In today‘s class, we began our section about Aristotle and his view of justice. In the course of the conversation, we also discussed the question, if people, who are acting in the most virtuous way, should also be the ones, who get the most (monetary) reward. One position during this discussion was arguing that acting virtuously should not be done because of an expected reward, but for the sake of virtue itself. This is, what Aristotle and a lot of other philosophers claimed.
I would like to bring up another consideration, I already thought of often times:
If we talk about that person, who acts virtuously and gets therefore rewarded, not only monetary, but also with honor and a higher social status, I personally belief that no one would do these actions without looking at their consequences, which, as a matter of course, should in this case be positive. Assuming this point as a fact, we could argue further that every little step a human being does ever take in his life, aims towards a goal from which he (or she) personally benefits. So to speak, there is no selfless act. Certainly, the first reaction of the most people is negative, but why do we always consider selfless actions as better? Unlike my countryman Kant, one could argue that it does not matter, WHY somebody acts in a special way, but THAT he does so. For example, it does not matter, if you don‘t kill your neighbor, because you fear the punishment or because you are such a good person. The consequence is the same - your neighbor is still alive.
But the central point of my thought is that even if somebody does not kill his neighbor, because he is a good person, one could say, he only is a good person (virtuous person), because he for himself wants to be such a person. So, again, it is a selfish action. It‘s not about, what other wants, it‘s always an egoistic decision. We can enlarge this view on everything in our lives, for example love: If you are in love with somebody, you want to be with this person, you want to care for this person, and be good to her/him - but why? Because otherwise, it would hurt you, so it is just a try to avoid pain and again a selfish action.
Even if Aristotle wants to act virtuously, then he does it because HE wants it, he wants to follow HIS rules, HIS reason, because otherwise he would suffer from an inner punishment.
At the beginning, this seems to be a very negative view on our lives, but I don‘t think so. Personally, I think, when we accept that everybody acts this way, it is way easier to accept other opinions, other ways of living and we lose a lot of social pressure.
What do you guys think about this theory?
I agree with Florian. I would also like to add that when we live life we do not stop at every moment and think about all the cause and effect relationships present so that we can do the most unselfish act possible. This would be a highly inefficient system that would cause more harm than good. One could make an argument that by focusing so much time on his/her own actions would be selfish on its own accord. Virtue could be acts that are beneficial to the most people, whether that person is you, your neighbor, or you lover. It does not matter. People should live by what they believe is right, not what “looks good” in the eyes of other people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you both say, Florian as well as Anna, but I have definitely been struggling with this through the days we have discussed it in class. As a Bonner scholar, my way of life is giving my time and energy to another person or to some cause directly for the benefit of that person or cause. Because of what I stand for, it has been difficult for me to accept this way of thinking that every action has a selfish motivation. But this is true! When serving my community, I am also fulfilling service hour requirements, improving the likelihood that people will honor and respect me, and feeling good about myself and what I am doing. The action is not completely selfish, but there is a selfish reason for my doing the service. But, like Anna said, I don't ever stop in the middle of a soup kitchen and analyze my decisions and actions. Instead, my thinking of it must be prompted.
ReplyDeleteI find the position that selfishness and “goodness” in our actions are not mutually exclusive refreshing and compelling. One of our most basic physiological reflexes is to avoid pain and seek enjoyment, and in rational beings this quite naturally extends itself to an aversion to intellectual and emotional pain. Since these response are so natural, almost all people will follow them almost all of the time. Furthermore, in social creatures such as ourselves, it is also advantageous and therefore natural to desire to reduce other’s pain so long as it does not interfere with one’s own avoidance of pain or pursuit of happiness. I agree that it is important to remember that seeking enjoyment and contentedness are often impulses even more powerful than avoiding pain, as the suffering we often willingly endure to achieve greater happiness demonstrates. There is one more advantage to founding a society based on these innate desires – it makes every person feel they are simultaneously free to make choices and always benefitting themselves and others. This is perhaps why systems that attempt to impose a narrative on their citizens’ lives fail more frequently than those which preserve at least the appearance of individual freedom. We naturally want to believe we are above average and know what is best for ourselves and others; encouraging this belief first and tempering its results later is a much better foundation than the reverse, especially when it takes place in an environment of intentional, honest and unrestricted discourse – this can only further the very same beneficially self- and community-interested outlook that makes such a structure so naturally appealing and robust.
ReplyDelete