Assessing the moral value of Joseph Rountrees contribution to society
There is seemingly universal agreement that Joseph Rountree, through his enduring legacy of the The Joseph Rountree Foundation, has and continues to make a significant contribution to society. Through this mechanism he is working to ‘leave it better than he found’ and to execute actions that, again through his continuing influence, work to achieve his aims which he worked towards and believed in while alive.
In preparation for the claim that this ‘enduring action’ is appropriate to be seen through the lens of a contribution valued in terms of morality, one should first give thorough consideration to that which is considered “moral”. For example, conflict is readily evidenced with the simple inclusion of a framework in which one’s relative perspective is considered. Specifically, is the course of action that is “right” for me also “right” for others? Does this view change based on relative circumstances or does what is right (aka, moral) remain so on a continual, invarying basis? Is there some hierarchy of morality by which one can determine who’s “right” is more or most “right”? These issues and others which inevitably arise are best considered from established frameworks of established moral theories.
In the scheme of the consideration of that which is moral, there are three principle frameworks by which theorists and their respective theories typically fall. These three perspectives encompass the spectrum of such thoughtful luminaries as Kant, Hume, Aristotle and others. It is from the jumping off point of reflection upon these established viewpoints that one begins to acquire a perspective upon which a judgment of morality of the contributions of Joseph Rowntree to society can be adequately weighed. Utilitarian theorists justify as moral the means by which any moral good is achieved. Perhaps the greatest critique of this argument is that idea that calls into question what the final moral goal is and further, who is to say that my moral good is greater or lesser than yours. Putting a value on suffering, pain, pleasure and benefit in all but nearly purely economic judgments.
An example of a utilitarian perspective that does seem to be in agreement with the a priori sensibilities of most is the perennial case of at which time telling a falsehood is a moral action. Clearly, there would be a loss of life (severe negative outcome) if the truth be told that such a condition exists. Consider the typical ‘life-boat’ scenario: Is one justified morally in determining that some lives are worth more than others? Does it make a difference if the greater good is measure in economic terms vs. human life terms as it frequently does with certain medical decisions to “maintain life support”?
The universalist position is that which is espoused by Immanuel Kant, the author of the aptly titled, Critique of Pure Reason (1787). In this theoretical framework, rather than the means justifying the end, it is the intent of the actor that makes an action moral. The moral motive is expressed by the attempt and genuine effort to do what one ought to do. Subsequently, the process to achieve this is given value is conferred value as well.
Personal “ought” is superseded by societal “ought” is superseded by the aforementioned ‘standard’ or “categorical imperative”. Each of these, though not indicated previously, also can be viewed in terms of time horizons, i.e., a long-term good outweighs a confounding but nonetheless short-term good.
While addressing many issues that are had with a pure utilitarian perspective, universalism has its own issues, chiefly that it is in many cases impossible to determine the motive behind an action as well as the idea of the practicality of being able to separate motive from action. Finally, there remains the question of whose morality is greater as would be the case in which two parties had moral motives yet opposing outcomes as would be the case of a journalist trying to protect a source’s ‘right to privacy’ from a public’s ‘right to know’.
This paradigm is perhaps fittingly described by the idea that moral judgment is centered about the idea of blocking the advantage of a power imbalance held by a naturally- or situationally-favored subject. This prohibition against using our own greater strength or intellect to exert an advantage over a somehow less-endowed party to achieve our own self-serving interests constitutes the application of such a moral rule. This being the case, it merits consideration to see what framework the individual in question was likely to dwell.
Common moral dilemmas are efficiently resolved in this paradigm.
Kant’s categorical imperative has become a moral good a described in the New Testament. Virtues are uniquely Christian in character and the time horizon with which to evaluate moral costs on has been simultaneously extended to eternity (heaven) and to zero through act of forgiveness through Christ’s redeeming death on the cross.
For example, as in the utilitarian perspective, Rountree had to foresight to consider the idea of maximum utility and considered a very long time horizon by his choice of setting up foundations. Rountree morality would also be valued when viewed from the light of a system based upon distributive justice. As evidenced by the great emphasis of the foundations he established on sociology equality and advancement, by helping those who cannot help themselves and by allowing kindness and mercy to triumph over harsh judgment, Rountree would likely be viewed a quite the moral man from this perspective.
When seeking to directly assess the moral value of Joseph Rountree’s contribution to society, he fares quite well, regardless of the framework used to assess value. Unlike some accounting theories which can radically alter the estimation of worldly wealth, Rountrees’ moral accountant consistently is able to demonstrate that there is abundant value. Economically, the impact is several hundred million pounds; deontologically, the impact can scarely be gauged the individuals who for work for or generously donate their time, talent or treasure to pursue such a noble cause; with regard to the social impact, thousands on individuals and families have been ‘lifted up’… the aysmetry of financial and social forces have been at least temporarily put at bay in order to give the beneficiaries of Rountree’s morality a genuine opportunity at rising out of those conditions. Finally, perhaps the greatest moral estimation could be that Rountree faithfully eschewed his own beliefs and gave generously under the banner of his Christian love to help his fellow man.
Tags: aristotle, joseph rountree foundation, joseph rowntree, moral theories, morality one, theorists, universal agreement
