Teleology, in Greek it means “end reason” which means that an act is considered morally right and ethical if it achieves its purpose; such as knowledge, career growth, self-satisfaction, even wealth etc.. one of the best explanations for teleology was given by Aristotle “ A full explanation of anything must consider its final cause as well as its efficient, material, and formal causes (the latter two being the stuff out of which a thing is made and the form or pattern of a thing, respectively).” .An example would be testing a new shampoo for humans on animals, even if the animal gets hurt. 2) egoism; Actions are judged as ethical or unethical based on the consequences of person’s self- interest . in other words an issue
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle synthesizes an enthralling dissertation that, “the human good proves to be activity of soul in accord with excellence” (1098a 16-17) which requires, “a rational principle” (1098a 7-8). Even though some critics may contend that the human good lies within something other than excellently acting in accordance with reason, the case set forth in Nicomachean Ethics dismisses such detractors as inordinately obstinate in their parochial ideology. To support his conclusion, Aristotle adroitly employs several cogent premises. This paper will explain how Aristotle reaches his conclusion and examine potential flaws in his argument First, I will state each proposition in Aristotle’s argument. After I present an individual
However, a good tragedy would rely on the realistic nature of the action, as well as the emotions which are procured to the audience, and in the lights of Aristotle’s argument, those emotions would be predominantly those of pity and fear. This feeling of pity and fear is meant to stimulate a sense of katharsis, in other words, purgatory or purification
If vengeance was Prospero’s motive, there might have been more of an incentive to sink the ship along with its passengers at the beginning. Shakespeare makes it easy for you to put yourself in Prospero’s shoes and expect that he would want what is natural to man, revenge. The audience finds themselves wanting Prospero to enact justice on his enemies. The audience tends to get caught up in this, only to find themselves disappointed when they do not get the revenge plot they were expecting. Shakespeare creates an illusion that urges the reader to think a certain way.
The important in Aristotle life is the mind and soul is the first intelechy of the body because it is main course ‘cause and principle’ of the body, the realization of the body. So can might put it like this , “The mind is the purposeful functioning of the nervous system. In this topic quiet different strand in the fabric of Aristotle skill thinking, and supplements what we can learn about him from his will. In addition, the good things that what we enjoy is Aristotle like to care wealth and health because have no value if our soul is not good. By experiencing the same emotion of audience is sort of ‘cleansing of the soul’ can through communication of emotion in the work of art.
Retributivists claim that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to their crime. Retributivists give desert a central place but only to a latter sense of desert as a demerit, or what we might call retributivist desert. Someone is thought to have desert not merely on the account of his committing a wrongful act, but on the account of his committing illegal act. There are many actions that are wrong, but not punishable because they are not illegal act. Retributivism punishes criminals for the wrongful act they performed; retributivism is backward looking.
Comprehending Aristotle’s Happiness Aristotle’s claim begins with the introduction of the complete—or possibly final or perfect—good. As Aristotle notes that each practice and action may have its own immediate good, he finds that the complete good is “for the sake of which the other things are done” (I.7, 1097a). For example, medicine’s immediate good is health, but health is ultimately for one’s happiness; this forms the basis for happiness being choice worthy. The basis for happiness being self-sufficient begins with his definition of self-sufficient: “when all by itself it makes a life choiceworthy and lacking nothing” (I.7, 1097b). The seeming paradox of self-sufficiency while needing external goods and the interpretations of self-sufficiency will be discussed later.
Aristotle’s moral philosophy called virtue ethics and based on his theory of the golden mean. He wrote about this in his book called Nicomachean Ethics, in which he explains the origin, nature and development of virtues, which are necessary to obtains life’s ultimate goal of happiness. He tries to show that ethical virtues are no different from skilled laborers; these workers know how to avoid excess and deficiencies to make the right product. This is how he describes virtue as the mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency. The mean is what will directly provide each individual with happiness.
Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of
Indeed in Plato’s ideal republic the state’ laws are replaced by the “philosopher king’s” law. These philosopher kings were to be trained and would do so through rationally perceived dictates of ultimate virtue. They would cease to be encumbered by the various legal forms but instead become characterised by wisdom and be accepted through its very excellence. The closest Plato nears to the concept of natural law theory is in the Republic whereby he analogises health, as the natural order of the body, and justice as the natural order of things within the state, and in his discussion of the formal idea of justice as “just by nature” and finally in Laws, in which the Athenian Stranger, discussing how one would establish a state in which laws have a greater power than the rulers, proposes to speak about divine law which would supply the need for a governing higher
An act utilitarian would most likely answer this question by saying that whatever happiness one has ends when killing them, therefore killing is bad because when someone is dead they are no longer happy. Now we have a justifiable reason not to kill, because killing someone deprives them of the happiness they enjoyed while be alive, and we can also conclude that there is a justifiable reason to kill when life holds more unhappiness than happiness according act utilitarianism. For example someone who is suffering through a terminal illness
Capital Punishment Punishment is the imposition of a penalty as retribution for a crime, and the retribution deserves those who do the crime. The main idea of this chapter is whether the killer deserves to die or not, and we ought to kill them or not. Stephen Nathanson argues against the punishment that leads to execution. He said that the actual and moral beliefs based on the death penalty are wrong and must be repealed. Many people said that the death penalty is the best way to deter murder and thus save lives.