Moral Rationalism: Reason For Action

Whenever an individual makes a decision it is obviously important they should weigh the options available to them. Furthermore, it is obvious one should then examine the reasons available for performing the aforementioned options. However, at this point we arrive at the important question of what kinds of things should qualify as reasons for action? Moral rationalism is a theory which postulates that your moral obligations constitute sufficient reason for action. This theory falls under attack by a subjective egoistical theory known as reasons internalism which argues that only acting in your self-interest constitutes reason for action. In the end moral rationalism is clearly the better theory as it avoids the pitfalls reasons internalism suffers …show more content…
Under this theory when we notice someone in danger and step in to help them, regardless of whether their danger affects our own personal interest, moral rationalism dictates our moral obligation provides us a rational reason to help them. Moral rationalism tells us it is unnecessary in cases dealing with our moral obligations to link our action to some personal desire or interest in order to justify it, it stipulates moral obligations provide us with rational reason for action as well. A simple example should help to clarify. It may seem perhaps one acts on their obligations not because their obligations provide them motivation to do something, but because these obligations when examined can be linked to some other desire that provides our real reason for action. For example, you may have an obligation to complete your homework. You could state that you don’t have a reason to complete your homework simply because it is an obligation, you may say you actually do it because you care about your grade and because it affects your grade it is in your personal interest to do it. In this case you believe it is not the obligation which …show more content…
Two things need explanation before continuing. In the introductory paragraph this theory is referred to as both subjective and egoistical. When the theory is described as subjective it means that it functions in such a way that it does not hold one single standard for action. The standards are dependent upon either the agents in question or the situation being discussed. When it is described as egoistical that means it is the type of theory which holds self-interest as the crucial force. Egoistical theories state in some form that ultimately self-interest is the driving force of action. Reasons internalism is subjective because desire is something that varies from person to person. As a result what is necessary to be justified will vary from person to person based on what sort of actions satisfy each person’s desires. It is egoistical in the sense that it states desire is ultimately what creates the motivation needed for reason, and desire is obviously an element which can only be classified as self-interest. The argument here is simple in order for an action to qualify as a reason for action it must be something you could attribute as providing motivation for the agent in question