MA Sultan - محمد سلطان
What is the impact of being good? The answer has been tackled since the very beginning of the philosophical trends, and there is a lot of controversy and disagreements about it. Every philosopher deals with goodness according to his understanding of the definition and its consequences and relative issues. If Good is defined as morality, does it mean that morality is related to goodness? Is the term goodness equivalent to ethics? All the answers are solely means to reach or to come closer to the idea of perfection and happiness. Accordingly, the importance of good cannot be known and determined without searching for the concept, defining the term and knowing the outcome of following the philosophy.
Goodness is mainly about reason and philosophy- the idea of doing good is what sparks the entire initiative to be put into action- and not restricted to the practice. "The notion of goodness is divided into two main parts, the philosophy and the practice" (Lauer 9). The philosophical part paves the way for the practice by giving the motivation to do the good and by justifying the application of good. For example, when someone is doing charity, he needs to be convinced that this action will bring comfort to the people and to be considered a sort of goodness in order to be motivated to establish it. The part of practice comes next and it is autonomous which means that there are no ties between the practice and the notion; however, embracing the notion significantly helps to turn the belief into action. When someone does a good thing, it does not indicate to his level of morality because maybe a wrongdoer with an impulse of his conscience when his ego is absent - does a good deed." the person's level of morality cannot be determined by his personal views because his understanding of morality is the only reliable indicator" (Damon 110). The wrongdoer may have some evil views about life, but still have a certain understating about morality which drives him to be moral for some time.
"Good is the set of ethics and morals by which the purpose and the course of life can be determined" (Rand 10). The main question that Rand inquires about is not pertaining determining the morals and values, but about the importance of these morals for man's life. Such a question is related to the existence of life because if the man needs these morals for his existential purposes, such as living and coexistence, then they will be considered as major and basic needs. In other words, the survival of the man cannot be accomplished without the set of morals which is known as morality or goodness. Such a claim is very rational and logical because in the absence of morals the one and only one possible result is the prevalence of vices- such as murder, exploitation, fraud or embezzlement- which wipes out mankind in the long run and that is obviously against the very fundamental principles of the survival of the human beings.
"Goodness leads to the good life". This is one argumentation why humans have to be good and a common notion within cultures and faiths or religions that being good and doing good will lead to happiness. The idea is basically about the reproduction of good; when someone does a good thing that will be mirrored to him by someone else in a time of need. What the good person does is like his ticket for happiness. For example, when someone helps a needy person, this help will come back to him in any means, whether by feeling happy, reaching a goal or any reward. Such philosophy behind being good is totally rejected by Socrates because "we only submit to ethics and morals when it comes in our favors" (Blackburn 96). Socrates counter argues that the person who does the good is not doing it for the sake of goodness, but for the reward of doing it. But the confusion Socrates has concerning doing Good happens due to the fact that he does not consider the relationships between human beings as mutual. Human beings do live together in the same planet for the sake of mutual help and unity. The opinion of Socrates opens the door for discussion because his argumentation will definitely go against altruism and sacrifice and even against his vision. The first contention is the difference between doing the good and expecting a reward in general- by thinking that there is a reward, no matter when it comes or how- and doing the good for the reward in particular by believing that the good I am doing is the way to approach the goal. Doing the good and expecting the reward is not a selfish act, but it is like a motivation for committing the action. If I do help a needy person, it does not mean I am expecting certain help from him or anyone, but it means I know that doing good will help me in my life, for helping needy people softens the heart and purifies the intention. Also, Stoics believed in four main points to achieve happiness, one of which "[is] utilizing the wealth obtained during the lifetime to perform virtuous actions"(Routledge 82-116). The second type that deals with doing good as a means for the rewards could be considered as a selfish act because the action itself is meant for another purpose than seeking good. The first argument that Socrates adopts; doing good for the reward is not a good act, but rather a selfish one, contradicts his opinion because there is a need for the social bonds between people which are considered as imperatives to help each other. Accordingly, Altruism is defined as giving assistance without expecting a reward even if that goes against the assistant's interest. The concept of altruism is merely focusing on the soul by reaching happiness, no matter what the reward is. Similarly, being altruistic can be deemed as a selfish act because even if it is about improving the soul, this improvement is not a materialistic reward, but still a sort of reward, a spiritual reward. Therefore, not accepting doing the good for the claim that it is somehow selfish, will lead to the elimination of altruism because it is somehow selfish too and paradoxical.
In conclusion, being good is not a choice left to the human race, but rather a methodology followed to preserve mankind to improve life. Doing good is not merely an action that can be modified or adapted according to the situation. When a child observes his parent cooperatively working with his colleagues and neighbors, that will lead to the reproduction of goodness by the child someday, whereas observing the father doing something wrong- for example, something violent as beating his mother- will lead to reproducing the same act in the future because the child deems his father as an aspiring figure for him. The morale behind following good is to approach eudemonia, " The good composed of all goods; an ability which suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a living creature", Plato. Being good is not meant for the sake of one individual's life, but for the collective, for the masses, and for the entire race.
References
Rutledge. Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, 1998. Print
Damon, W. Social and Personality Development: Infancy through adolescence. New York: W. W. Norton, (1983). Print.
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. : New American Library, 1964. Print.
Blackburn, Siom. The Big Question Philosophy. : Quercus, 2009. Print.
0 تعليقات