Morality And Moralization Essay Example

one has put on and so it is with the variegated ways in which morality is examined and investigated. “The moral Instinct”, which is the backdrop seed text from where a perspective of morality will be studied presents to us controversy and extreme conflict that goes farunresolved and it is against this backdrop where a paradigmatic change will be integrated into place. Technically speaking there is not any qualitative or quantitative way of weighing morality because of the ambiguity attached.

Primarily, definition of morality among different folks globally is highly influenced by several factors that will be investigated and upon which this explorative essay bases its argument. One of these factors is environment or occupation of the subject under study. The author surprises us with the responses he gets from hispublic interview on how opinionated they are when it comes to describing Bill Gates, Mother Teresa and Norman Borlaug! The reason as to why Mother Teresa will be credited a lot on her morality-based actions is that the conventional societal culture of the day ascribes helping to the poor as the apogee of generosity and morality. Since poverty and destitution seemed to be the endemic vice of the day, Teresa is taken as the icon of morality whilst the true bidders of the same are given a cold shoulder. This goes further to resonate the fact there hardly been developed a holistic perspective of describing morality. Moreover, society tends to praise and honor a culture built alongside a dysfunction or a pitiable situation.

For instance, the “pseudo-humility” presented by Teresa always posing photos with the wrecked of the earth causes her to be the epitome of sainthood

while the opulent affluent Bill even after bringing solutions to the myriads of problems bedeviling the computer literate society is taken for a proud and scum of the earth. This further pronounced in the context of nurses and patrons being exposed to harsh environmental conditions to paint a picture of true morals to the public, a classical definition of hypocrisy. People tend to incline godliness and morality to how the backgrounds seem to be. The reason as to why this scenario is presenting itself is that people are yet to define the multi-stage and multi-dimensional approach of societal function. Not only have we the poor people’s problem to solve but also the rich man’s problems too. Different societies and at different times, the standard of right and wrong changes considerably. That which at one time and place is held to be right and proper is, at another time or place, not only wrong but one of the greatest of crimes (Franzese &Aniello 95).

It is worthy to note that whenever someone is of a certain dignified statuesque in society that class of life tends to modulate their behavior. For instance, when someone ascends to a certain office or place of influence, their conduct tends to change to imply a moral standard they have. It is very interesting to note how upon promotion to an administrative office of a in a village causes someone to modify their attitude towards other people in order to impress them. This is because of an expectation of the public of what a pastor should look like, how the sub chief of the region should dress like, how provincial directors should address

matters pertaining to the society. That is why they hardly expect mother Teresa to pose a photo while in a 5 star hotel. People change the way they dress, talk, manner of walk or even eating habits because of a title. Thus unfortunately is hypocrisy hid in a cloak of implied morality and what happens is that deep within these characters is a degree of untold conflict. Such a fleet of people struggle to live to the expectation of the public, where you want to act superman so that everyone can clap and celebrate you for faked reputation. In reality, this is classical manipulation and these people end up being victors and champions publicly but victims privately (Davila, Eduardo 35).

Politics has ranked as one of the powerful analgesics that modify the moral health of any individual. As a rule of the thumb, it is widely accepted that every political leader must be in a capacity to unite all people groups within their jurisdiction. Great a diversity there is within any given community, this call for the leaders to be modulated as environment demands. Rogue, malicious and politicians of unbecoming behavior tend to appear ‘holy and clean’ as we approach electioneering seasons. In order for any leader to appeal to church masses to fish for votes, many of them learn Christian ways of conduct, periodically quote biblical text during their expository charming speeches. Staunch Christian leaders who are eyeing a political seat compromise even to extents of joining Muslims in their worship services and learning their culture to gather a massive votes haul. Majority of this type of leaders are quick to clear their names from

fraud cases or scandals bedeviling them as this in one way or the other will tarnish their name and reputation to the society they are appealing to. Short-term hypocritical connived community developmental projects are also undertaken during the political eves in circumstances where leaders want to appear as deliverance angels to the desperate community. Majority of them will attend fundraisers and give huge chunks of money, orphan and vulnerable people centers will be improved and well-furnished, delayed projects will quickly get funding from them to finalize easily. All this is to convince the masses to vote them in. Unfortunately, after they have had the office, they will resolute back to their old ways of living. Some of the leaders may not change outwardly but deep within them is a sinister evil scheme of dipping their hands in the cookie jar and looting the economy (Goldstein and Nicolas et.al 15).

In the year 2008, the US government enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which has commonly over time been called as bail out of the United States .The central theme in the enactment of this law was to mandate the government to buy distressed assets and directly supply money to banking institutions. This was a response tactic to the catastrophe that broke out when there were pronounced declines in home prices (Davidoff Solomon & Zaring, 45). Bailout briefly is the descriptive term given to a scenario where a firm, individual or government offers financial aid to an organization or even a country that is undergoing financial crisis or about to declare bankruptcy. A government vested with such powers also has influence on the insolvency process, where a

rescue operation is undertaken for an institution that has more debt than the assets it owns. Following money crisis with the General Motors firm that led it to file bankruptcy in June 2009, the US government supplied $33 billion to the firm to streamline its operational functions. The general sense in the use of bailout principle is a positive motive of saving a dying entity. In a literal sense, a bailout when correctly utilized can truly save a sinking economy. For instance, all “big banks” have a substantial amount of loans they are owed by other financial “small banks” which also have lent to its esteemed customers. The terms “big” and “small” are not really a protocol of the bank size but about the pivotal essence of the bank as pertains to the financial scheme and its impact on the economy of the nation. Exemplary of this is when presented with a case where Big Bank Q is sinking and on the verge of becoming insolvent and Small Banks W and Z which source from it have also run dry and are anticipating for its intervention. In this case then, it would be unethical and immoral for the government to watch the crisis worsen to a critical state when it has the capacity to palliate the issue through bailout (Lakhani &Ali 79).

It is argued that government bailouts are instrumental in preserving jobs and curb the marauding unemployment scandals. However, this motive is vulnerable in the sense that parties involved may manipulate the process for their selfish gain. Such is the case seen when an individual or an organization uses people with disabilities to raise funds

for themselves in the cloak of helping the poor and vulnerable. One of the toughest undertakings involved with the bailout affair is to principally define the firm or organization that is in dire need of financial aid and to what extent. What are the parameters that are to be used to distinguish a critically abased firm from a medium afflicted one? Secondly, what accountability structures have been put in place to oversee that the money bailed to these firms will not be abused? Of critical importance is to first have a thorough audit done to the firm to establish the cause of the pronounced economic downturn. In this regard then, society will brand the government as morally upright since it has a heart towards its failing economy. Unfortunately, the whole aspect of bailout is a two-sided coin, while in one viewpoint we are trying to save a collapsing economy; on the other side, we are furthering the wicked agenda of rogue individuals (Geis &Gilbert 55).

For instance the US has government has in a very subtle way classified the firms that seem as of absolute necessity to the economy and whose malfunction would cause untold socioeconomic misery. One reason for the adoption of such a paradigm is derived from the personal inducement of the policymakers themselves. In controversial crises times, legislators move in fast to take action to please and propitiate the masses and make active maneuvers to demonstrate that they are solving the issue presented the moment. This means that they are more position and reputation conscious than reality oriented. What they always want is an activity list to prove to the public that they

are doing something to alleviate the problem. They risk losing confidence and support of the voters as the impression in the voters is that the policymakers are not shouldering responsibility as they should and chances of being reelected will be minimal. Therefore, in order to gain support on voters’ good sides, policymakers should be made more inclined to take bold actions because it will be perceived as gaining momentum in the process of taking initiative to make progress, rather than to seemingly sit by idly and let market forces take the its impact and the control action (Lakhani, 85). In the process of critically dissecting the matter, this is hypocritical and irresponsible for the government to do such a thing. One of these reputable firms is the transportation sector (petrol companies, airliners, motor vehicle industry etc.) that is idolized as the nation’s backbone and is rumored to maintain and stabilize the nation’s geopolitical power and its security. (Poole & William 23). Such firms are termed as “too big to fail”, a cliché’ used to describe organizations or business firms of significant importance to the government ,so precious that it will use the last penny to ensure that it will stand even times of debilitating crisis. This has caused the transportation sector to enjoy extreme favors and privileges even to the point of encouraging reluctance and mismanagement. Generally, statistics will show that major shareholders for these big companies are state officials, men and women of political influence in society and when they are signing bailout consents, they are literally transferring money from the government accounts to theirs, from public to private ownership. This characteristic of a

firm being of such importance even to command the attention of the government provokes mismanagement and embezzlement of funds.

In the 2008, tension heightened as debates arose from across the US on whether the government should bail out to the sinking automobile industry, which characterized this bail out as emergency type. Hugh Hewitt argued this bailout as a ludicrous, unacceptable and insane practice as it infringed the taxpayers by causing them to pay more. This is because the massive failure was instigated by mismanagement and malpractices among top leadership of the industry and instead of the government taking the necessary action of resigning the leaders to pave way for fraud investigations; they open an avenue for covering up social ills. This scenario signals that the government is encouraging giant companies to set low business standards by incentivizing risk. This birthed moral hazard as gross misconduct and error in the management is being promoted. Moreover, injustice becomes more pronounced when the government bails out private companies because after all the money being used is taxpayer’s money. The reason as to why this is critiqued as moral hazard is because the taxpayer’s themselves don’t have a share in the profits accrued from these private enterprises and to make the matter worse off, the government isn’t guaranteed in any way that these firms will give back the money (Woods Jr & Thomas).

Concisely, the issue of 2008 bailout when zoomed into using the spectacle of morals and moralization is quite controversial. Am of the personal opinion that bailout is the impetus for sustaining the momentum of the economy although on another hand am conflicted in the aspect of morality in

terms of misuse of government capital. Since it is unethical for the policymakers to see the economy worsen to a critical stage even to major banks being placed under receivership, the government should employ the bailout principle but under very stringent conditions complimented by surveillance, accountability structures and clandestine espionage. This is because of the fact that although citizens are being taxed to save and/or support the economy (which is literally the same citizens) and in this good motive, their money is flushing down the drains by going into the pockets of varlet managerial team of parastatals. Private firms should also be bailed out since their presence within any country’s jurisdiction has a significant influence on the economic temperatures. But this maneuver should be under strict punitive measures in case non compliance. The challenging scenario is on the heights of the rationale on why to bailout even in cases of evidenced fraud and mismanagement from the “big” firms demanding the aid. However, moralization of bailout and amoralization of embezzlement of government funds is a subject of debate still among the elite. Since these parastatals have majorty of their shares owned by the policymakers who enjoy impunity, mismanagement will continue to be pronounced and later on be endemic, the very pandemic that will cripple the economy. A paradigmatic shift in the way morality is viewed will have to be induced and encouraged among the leaders, state officials and the masses. We need to view bailout as a strategy to survive the lives of dear citizens and not really as a means to further enrich the already affluent pack of officials.