Aliah Farley

Ways of Knowing
09/29/2015
1

After reading Why Be Moral?, I was left with a multitude of questions regarding the ideas
of morality versus rationality, and what purpose justice serves in society. Socrates poses the
question of whether it is better to be just or unjust, and he begins to talk about why we have the
justice system in the first place. In a perfect world, everyone would do as they please. They
would have the freedom to act in their best self-interest regardless of what it takes to gain
satisfaction. But in this perfect world, if everyone is acting in their favor, chances are their
actions are going to interfere with the actions of others. This, as hypothesized by Glaucon, will
lead to utter chaos and social instability. Therefore, we have to create a system that makes it fair
for everyone to reach some level of satisfaction, hence, our justice system. But in this socially
constructed system, in which we have deemed some actions illegal and some permissible, we
come across another problem. Are our laws what has created the idea of morals, or have our
innate morals shaped the way we have created laws? Many laws or social rules are often
enforced because, as a society, we have placed very negative consequences on disobedience. Not
only are there consequences, for example, prison time for high crimes, theres the social risk of
seeming unjust. Due to the fact that there is such an emphasis on how you are perceived in our
society, this fear of being shamed/persecuted by peers is enough to steer most individuals away
from breaking any laws or social mores. So, in that case, is it morals that lead us to following the
law, or are we just afraid of punishment? If there were no laws or punishments in place, would
we still be so inclined into acting out what is considered right?

Aliah Farley
Ways of Knowing
09/29/2015
2

In my personal view, I believe people want to take the easy way out. However, the easiest
path isnt always the most just path or the path that society deems acceptable. If given the
choice between doing hard work and receiving high recognition or doing little work but still
receiving the same recognition, most of us would choose the latter. It has little to do with
morality, but everything to do with self-interest and rationality. It makes sense to choose the path
that requires little work because it is human nature to find an easier solution. Acting efficient is
rational, and acting rational is in your best self interest because you are acting according to
reality. The only way to effectively reach your desired goals is to do so in accordance to what
reality allows you to do. Therefore, being rational is usually the best way to receive your desired
outcome.
However, being rational doesnt always align with being moral, and morality doesnt
always equate justice. Morality often doesnt push us to do things in our self interest. Being
fair or helping others are acts of morality but those acts do not truly allow us to have any
personal gain. By helping others, we turn our attention, energy, and time to others, when that
time could be used to further ourselves toward our goals. So, in turn, are those moral acts
rational? Is being altruistic really the most rational way to be if your personal gain is little?
Morality is another question in itself. Are we born with morals? Some psychologist
theorize that having empathy, sympathy and a general concern for others are what creates a sense
of morality. Some think morality is taught through what society thinks is normal at the time and
by what your peers/parents pass on to you. Other groups of thought think morality comes from
religion. When practicing or studying theology, you gain a sense of right and wrong through your

Aliah Farley
Ways of Knowing
09/29/2015
3

deities teachings. Personally, I believe morality is not contingent on following a religion, but
without the idea of morals, all religion would cease to exist. With religion, as well as with the
law. We see the same problems occur. Are the religious threat of a hell and the promise of a
heaven what drives people to act a certain way, or is it because morals are innate?
Morality also doesnt necessarily coincide with the laws either. Many people believe it is
just to break laws in the name of morality itself. Lawrence Kohlberg, a famous developmental
psychologist, names this stage of moral development the post conventional stage of morality. At
this stage he believe people have an abstract notion of what justice truly is. People may believe
some laws need to broken in order to have true justice or to be morally correct. When thinking of
morality in this context, some laws may cease to be effective.
I do not know the answers to any of these questions. It is another chicken and the egg
scenario. Do we have morals because our laws have instilled certain values on us or do we have
laws because of an innate need to create a fair world? Without laws would there truly be chaos?
Are people really as egoistic in nature as we make them seem? Can you be both rational and
moral? These questions have daunted past philosophers and will continue to be a topic of debate
as long as our society is the way it has always been.