Lukuvuoden varrelta 2020-2021 Hml lyseon lukio

HÄMEENLINNAN LYSEON LUKIO 33 I believe that the question at hand lies in the nature of beings who live in a society. How do we act when put in an area with other, un- known people? And if they do not, by na- ture, act by the definition of society, how do we make them? This has created many differ- ing opinions in philosophy. One side of the coin is that people are egoistic and non-coop- erative by nature. Other believes that an ide- al situation is found by not restricting peo- ple, because they are inherently cooperative and sympathetic. When an answer to this question is found, we can model society to be more suitable to our nature. If we believe in the former, obtaining an orderly society re- quires laws and restrictions to dial down this inherent cruelty of humans. The latter on the other hand might find more order in a socie- ty where useless, competition inducing struc- tures are scraped away. The quote at hand be- lieves that we must find optimal liberty, but in order for it to be obtained, there must be morality, which is again, reached through ”laws of sympathy”. So, according to Scruton, the limit of lib- erty lies in that, the only thing that is need- ed for orderly, and working society is that it must be morally constraint. This is an age-old problem in both politics and philosophy, and Scruton’s answer seems unclear. According to him, it is reached by the laws of sympathy. As I mentioned before, this could mean that laws must be made with sympathy in mind, or it might say that a sense of sympathy is built- in in everybody, we just must act on it. The first option is definitionally harder to make happen, since when referring to sympathy, we think of a certain mindset, not a law. Be- cause sympathy should be thought through in every situation on its own, a law wouldn’t fully capture what it is meant for. But also let- ting everyone think out their own sympathy, would be putting all of the eggs in one bas- ket when it comes to order in society. Or- der should partly involve an individual’s own thinking and most importantly actions, but I believe some guidance is needed. I believe that order couldn’t ever be reached if every- one was able to act solely on their own sense of sympathy, since it is quite subjective. There is a lot of content in the quote that everyone can agree on. That a society should be moral, and fairly free. Also, sympathy and family obligations are a part of the collective mindset that everyone should possess. The problem of reaching moral constraint is a big problem, and it isn’t always possible to reach it. With our current system of law and order, we reach laws that we try to make as mor- al as possible. But still, we keep finding laws and regulations that don’t capture our full sense of morality and sympathy. Through this quote, we found two other options, which both had their troubles. We realized that sympathy cannot be fully captured by law and order, but we cannot find order with just our senses of sympathy either. In the spirit of the dialectic, I think there can be a synthesis found through laws and regulations and the laws of sympathy. We must make regulations and law in order to find collective order, but the morality must be put into the laws by our own sympathy, and when we see a law that is not in accordance with it, we are obligated to change it. We probably cannot find a straight path from morality to law and order to find moral constraint, but we have to aim for it, in order to live in a working society.