This ‘good’ is represented first and foremost by the moral virtue, which in its turn is presented through individual’s desire, action and goal and not by the uniqueness of the Face of Other. In Aristotle humanity becomes virtuous rationally by volition and willingness to act. As Aristotle puts
Kant certainly did. In his view, human beings have “an intrinsic worth, i.e., dignity,” which makes them valuable’ “above all price.” ” “When Kant said that the value of human beings “is above all price,” he did not intend this as mere rhetoric but as an objective judgment about the place of human beings in the scheme of things. There are two important facts about people that, in his view, support this judgment. First, because people have desires and ‘goals, other things have value for them, in relation to their projects. Second, and even more important, humans have “an intrinsic worth, i.e., dignity,” because they are rational agents that is, capable of reasoning about his conduct and who freely decides what he will do, on the basis of his own rational conception of what is best.” (Rachels, 2003) As a human person having the capacity of reason and rationality, Rachels (2003) further states that, “Because the moral law is the law of reason, rational beings are the embodiment of the moral law itself.
Divine law cannot be attained alone by the means of natural reason alone; the precepts of divine law are disclosed only through divine revelation. Natural law includes possession of reason and free will, and should differentiate between good and avoid evil and appreciated the theory of natural law of morality. On his view, a human law (that is, that which is promulgated by human beings) is considered valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as Aquinas puts the point: "Every human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law". To paraphrase
One may expound it as necessary not merely to an uncertain, merely possible aim, but to an aim, that one can presuppose safely and a priori with every human being, because it belongs to his essence. Now one can call skill in the choice of means to his own greatest well-being prudence. In the narrowest sense. Thus the imperative that refers to the choice of means to one’s own happiness, i.e., the precept pf prudence, is always hypothetical; the action is commanded not absolutely but only as a means to another aim.” (Kant. Pg.24) These hypothetical imperatives are conditional and depend on desires rather than obligation.
The right or wrong of an action is the intrinsic spirit of an action. When the principle of an action can be universalized, the action is good. So, some actions are always good or wrong, no matter what the consequences are. Examples of these principles are: always tell the truth; never kill people no matter what the situation may be. At the heart of deontological theories is the idea that individuals are of worth and must be treated accordingly.
[ Ibid. ] Natural law can exist without the governance of a superior being through the usage of positive law. Positive law is needed because of the insufficiency of the natural law to direct man in the practical affairs of his life. A state has the power to make laws then oblige the subjects in conscience to obey in order to provide the benefits of a well-ordered life. With or without a superior being, there will still be an authority that is capable of making laws to ensure the common good based on natural law along with positive
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics begins by exploring ‘the good’. Book I argues that, unlike other goods, “happiness appears to be something complete and self-sufficient, and is, therefore, the end of actions” (10:1097b20-21). In other words, happiness is the ultimate good. But how does one achieve happiness? Aristotle formulates this in the context of work, since for all things, from artists to horses, “the good and the doing it well seem to be in the work” (10:1097b27-28).
Aristotle has a firm belief that human being’s actions need to be aimed at and end with some sort of good. With this is mind, he further explains that happiness is the end result of our actions. Thomas Hill, although similar in view, advocates for the importance to not only preserve our environment but connects how the preservation of nature directly relates to human virtue. In this essay, I will argue that Thomas Hill’s beliefs on human virtue along side with the preservation of our environment goes hand in hand with Aristotle’s views of the development of human virtue. Both Aristotle and Thomas Hill believe that human virtue not only has the power to control our actions positively or negatively but can also influence whether human beings are likely to preserve our environment.
It says that human beings must act to bring about the maximum good but does not clarify what the good is. Utilitarianism is the much widely accepted consequentialist ethical theory. John Stuart Mill was a propagator of this Utilitarian theory. This theory says that the only valuable thing that can be included in good is happiness or broadly put, well being. The prominent characteristics of Mill 's Utilitarian theory are: 1.
The activity needs to be rational demonstrating traits like honesty, pride, integrity, rationality and well-being. Basically eudaimonia is gained by placing personal happiness of an individual at the core of their ethical concern. Eudaimonia goes hand in hand with arête, also known as virtue or excellence. According to Aristotle, arête can be characterized as whatever makes something an