Morality

What defines a “good” person? A common answer to that question is that a “good” person should have “good” morals, but I think there’s a pretty evident flaw to that reasoning. In our heads, we can typically classify people into those who we think are “good” people and those who are “bad.” However, no one is born “good” or “bad;” that’s just a classification we make based on our sense of morals, same with the person that we judge as “good” or “bad.”

Trying to uncover the origins of morality in relation to capitalism, Adam Smith tries to answer this question in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.” One of Smith’s arguments is that our moral judgment is a product of our environment. More precisely, the conditions we grow up in, the people we are around, and our economic status all contribute to the ideals that we live by, becoming our morals. That makes sense. The set of morals of someone born into wealth and power will be different from someone in the middle class who has been taught to donate to the poor frequently.

Despite the fact that our environment shapes our morals, Smith also argues that humans are born with a natural sense of sympathy…a universal set of morals. For example, humans naturally tend to feel bad for those who are in distress and may feel a desire to aid them. In other words, morality is built into people. Over time, we add to this natural morality and understand what society finds acceptable and unacceptable. However, everyone’s social atmosphere is different so the sense of morality people have when they’re mature differs from everyone else's, but everyone will always share that natural sense of sympathy.

Before coming to a conclusion about whether someone is “good” or not, it’s important to understand the factors that contributed to their moral judgment. If a person is brought up believing that killing others is okay, they will believe that killing others is okay, but a part of their conscience will always be against such an act. So, a philanthropist and a murderer ultimately share the same universal morals in their conscience. That’s why both individuals are well… people.

Smith admits that it is possible to have a society of criminals and murderers as long as they don’t kill each other. Despite having a society of killers, the individuals have to still have the moral obligation to keep their colleagues or peers alive. We only classify a murderer as “bad” because they have deteriorated from the universal morality.

So, determining whether someone is “good” or “bad” isn’t a question of whether their morals are “good” or “bad,” but of how far they diverge from the natural sympathy they were born with. But then the question becomes: is it fair to judge someone as “bad” despite their upbringing and environment?