermant, and the ?sick soul?,

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