تعبير عن الاخلاق باللغة الانجليزية

موضوع عن الاخلاق باللغة الانجليزية

برجراف عن الاخلاق

برزنتيشن عن الاخلاق

موضوع عن الاحترام بالانجليزي مترجم

برزنتيشن عن الاحترام قصير

تعبير عن الاخلاق الحميدة بالانجليزي

برزنتيشن عن الاحترام قصير بالانجليزي

برزنتيشن عن الاحترام بالانجليزي

موضوع عن الاخلاق الحسنة باللغة الانجليزية

الاخلاق بالانجليزي

ما معنى كلمة moral بالعربية

معنى moral بالعربي

موضوع عن الاخلاق بالانجليزي قصير

ما معنى manners

معنى الاخلاق الحميدة

moral definition

موضوع عن الاخلاق بالانجليزي قصير مترجم

morale معنى

IS MORAL USEFUL FOR SOCIETY OR FOR MAN?

BY ADMIN NO COMMENT

Preliminary remarks: a) The following is a draft plan, not a complete essay: in the final draft, it will be important not to simply juxtapose the arguments, and certainly to develop more; (b) everything in the square brackets, any indication corresponding to the procedure followed, such as footnotes and paragraph numbers, shall be removed from duty.

[Introduction]

[Why this question ?]

The question asks explicitly to discuss a utilitarian thesis, that of John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism) - it is indeed exceptional that one wonders about the utility of morality, and what morality? - for which what is useful to society is fully moral. It would imply in its formulation that a choice should be made between society and man. But what is meant by "man"? Humanity as a whole? The human person? The individual or the subject in his singularity?

[Position of the problem]

Between a social morality and the duties that are unconditionally imposed on man [1], can one conceive a compatibility, or is there inevitably a conflict?

[Announcement of the plan]

Can morality be assigned a social utility first?

But what kind of man could it be useful for?

In the end, is not the conflict inevitable between a social morality and the moral requirement in its universality?

[Part 1]

Can morality be assigned a social utility first?

1) Does not every society or culture recognize the existence of moral values ​​that are peculiar to it, according to the inheritance, the social organization, the manners, the beliefs, the mentalities peculiar to each people? Judaic, Evangelical, Islamic, Buddhist morals, Kantian morality, Nietzsche's superhuman or existentialist morality, etc. are absolutely irreducible to each other. In the absence of universal morality, one would be condemned to the relativism of values, which leads to the nihilism of the present time.

2) Social morals are inevitably closed in on themselves, especially when they claim to universalize or assert each other as the only one that is worthwhile, which inevitably leads to the "clash of civilizations" analyzed by Samuel Huntington that is to say, to this conflict tending to become radicalized between the West and the peoples who are increasingly challenging it, no longer simply hegemony, as in the past, but even to the values. For example, the equal dignity of women and men, long since acquired in Europe [2], is rejected by non-indigenous cultures who intend to keep women in a subordinate status, reducing them to a status of movable property. at the disposal of his father, his brothers or his husband.

3) Moreover, a social morality of any kind could only be denounced according to Kant's criticism of the fanaticism of ends: if utility for society alone determined the maxims and duties to which it would be appropriate for each of them simply to conform, then little would matter the means actually implemented to obtain obedience to the moral law, which would not be anything authentically moral. Morality would have nothing to do with the consciousness of the duty to be fulfilled. The flatterest moral conformism would reign undivided, under the close supervision of a religious police, as the case may be.

[Partial conclusion]

Each social morality appears as inseparable from the culture of which it is a proper component. There is no universal morality if the criterion of social utility is favored.

[Part 2]

But what kind of man could it be useful for?

1) One could first think of the individual that morality could educate or elevate in his dignity. But if the utility alone of this one were important, it would amount to morally justifying the selfishness of interests, quite the opposite of what Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocated in the Social Contract: that everyone must renounce his individual peculiarity, that is to say, the pursuit of its own interests, to merge into the community of the people to which it is destined to integrate to become a citizen. Herbert Spencer, in an evolutionist perspective, did he not underline the importance of the principle of solidarity for allowing the very survival of humanity?

2) In fact, put forward the usefulness of morality for the individual, define the man as an individual being essentially in the pursuit of his interests, as naturally selfish, or enhance the recognition of the rights or freedoms of the people. individuals, respect for individual initiatives, etc., is to privilege a liberal problem, that of Adam Smith, for whom morality is based on natural feelings, or of John Stuart Mill. No opposition here could be envisaged between utility for society in general and the interest of the individual, since for liberalism a society would be only an aggregation or a sum of individuals - which J J. Rousseau [3] -.

3) If the human being in general [4] is more what it is to promote, or the unconditional object of a duty of respect - Cf. Kant -, the humanity of which every human being happens to be the representative, and thus the subject of any morality that may be valid, can only be the sole criterion for judging the validity of a system of values. If morality is a human construction, then it can only have in mind the gradual constitution of a reign of ends, or "reign of virtue" (Kant), first at the level of each nation, which it guarantees. unity beyond individual selfishness, ultimately to the level of all humanity, on condition that it finally becomes fully free and reasonable.

[Partial conclusion]

To valorize the utility of morality for the individual would only legitimize this selfishness of fact at the service of the rich and powerful of the world.

[3rd part]

In the end, is not the conflict inevitable between a social morality and the moral requirement in its universality?

1) Society first requires submission of individuals to its own ends, conformism, and can only fight against individualism and all manifestations of independence of mind - see Friedrich Nietzsche, Aurore -. Hence the preference logically given to universalist morals or to universalist pretensions-republican, especially secular, rationalist morals-which unite and integrate the particular morals that divide people. But does not multiculturalism, with its inevitable communitarian and fundamentalist excesses, come to threaten the "deliberative democracy" that would be the only basis for integration into a Republic following Jürgen Habermas (Republican Integration)?

2) Is utility to society frequently not at odds with most moral systems? For example, war commands each soldier to kill those who are presented to him as the enemies of the state, whereas common morals, whose genealogy is most often religious, impose the biblical command "thou shalt not kill".

3) Between a social duty and a moral obligation with a universal claim, should the preference be given in all cases to the universal? The unity of peoples or nations, the social order itself, would inevitably be threatened by being challenged in the name of an abstract universalism. Thus, if liberalism is open to criticism, in that it imposes on the detriment of the human being a model of development which leads to an ever greater precariousness and ever greater sacrifices, the injunction of the Church Catholic to respect everywhere and unconditionally the absolute dignity of the human person without regard for the real humanity would be just as much.

[Partial conclusion]

Between societies as they are and universalising morals the conflict seems insoluble.

[Conclusion]

[Summary of the approach followed]

In the first part we discussed the idea of ​​a morality that would be useful to society first. In a second part, we challenged that morality can be useful to the individual. Finally, in a third part, we showed what kind of conflicts could be conceived between morality and society.

[Answer to the original question, or, if appropriate, solution of the problem]

All in all, it would be very difficult to judge the utility of a morality, whether for society, for the individual or for man. Morality in general is defined above all as a set of higher requirements that it belongs to the will of each man to accomplish, according to what in conscience he considers the best to follow. We are here in the field of values, where freedom is unavoidable. Every man should be capable of resolutely inventing his own values, but the belonging of each to a specific culture such as that to the community of a people or a nation remains unavoidable.