Thus, justice would mean, every person who is responsible to deliver justice should be obliged to perform his craft properly and eliminate any person, who within it does alien things, to harmonize the whole process. Craft justice is not instrumental to justice, it is justice in itself. Therefore, Plato says that the substance of law will not change only the approach will change. We can consider his theory as a kind of harmony between the individual being and the state as a whole. He viewed justice as an idea, an attribute of the mind, which itself in a
The search for happiness has long been the topic of many researches and discussions. As a result, the definition of happiness varies from person to person and Plato was of no exception from this. He chose to dedicate his life into increasing the awareness of man’s way of living. In this regard, he believed that happiness is found when justice is present in the life of an individual. Justice, as defined in the dictionary is behaving according to what is right and fair.
The Nicomachean Ethics begin with a simple concept-- everyone wants happiness. In Book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores what happiness is and how to achieve ultimate happiness and good life. In the passage, 1097b22-1098a18, also known as the “function argument”, he further explores the happiness as the chief good concept by examining human function and the good that comes along. In this passage, Aristotle’s thesis is that the good of humans resides in human function of activity with reason (rational activity). From this thesis, we can imply that the good performance of function can lead to ultimate happiness.
In other words, Locke maintains that good actions tend to cause pleasure while bad action tends to cause pain. For Locke, morality is the law of God, and God supports his laws with sanctions. God also will punish those who violate the moral law and reward those who keep them. Immanuel Kant: Immanuel Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative.” Immorality thus involves
Plato was looking at justice starting from the individual and then, to make things clearer, in the state. He seems to invert the usual relationship: rather than seeing our ideas as arising out of social discourse, he treats the state as an illustration of the mind. In The Republic, Plato’s conventional definition: “to pay everyone what is owed to him” is promptly deconstructed by “Socrates”, who points out that according to this, one should harm one’s enemies and help one’s friends, but “it can never be just to harm anyone. (Plato, 1974) Socrates insists that one cannot base justice on self-interest or convention. Glaucon instinctively feels that justice must be one of those qualities which are loved both for their beneficial consequences and for their own sake.
While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position. According to J.S Mill, one should choose an action that maximizes the happiness
The key is, according to Plato’s thinking—working in consonance for the good of the person as a whole. He believed that virtue was a sort of knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) that is required to reach the ultimate good (or Eudemonia). Ultimate good is after all what all human desires and actions, aims to achieve. As such, Plato was an early proponent of Eudemonism or Virtue Ethics. A just society then, is when each of these classes performs its own role appropriately and a just individual is one that does not try to take over the function of
From the combination of these two ideas, we can see that people recreate the state on the basis of the form of ideal state. After mentioning this fact, we should start with the analysis of the principles of Plato 's theory of the ideal state. However, the main thing that he intends to achieve in his state is justice. By justice, he understands the situation when “every one is doing his own work, and not being a busybody”. It is essential for us to remember that the well-being of the state is more important than the well-being of citizen – so-called "commonweal".
In short knowing and doing are in the same line. In knowing the truth your virtues will ultimately be guided by this knowledge. The “telos” or ultimate goal of human life for Aristotle is to attain “happiness”. “Happiness” here is does not mean the common meaning which we use everyday but it is more synonymous to the war “eudaimonia” which means to be in a state of being that is in good spirit. This emphasis that happiness is not just a temporary thing but a permanent outlook on life which means that they only way for us to truly know whether we have had a happy life is when we die.
Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome. Immanuel Kant designed ‘The Categorical Imperative’ theory which was associated with the fact that it was commanding us to practice our morals and desires in a specific way which was exercised through two rules. Kamm (2000) claims that these components were to ‘(1) treat persons as ends in themselves and (2) do not treat them as mere means’. Kamm is basically suggesting that we seek happiness of others, as that is morally right, however fulfill capacities of one’s own intellect. From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical.