Classical Theories of Morality

Classical Theories of Morality

Heavenly Hunter

Walden University

Classical Theories of Morality

 Throughout history, theorists have contemplated the idea and ethics behind morality.  This essay will analyze three classical theories of morality and explain how these theories align with cultural identity.  A determination will be made if one or more of these theories resonate with me and/or if a connection can be made with my culture.  An explanation will be given as to how cultural identity impacts social responsibility.

Literature Review

        The first classical theory of morality is credited to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.  Aristotle believed that happiness and virtue are connected.  He poses the question, “what type of person do I want to become and how can I achieve this goal.”  Aristotle states “men’s conception of the good or of happiness may be read in the lives they lead” (Arthur & Scalet, 2014, p. 75).  Aristotle’s theory goes on to explain that “men seek honor in order to be assured of their own goodness” (Arthur & Scalet, 2014, p. 76).  Aristotle then states that happiness requires help outside of one’s own accord whether the help comes from friends, money, or political power (Arthur & Scalet, 2014, p. 77).  

        The second classical theory of morality is credited to Kant’s Universal Ethics.  Arthur and Scalet (2014) breaks down Kant’s theory into multiple propositions and illustrations.  In summary of this theory the following points can be made.  First, “one must not act in accordance with duty; one must also act for duty’s sake” (p. 81).  For example, a person must not simply follow the law because it is the right thing to do; a person must follow the law because it is law.  Kant goes on to state that duty must have a true moral worth.  He states that standards of rationality should be set in regards to actions.  

        The third, and final, theory of morality is Mill’s Utilitarianism.  Mill’s theory states that each case of morality requires its own thought in regards to utility.  He states that sympathy should be used in each case.  The old adage, an eye for an eye, comes to mind when reading Mill’s theory.  He states good is deserved when good is done and evil is deserved if wrong is done against another person.  Mill believes it is unjust to break one’s word, to show favor where favor is not due, to violate the legal rights of anyone, or to withhold from any person that to which he has a moral right.  

Discussion

        I can relate to each of these theories.  However, Aristotle’s resonates more with me.  “Aristotle describes the important concept of finding middle ground in one’s life or, achieving a balance” (Smith, 2011).  I have always been taught that there is good and evil or right and wrong in the world.  In order to survive, one must find a middle ground in order to be happy.  On the other hand, I can also relate to Mill’s theory in regards to each case of morality needing its own clarification.  Some choices made in life, while at the time, may not have been right; may have actually became the right decision for the bigger picture.  I have also been taught that a man’s word is everything. Once that word is broken, the man is useless.  Kant’s beliefs also touch a part of my upbringing.  The fact that I am to do good simply because it is my duty to do right and not to worry about what may be given to me in return.  His reasoning makes sense to me.  Even now, I will loan money to someone because it is the right thing to do and I will not worry about when I will receive it back or expect some sort of special recognition for the good deed.  By doing either, then the good act has therefore turned wrong.   After final review, I believe that each theorist can be connected to my cultural upbringing.