Aristotle believes that this is the only type of friendship that can contribute Eudaimonia, and that utility and pleasure friendships are not essential to a person’s personal happiness. However, I oppose this line of thought and argue that at times utility and pleasure friendships are paramount to one’s happiness
Although some people claim to overlook this power and keep an open mind, language is the true “key to identity” that cannot be shaken even after a first impression fades away. Certainly, there are idealists and altruists who make the claim that they are able to keep an open mind when meeting someone. And sometimes, based on a first impression, one might not make a judgement based on a language or dialect. These people claim that they look more at body language, confidence, and other more physical traits. They claim that the language a person uses is not the most important factor when it comes to knowing and making a clear judgement.
Once everything is defined, one must now weigh their options, and evaluate the outcome of the actions. Finally, one must choose the option that permits the greatest balance of good overall, so to choose any other action would be considered immoral. That being said, a utilitarian does not always have to choose the option that benefits the most people, since the goal is to bring about the least amount of misery; besides, the benefit of helping the majority may bring a greater cost of well-being to the minority. Additionally, utilitarianism is associated with consequentialism, as they both concur that the results of one 's actions signify whether it was morally right or wrong. In doing so, they must consider the effects to as far as they go into the future.
To appease Zeus was thus to maintain favor, fortune and prominence: To oppose him or otherwise displease him was, essentially, unthinkable…or illogical. Therefore, an appeasement of the gods was as necessary as the air to breath. However, Aristotle would present logical arguments which would demonstrate a need for those within Greece (and the ancient world) to rely more upon logic than myth, as logos was the more prominent ‘trait’ to abide by when all the layers were stripped away. One such argument, modus
Consequentialists claim that there are no supererogatory acts; an act either produces the most pleasure and is therefore morally good, or it brings about pain and is morally bad. This claim is challenged by universalists, who argue that since there are no supererogatory acts,
I thought that this chapter was interesting because I think in a similar way. He believed that for one to be moral, they need to have an appropriate motive for undertaking a task. It cannot be based on selfish reasons and it does not have to appease the public. You do something because it is right. He also states that we often mistake ideas for our own because of conformity.
Being able to trust people is extremely important to our well-being and by committing to an act-utilitarian case by case evaluation method, people become less reliable and trustworthy. Rule-utilitarianism avoids this issue as they are are committed to rules which generate positive expectation effects which tells us how people are likely to behave. While rule-utilitarians do not deny that there are people who are not trustworty, it is clear that their moral code condemns violations of trust as wrongful rather than the act-utilitarian approach which supports the moral view that has the effect of undermining trust. We should, 'therefore accept rules against…breaking promises and violating people's rights because following them as a regular practice promotes general welfare' (Rachels,
Without cooperation, all attempts to “act” or accomplish anything will be futile. This may be true; if all members of a group only serve themselves, there will be chaos. However, the claim that Socrates is trying to refute is that injustice is stronger or more profitable than justice. This does not imply anarchical injustice or chaos. Thus, Socrates is not arguing against the situations where injustice is most likely to succeed, but rather where it is least likely to succeed.
We are told that we are born with basic rights and that we have the freedom to believe in whatever we desire, however, the chains that bind us are morality and justice. People’s opinion of us stops us from having complete freedom. A person with strong morality would feel guilty if they were given the choice to commit an injustice against another, and thus decide not to do so in the first place, even if they are given the opportunity to do what they want with no harm done to the other person. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates only cares about truth, therefore, for him to escape prison would be considered an injustice. He will be breaking the law, confirming his accuser’s statements about him being a criminal despite the fact that their claims are untrue.
In order for me to understand the concepts behind Epictetus stoic philosophies, a brief description of his handbook would be the guidance to answer accordingly to these questions. Conversely, According to Epictetus, things that are in our power give us the authority to judge right from wrong without overwhelming our character. Therefore, some things are up to us to decide while others are not. For example, we have the power over our minds, but not the power over our reputations because this is usually decided by what people may think of us. We do not hold the power over our possessions because this could be under the power of an intentional thief.
Choosing to do the right thing over and over again eventually makes it natural for the individual. It is also true that for a particular behavior to be moral, it has to exist in moderation. Consequently, while I may choose not to quit in the middle of a hotly contested race because I have developed the habit of being courageous if I suffer an injury to my head, and the doctors warned me against it, it would be reckless to