Introduction
The morality system helps determine the right or the wrong conduct and is inherently connected to ethics, the philosophical study of one’s moral performance. The essence of moral and ethical studies is based on the canon of Western philosophical ethics, which are primarily developed in Aristotelian and Kantian theories.
Hence, the canonical texts of Western philosophers serve as two basic philosophical traditions that commonly represent the highest achievements in terms of the establishment of ancient and modern ethical theories. The concept of will is perceived as the capacity of the mindset that selects the preferred desire among the variety of present desires at the moment of making a particular decision. The will itself does not pertain to any specific desire of oneself, however, it refers to the mechanism accountable for choosing from among the individual’s desires.
From the philosophical perspective, the will is an inherent part of the mind, together with reasoning and understanding. It serves as the core element of the ethical studies field regarding its role in facilitating deliberate action. As such, one of the recurring themes analyzed within the Western philosophical tradition implies the notion of free will and the related concept of fate. More specifically, this topic examines how the will can be genuinely free depending on an individual’s actions with either natural or divine causes, which determine them. With that said, understanding the concept of will in philosophical terms from the studies of Aristotle, Kant, Plato, and utilitarianism can directly explain the discussions on the nature of freedom and the problem of evil.
Aristotle’s Moral Theory
Aristotle’s theory of virtue ethics states that right and wrong are defined by actions in compliance with the traditional virtues, thus, making a good person. Aristotle represents the classical philosophical perspective of will in his Nicomachean Ethics. The moral theory of Aristotle proposes the virtuous way of life with reference to happiness. Nicomachean Ethics is his most notable ethical work, which connects the concept of happiness to the excellent activity of the human soul. Moreover, the activity of the human soul and its excellence is closely intertwined with the moral virtues and the virtue of practical wisdom, in particular, which connotes excellence in thinking and making decisions about one’s behavior. Such an approach to moral theory relies on moral psychology that is considered similar to Plato’s philosophy.
Aristotle’s classical consideration of the ethical relevance of will significantly impact the development of ethical and legal thinking in Western civilization. The philosopher categorizes actions into three different groups, including voluntary (ekousion) acts, involuntary or unwilling (akousion) acts, and non-voluntary actions (ouk ekousion). Involuntary acts represent the case when individuals do not choose the wrong thing and do not praise or blame.
However, the general ignorance of what aims are regarded as good or bad peculiar to people with bad character cannot be considered as an excuse for ignorance and justification in this sense. The non-willing actions are the bad actions made by choice; however, they are implemented because all other options accessible are worse. He emphasizes the ethical significance of will, highlighting that virtue and vice are solely human decisions. More specifically, Aristotle’s perception of the will is limited to moral philosophy.
Kant’s Conception of the Free Will
In contrast, Kant’s free will theory implies that the will is guided by maxims in a subjective manner and via laws in an objective way. Kant considers the will as “a law in all its actions,” which means that a free will is identical to the will under moral laws (1785). Otherwise stated, Kant’s concept of the a priori indicates that the will is dependent on a before-experience practical law, when it is viewed as “valid for the will of every rational being” and defined as “universal laws” (Kant, 1785).
Kant develops the connection between virtue and practical reason in a new manner, wherein virtue is seen as fortitude in acting on reasons, which can resist contrary inclinations and that comply with standards of moral responsibility produced by practical reason. From the Aristotelian point of view, even though practical reason is the foundation of virtue, it is never recognized as an internal source of law or a source of autonomy, humanity, and community as required in the perception of Kant.
There is a hierarchy of factors encompassing a person individually compared to a group of people. To be more specific, laws define the will to align with the maxims before the experience on behalf of the subject in question. The maxims address what is subjectively regarded as “pleasurable, displeasurable, or neither” (Kant, 1785, p. 4). Such a hierarchy results from a universal law that consists of multi-faceted parts from different people (individual maxims) is not possible. Therefore, given the guidance of the universal law provided for the maxims, the will of a particular person is free. The Kantian theory of free will is not based on determinism that the laws of nature require an individual to operate within only one possible course of action regardless of nature’s primary causes that provoked an individual to do. Nevertheless, if one is not capable of choosing between the right and the wrong option concerning the universal law, wherein the will is free, the natural causes led to only one decision without any alternatives.
The Paradox in Kant’s View of Freedom
The paradox that seems to persist in Kant’s view of freedom is based on his idea of an autonomous individual. On the one hand, Kant argues that the individual’s freedom is the ultimate good, and, on the other hand, he states that freedom is implemented by obeying the moral law. His eccentric view of a political system in some way facilitates individual freedom. However, Kant’s political system can also be perceived as hidden oppression since its society is oppressed by the a priori concept of the moral law and not the institutional orders. The Kantian paradox arises in terms of the primary goal of Kant’s philosophical treatment of freedom based on the autonomous self.
A person is controlled by the basic desires and inclinations unless he or she enforces maxims on oneself. In such a case, an individual does not have free will, given that a person is subject to the random order and chaos of one’s irrational choices. Freedom is achieved by imposing laws on oneself and complying the will with the “categorical imperatives” (Kant, 1785, p. 6). However, when imposing laws on oneself to be a free rational agent, an individual is guided by the former reasoning. More specifically, the imperative of being autonomous is conditional and somewhat hypothetical. Kant states that only categorical imperatives can be perceived as moral, which implies that his entire moral theory is paradoxical.
The morality of Promise-Keeping and the Free Will
The promissory obligations significantly differ from other kinds of moral responsibilities in several ways and, therefore, are considered very complex for consequentialist theories of morality. The promissory obligations are voluntary and immediately generated by acts of the will. From the ancient view, Aristotle states that promise-keeping is directly established by virtues, specifically honesty and justice.
Furthermore, the determination of the morality of promise-keeping is linked to the free will, given that Kant’s example of a perfect duty to others refers to the promise one considers making but has no intention of keeping to get the needed money. From his perspective, it is irrational to perform an action (lying promise) if its maxim contradicts itself (achieving one’s true goal) once made into a universal law of nature.
Utilitarian Perspective
In terms of utilitarianism, the most ethical choice is regarded as the one that will generate the greatest good for the greatest number. From this perspective, the utilitarian approach can be seen as the only moral framework to justify military force or warfare. As Mill (1863) states, one’s approach to using the will can turn into a habitual process, which contradicts any deliberate contemplation of an individual’s options. Utilitarianism argues that any act can be justified if it leads to good consequences, which means that it can sometimes be morally right to break a promise or lie (Mill, 1863).
Therefore, Kant’s justification of promise-keeping as a moral principle does not prove itself primarily a utilitarian obligation. The utilitarian understanding of the will entails that it adheres to the greatest happiness principle, meaning that actions are considered right if they promote happiness and wrong if they promote pain from the moral point of view.
Plato’s Understanding of the Will
Concerning Plato’s contribution to philosophical and ethical studies, the philosopher never directly discusses the concept of free will. One can assume that this is his meaning with the mastery of personal self and defeating desires that forbid the reasoned mind of oneself. Plato believed in the ongoing battle with one’s base desires and never directly discussed the concept of the will in his works, such as Crito, Euthyphro, or Apology.
Plato stated that individuals must exempt themselves from such impulses and obtain virtues of wisdom, courage, and temperance to achieve inner justice. Plato believed in the feasibility of free will; however, only after overcoming specific conditions by an individual. If the person cannot address the base desires that restrain oneself to their emotions, it is, thus, impossible to make decisions freely. Hence, only after the individual can master one’s self, she or he can express free will.
Analysis of the Contemporary Issue
Modern society is characterized by two major ethical convictions, such as utilitarianism and the consideration of freedom as the absence of constraints. The first approach believes that actions are morally assessed regarding their consequences and that pleasure is the sole intrinsic good, while the second approach views freedom as a lack of external restrictions to an individual’s actions (Mill, 1863). One of the critical contemporary issues to analyze can be the ethical dilemmas for healthcare organizations during the spread of COVID-19, encompassing the ethics of treatment, testing, healthcare workers, and vaccine.
The population already accepted that it has critical and potentially detrimental outcomes on the weak part of society. The weak part has no substantiality; however, it can become our family and close ones and encourage us to force constraints upon ourselves regardless of the outcomes. Utilitarianism is currently the most shared moral theory that justifies both the reaction and resistance of society to renouncing people’s freedom to protect each other.
According to Aristotle, the practical agents must determine the opportune action by themselves, as it is implemented by healthcare providers in their daily practice. This adequacy of virtues to the circumstances is endowed with two core benefits in the present context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first benefit implies that regardless of any lockdown, the choice to perform any action should always be assessed in a holistic manner considering all the relevant aspects.
The second benefit entails that virtue ethics provides a valid moral account, independent of the type of lockdown involved, meaning that every lockdown can provoke different moral actions. Moreover, the central issue of freedom implies how the will is directed. In terms of the pandemic, despite its limitations, no freedom can be genuinely threatened when a person acts virtuously and is willing to act so.
Conclusion: The Role of Will in the Moral Theories
Moral theories are generally considered a complex philosophical concept, which requires an in-depth analysis from multiple ethical perspectives for a comprehensive understanding of moral philosophy. Therefore, the holistic knowledge of the nature and aims of morality and moral theories is crucial to recognize these two fundamentally essential concepts in human life. To conclude, every philosophical perspective lacks the various forms of explanation to regard them as genuinely alternative theories. This ethical study of morality constitutes that specific problems arising from its very nature will remain central to any attempt at moral theory. With regard to current issues and circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial that society is prepared to give up a little to gain moral integrity and, therefore, become involved in saving someone’s life.
References
Aristotle (350 B.C.E). Nicomachean ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Web.
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. Translated and revised by Jonathan Bennett. Web.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Plato (360 B.C.E). Crito. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Web.
Plato (380 B.C.E). Euthyphro. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Web.
West, T. G., & Plato (399 B.C.E). Plato’s Apology of Socrates: An interpretation, with a new translation. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.