A person chooses to do something according to the “maxim,” or principle, and is only motivated by these principles, while with Aristotle’s theory, the idea of happiness is what motivates the person to carry out their actions. Aristotelianism focuses on what the best person to be is, while Deontology focuses on what the best thing to do is. I believe that people should not be virtuous or doing the right thing if it will make their image or who they are look better. I believe that if one honestly thinks that an action is the right thing to do, then they should carry out that action. For example, if I were in a situation in which I know a friend of mine witnessed a crime happen, I would tell her to do what she thinks is morally right, whether it was to ignore the situation
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle contributes subjects such as art, actions, pursuit, and inquiry to the nature of humans. He categorizes all of these elements as good and argues that goodness is essential and inter-webbed in the nature of humans. Not only does he describe goodness as merely an intricate part of human nature, but also he states that is good that is at the center of the human aim. Thus, it is the nature of humans to seek, establish, create, and exert goodness amongst other human beings, the overall universe, and us. Aristotle argues that because goodness is natural to humans, knowledge of goodness is natural to humans as well.
Plato defines justice as a specialized human virtue which make a person self-consistent and good. It seems he believes in social justice concepts whereas Thrasymachus believes that justice involves submission to higher power. Wedgwood concludes with the description of Thrasymachus clarifying he is incredibly dangerous because he isn 't confused in his horrifying beliefs but instead very coherent therefore creating a very powerful argument that prompts a thoughtful response from Plato rather than dismissing him as dogmatic. The conclusions one could draw is based upon one’s own belief in the concepts of justice. It seems that Thrasymachus has a more selfish view of justice that seems to only benefit those at the top of a hierarchy while failing to consider the less powerful whereas Plato sees justice in a more socially acceptable light where losses of others are considered for the cost of personal advancements.
An avid supporter of Kant may argue an amoralists paradigm. They may rearticulate Kant 's perception on rationality--all people who choose to be rational are consistent which is a primary law of the Principle of Universalizability. If the Principle of Universalizability is obeyed then the person must be moral. A supporter may conclude the argument by articulating that if one is rational, then one is moral. But in further analysis, the amoralist has a more fundamental understanding of the human condition.
Egoism is “An ethical position that puts the self at the center of any question that asks, ‘What’s Best for Me”,” (Leib). People who are egotistic are typically selfish, since they try to find out what’s most beneficial for them, not others. Altruism is the opposite of egotism. Altruism is “Any ethical position that put the needs of others before the needs of oneself for whatever reason,” (Leib). These altruistic individuals would be considered selfless because they find out what’s beneficial for others before themselves.
Immanuel Kant was an significant leader in the development of modern philosophy, formulating unique inputs and contributions. Kant constantly pleaded that “the moral worth of an action is to be judged not by its consequences but by the nature of the maxim or principle that motivated the action” (Cahn and Markie, 314). When looking at Kant’s point of view and ideology, he was a leader in deontology believing the theory of the ‘right’. Kant believed that humans of this world should do the right thing for the right reason, instead of doing things for the following consequences or the rewards afterwards. When dissecting Kant’s studies, he believed in the supreme moral principle that is called the Categorical Imperative.
Semi-compatibilism allows us to confidently attribute moral responsibility even if we are unsure about determinism. This sets Fischer aside from most philosophers of his time because they were all very interested in how free will and determinism are related (compatible) while Fischer glosses over the aspect of free will and states that moral responsibility and determinism are compatible regardless. Guidance control is comprised of two elements, the first being that one has to be a morally responsible agent whose actions must be the agents own, and secondly the crucial capacities used by a morally responsible agent are capacities for recognizing and responding to reasons for
Emotionales vs. Rationales We all have our own way of understanding ethics. Socrates and Confucious also had their own way of looking at ethics. Socrates thought that rational knowledge was the decisive factor of human life, which was "acquired through a faculty of reasoning". On the other hand, Confucious thought that kinship love was the decisive factor of human life without leaving out the importance of knowledge and thinking out. They both are very alike but also have their differences with very good reasonings to support their understanding of the decisive factor of human life, although they might lean toward one thing in the end to actually define the deciding factor of human life.
John Stuart Mill starts off his essay by claiming that many believe that the “greatest-happiness Principle holds that actions are right as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (book, pg 1, p 258). This principle is often called the utility/utilitarian concept and it’s the foundation of morals. Stuart argues that more needs to be discussed concerning this theory, in particular what counts as pain and pleasure, and to what extent its left an open question (book, pg 1, p 258). However, Stuart goes on to explain that the clarifications needed do not affect the theory of life this theory of morality is based on. Nor does it affect the fact that (1) pleasure and freedom from pain are the only desirable
Final Draft Article--Torture Let’s first take a look at an overview about how ethics relate to both Mill and Kant when discussing torture, both having two completely different views. Kant uses moral reasoning, “categorical imperative”, which says that a person’s behavior should live up to moral laws. He states that moral laws are the truth of reason and that all rational people should oblige to the same moral law. He focuses on moral verses immoral actions, allowing us to make easier decisions that involve only bad and good. Kant does not however talk about decisions when faced with the opposite, for example, when faced with bad vs bad or good vs good.