Literature and Language: Moral Matters 2

Moral Matters
Name:
Institution:

According to Narveson, morals of all humans are governed by set of rules. For these rules to be definitive, they have to conform to certain feature that include the following; they have to reasonable and impartial, they also have to be compiled and enforced by everyone informally, as such they cannot be legislated. In his view, human wants are not all uniform and therefore the non-libertarian morality norms would work just fine on everyone. Following his analysis on goodness, by extension Narveson give the idea that all humans do not like violent deaths and would do anything to avoid the incidents. As such, he feels that if a rule is put in place that would criminalize and prohibit murder, it should count as a genuine morality rule to be followed by all. On the same note, not one human want intrinsically to be a victim of vile such as fraud and theft and for this simple reason morality does condemn the acts as well. In his view the uniformity of the wants as stated before is not like to work on all the humans, as humanity tries to formulate the rules. Particularly, he relates to the idea of the poor and the wealthy helping one another. In this case the wealthy are the one that are helping the poor.
Narveson states that wealthy have noble moral duty of assisting the poor, where many of them would not to do that, the poor on the other hand would expect the wealthy to part with portions of their belonging and extend a hand. Borrowing from his analysis of goodness, Narveson states that, for those wealthy individuals that do not feel exactly comfortable helping, they should not be compelled to do so as it is not part of the personality to be good to the poor in that particular way (Duncan, 2010). In that same breath, it can therefore be derived that, formulating a rule that will force the wealthy to assist the poor does not have everyone’s support and does not illustrate everyone’s goodness. If it is formulated it will only work to favor the poor, as it would compel the rich to help them against their own will. Such a rule thus fails, as it does not possess the feature of being impartial, and hence it is not genuine. According to Narveson, the idea of charity is a virtue, and cannot be used against anyone on the basis of morality. Narveson’s idea, therefore precludes special rights being accorded to the minority in the society, as acts of kindness cannot be enshrined in the rights, they have to come naturally to the people concerned.
The idea of morality as put across by Narveson is the most rational. The fact that charity is a virtue and cannot be limited by rules, means that, it is not even remotely possible to force someone to help, when they feel that they do not want to help (Duncan, 2010). If they do help, it will not be because they are now morally inclined to do so, but becaus...