THE ELEMENTS OF MORALITY AND POSTIVE PSYCHOLOGY

PATRICIA J. QUINN

This paper begins with a definition of morality and some of its key elements, such as ought and good. That is followed by a psychological account of well-being, its elements, and a list of virtues which psychometric evidence demonstrates can be measured in a scientific manner.
SUMMERY.

There are two ways in which the word morality is used today: Descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forth by any society, group or individual, and normatively to refer to codes of conduct that in addition apply to all rational beings under specified conditions e.g., by everyone that is able to understand and apply them. Both categories are comprised of systems of concepts concerning what people ought to do above all else, that is, collections of principles and codes that are designed to guide behaviour in accordance with what is considered most important. By above all else, or most important, it is meant those objectives or states or affairs whose actualization takes precedence over all others. Following from this, something is described as moral when it is conducive to that which is most important, whereby an action is described as morally right that in any given situation is most conducive toward those objectives and states of affairs whose actualization takes precedence over all others. The word moral is also synonymous with a particular use of good, which is an adjective that describes a noun as meeting a certain evaluative standard by which that noun is judged. Consider a good violin. Here, a basic evaluative standard that can be used to judge a violin is by how effective it fulfils its function, and in this context the violin is rightly described as good if it fulfils the function well that is, it produces proper notes, tones, and harmonies, and has an instant vibratory response when the bow is placed upon its string; for if there is lag, the notes within a quick melody will be lost in a spout of dissonance. Similarly, a good deck of cards is one that is effective for the use of playing card games. It handles well, and when fanned out the cards tend to distribute smoothly and evenly rather than clumping together in a number of bunches, so when shuffled they are smooth to the touch rather than sticky. The deck can also be evaluated in more than one way, we might check it by an aesthetic standard, considering the styling, colouring, patterns, overall form, and how the graphic elements relate therein. We can also evaluate how well it meets one standard while also meeting another, the typography on a particular deck of cards may itself meet a particular aesthetic standard, but at the same time include such detail and flair that the letters and numbers are no longer legible. This might end up defeating its original function, and it is even possible that the function of a certain deck will include aesthetic standards itself. So there are many different evaluative standards for different objects; what makes a good violin is entirely different from what makes a good deck of cards, and what makes a functionally good deck of cards is different from what makes an aesthetically good deck of cards. These instances of good are non-moral, but we can account for moral
1

goodness using the same analysis by considering moral right or good as yet another standard by which we can judge someone or something. A good poker player may be effective at playing poker, but a morally good poker player is something entirely different. Likewise, people and things can be compared based on how well they adhere to various moral standards, preforming morally better or morally worse. Which is to say, how well they do what they ought to do above all else. Ought in this case is a modal auxiliary verb that expresses the likelihood an action will constitute toward an outcome or standard that is aimed at for some reason. So when it is said X ought to Y, it is being said that It would be most effective if X do Y, in order that Z. As such, sentences comprised of ought often have skeletal meaning, it is only in combination with the background content they can be rationally considered true or false. In the absence of explicit markers, language users rely on contextual clues and reasoning about each other's intentions to determine what kind of meaning a particular sentence is intended to express. Consider the statement Kids ought to brush their teeth. In combination with the definition, one can intuit by frame of context a reduction such as It would be most effective if kids brushed their teeth, in order to maintain their dental health. All ought statements that can be reduced and understood in this way are truth-apt (i.e. it is true that kids ought to brush their teeth given this context, as brushing teeth is truly conducive to dental health). So ought in this sense is related to aims and objectives, and when an objective has been defined, ought statements are truth-apt. Note that while there are other uses of the term ought, such as predictive oughts (e.g. X ought to have arrived due to expectation Y), we are exclusively concerned with its moral connotations herein. As all morality is concerned with what we ought to do above all else, moral oughts can be understood in the end-relational sense (but not all endrelational uses of ought are moral), and all moral systems can be understood to aim at some objectives or states of affairs (but not all objectives and aims are moral). Most objectives are aimed at because we want something else that is achieved by them; they help constitute toward the fulfilment of other objectives. Thus, we have series of objectives that are linked to each other by the reason we aim for them. Every series has an end that takes precedence over all others below it on that series, that is aimed at for no reason but itself. This is what Aristotle referred to as the chief good, because it is that which we desire for its own sake. He later argued that eudaimonia that is, human-flourishing was the highest human good, because no one attempts to live well for the sake of some further end, and all other aims are perused because they are thought to be conducive to well-being. It was on this basis he constructed his ethical theory, which focused on excellences of character and the achievement of life success. This style forms an interesting contrast with the action-based theories of consequentialism and deontology that dominate academia in the present-day. In her essay, Modern Moral Philosophy, G.E.M. Anscombe questioned notions of obligation that are appear to be relics in modern secular society, as they make no sense without assuming the existence of a Lawgiver. Taking her inspiration from Aristotle, she called for a return to concepts such as character, virtue and flourishing. She also emphasized the importance of the emotions and an understanding of moral psychology:
2

In present-day philosophy an explanation is required how an unjust man is a bad man, or an unjust action a bad one; to give such an explanation belongs to ethics; but it cannot be begun until we are equipped with a sound philosophy of psychology. For the proof that an unjust man is a bad man would require a positive account of justice as a virtue. This part of the subject-matter of ethics is, however, completely closed to us until we have an account of what type of characteristic a virtue is a problem, not of ethics, but of conceptual analysis.
G.E.M. Anscombe, in Modern Moral Philosophy, 1958

She also pointed out that if a seed is planted with the capacity to bloom, which begins to grow, yet some problem hinders its growth and subsequently it does not blossom, it can be said that the plant did not flourish, and it is clear this statement can be true or false. We can, of course, investigate what happened, find out what caused the plant to whither, rationally conclude that such-and-such is detrimental to the plant's flourishing, and apply this knowledge accordingly elsewhere. Human biology, on the other hand, paints a problematic picture; due to the level of flexibility evolved, the heights of human capability cannot be constrained to static conceptions. We know the human life well lived is multiple, comprised of a myriad of strategies and functions that blend together, effecting various patterns, multiplications, and contradictions. We do not need a fully quantified account of some humanblossom to deal with truth about flourishing, in the same way, that we do not need a fully quantified account to deal with truth about health, or weather. Martin Seligman, the former president of the American Psychological Association, and founder of the positive psychology movement, recently wrote that the goal of positive psychology is to increase flourishing(2011). On this account, well-being is a construct comprised of what free people choose to aim at for its own sake. There are three ways to tell if something is an element of well-being: Firstly, it contributes to wellbeing (the other elements and their sum is enhanced), secondly, it is cross culturally pursued by many people for its own sake, not merely to get any of the other goods, and lastly, it is defined and measured independently of the other elements. Research has identified at least five measurable elements of well-being: Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Achievement. The theory is plural in method as well as substance: positive emotion is a subjective variable, defined by what people think and feel. Engagement, meaning, relationships, and accomplishment have both subjective and objective components, since you can believe you have engagement, meaning, good relations, and high accomplishment and be wrong. Six classes of virtue, made up of twenty-four measurable character strengths, were identified as having a significant amount of similarity across cultures, strongly indicating a historical and cross-cultural convergence. These are: Temperance, Justice, Wisdom, Courage, Humanity, and Transcendence. Each character strength is a habitual pattern that is stable over time, which is conductive to well-being and flourishing, and is naturally nurtured by societal norms and institutions. Each of the strengths is defined
3

behaviourally, with psychometric evidence demonstrating that empirically minded humanists can measure character strengths and virtues in a rigorous scientific manner.
Temperance is comprised of strengths that protect against excess. They are: self-discipline, prudence, humility, and forgiveness. Wisdom is comprised of cognitive strengths that entail the acquisition and application of knowledge. They are: creativity, curiosity, sound judgement, love of learning, and perspective. Courage is comprised of emotional strengths that involve the exercise of will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal. They are: bravery, perseverance, integrity and zest. Justice is comprised of civic strengths that underlie healthy community life. These strengths are fairness, citizenship, and leadership. Humanity is comprised of interpersonal strengths that involve tending and befriending others. They are: love, kindness, and social intelligence. Transcendence is comprised of strengths that forge connections to the larger universe and provide inner certitude. They are: appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humour, and spirituality.

Studies suggest that these six virtues and respective strengths are considered intrinsically good by the vast majority of cultures, present-day and throughout history, and that these traits lead to increased well-being when practised. As the ability to measure positive emotion, engagement, meaning, accomplishment, and positive relations improves, it can be asked with rigour how many people in a nation, in a city, or in a cooperation are flourishing. It can be asked if a charity is increasing the well-being of its beneficiaries, or if our school systems are helping our children flourish and we can be right or wrong about if they are.