The Objectivity And Rationality Of Morality Essay

The Objectivity and Rationality of Morality Essay The difference in moral values of different people can vary depending on their culture and beliefs. There is much debate on whether or not the values of all people should be changed to fit a single standard of moral absolutes. Martha Nussbaum delves into this idea of morality in her book “Women and Cultural Universals”. In this book Nussbaum discusses the need for universal human rights and privileges. This is similar to the work of Stephen Jay Gould entitled “What Does the Dreaded “E” Word Mean, Anyway?,” in which Gould discusses Evolution and the meaning of the definition and the use of the word itself. He then discusses how they too should be universal in meaning and in usage. One other author who also discusses ethics is Frans De Waal in his work “The Ape and the Sushi Master.” De Waal discusses the notion of altruism and how it allows humans to understand themselves better. These three authors discuss the power of ethics and morality and the roles they play in many peoples’ lives. Despite the world’s need for moral absolutes; the road to obtaining such a thing is long and treacherous and if it is decided that the world does in fact want moral absolutes it will need and take much consideration and an overall agreement on what morals we should follow.

There are many ideas for the formation of universal morality, yet it is hard to find one that works to benefit everyone. The need for moral absolutes becomes clear when it comes to the treatment of women in many countries. The United States for example prides itself in its treatment of women, despite the large room for improvement, in comparison to other countries. Yet it is very clear that the treatment of women is unfair all over the world. Martha Nussbaum wrote of how severe the mistreatment of women has become. “Women, a majority of the world’s population, receive only a small portion of its opportunities and benefits” (Nussbaum 360). This clearly shows how serious the lack of universal morality really is. Nussbaum uses these statistics to help prove the need for universal morality. It is clear that women need to be treated as equal as men. Individuals must realize that the need for women to have equal rights does not lie in the usefulness of women to men. Equality should not be done with the intent that the superior group would still benefit more than the once inferior group.

“[T] he helping responses of dolphins, gorillas, or

people toward strangers in need evolved in the context of a close-knit group life in which most of the time such actions benefited relatives and companions able to repay the favor” (De Waal 689). The dolphins, gorillas and people that De Waal is referring to are those with once

selfish

tendencies.

Those

tendencies

now

cause

them

to

act

altruistically towards one another. If these people still acted selfishly they would be the type that would argue for universal morality only if they were able to find a way that it would benefit them. These types of people would believe in the principle of “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” (De Waal 683). Women, who are mistreated, may be able to receive the benefits of equality if some men were able to find ways that women’s equality would help them. Though this would help accomplish universal morality, it would do so in the wrong way. There are those people who no long act selfishly but instead are able to act altruistically. This would make it easier to obtain universal morality but there are many more obstacles that make it very hard for universal morality to take place. Unlike the people who changed their selfish ways; many people do not want to change their beliefs and especially their way of life. Gould shows this as he discusses Darwin’s follower’s distaste for change. “ Darwin’s contemporaries (and many people today as well) would not surrender their traditional view[s]” (Gould 200). Many people are very stubborn when it comes to changing their views. Darwin’s contemporaries are much like people today; neither group really wishes to change what they know to something unknown. Nussbaum shows that women are treated quite unfairly throughout the

world. This is because it is embedded in many men’s minds that women should be subordinate to them and that they do not deserve the same rights as men. This further proves the difficulty that the human race must face in order to establish universal morality. De Waal and Gould both show examples that some ideas may not be best suited to achieve a code of ethics and morality for the entire world. Though there are many other possibilities for humans to achieve a sense of moral absolutes. There is no one right way for humans to achieve universal morality. Some may turn to religion to find an answer to the moral dilemma that the world faces. Almost all religions have different views on what it right and wrong and how certain people should be treated and with how much, in any, respect. There are some religions that take away human rights all together. “[T]he practice of female genital mutilation, which deprives individuals of he opportunity to choose sexual functioning (and indeed, the opportunity to choose celibacy as well)” (Nussbaum 374). This is a direct example of how human rights are barred by a religious or tribal tradition. The women that Nussbaum is referring to are unable to even make the choice whether or not they would like to be sexually active. This practice by this culture is not as widely accepted, as the culture would probably wish it to be. Many

other cultures and religions would and do frown upon this sort of practice of female genital mutilation. Many cultures and religions are not as accepting of others as they should be at times. This poses a problem when trying to find a compromise between this type of religion or culture and one on the opposite side of the moral spectrum. It is also hard to turn to the scientific field, as research shows that not all humans can be nice and follow a code of morality, without expecting some sort of gain in return. De Waal wrote of Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Huxley who feel that

“the original state of

humankind, and of nature in general, is one in which selfish goal are pursued without regard for others” (De Waal 693). Hobbes and Huxley both come to the conclusion that humans do things for themselves only without caring about others. In this case De Waal gives the idea that people do have a choice in what they do, and many choose to act selfishly. Nussbaum believes that people should have the choice and the capability to do what they wish to. This helps to show that in order for universal morality to work, Nussbaum may need to rethink her approach. There is another approach that the people of the world may be able to take in order to achieve a sense of morality that is acceptable to everyone; which is the theory of using politics to help form a global sense of morality. The main problem with trying to use

politics to try to solve the world’s morality problem is that politics chooses its winner by majority vote. Politics also has the problem that it assumes that the majority vote winner is always right. There are many examples where this is not always the case. There are many people who do not share the same views as others and this causes a large problem in using politics for solving the world’s issue of morality. “The Kansas school board has reduced evolution, the central and unifying concept of the life sciences, to an optional subject within the states curriculum” (Gould 198). The state of Kansas decided to make the teaching of the widely accepted theory of Evolution an optional course. The students who choose not to take the course in Evolution are put at a disadvantage to the students who do take the course and the students in other states. The Kansas state school board feels that their views on Evolution are the right ones. Despite the lack of evidence to prove whether or not the theory of Evolution is correct, it is still the most widely accepted theory. This further proves that politics does not work, though the Kansas State school board did not attempt to use their influence to affect other states, the mere notion that they do not teach Evolution, can severely affect the other states. This is quite similar to the act of female genital mutilation that Nussbaum wrote about. Both of these authors describe instances where one

group chooses to do certain things that may go against the ideals and morals of another group. It would seem that it is impossible to achieve a sense of universal morality that meets everyone’s needs and makes everyone happy. The world’s need for moral absolutes may never be met, but that does not mean that the people of the world should give up all hope of obtaining it. It is very hard to find a path that makes everyone happy. Many people are selfish and do not wish to change their ways. It is thought that religion can help shape universal morality, but this too causes a problem since many religions have different views on morality and not many are open to change their views to match that of another. Science has also further proven that universal morality is very difficult to obtain since different people sometimes interpret science quite differently. Many people feel that using politics to find an answer is the best way. But this too has been shown not to be as effective as people would hope it to be. Politics rely heavily on majority vote. Majority vote is believed to benefit everyone, but it has been shown that the majority of people do not always embody the feelings and opinions of the population as a whole. It is very hard for universal morality to take place, but the idea should not be abandoned entirely.