I agree with Blum’s proposal that in some sense moral excellence is not within our control, or within our will. It is the dimension of morality that is not up to us; some refer to it as moral luck. Part of the purpose of her paper was to provide the readers an appropriate understanding of the supreme value of moral excellence and why it is worthy of our highest admiration. I don’t believe she claims that we cannot reasonably aim to be like heroes or saints, but if one does aim to become a moral exemplar, one may not always succeed. In the chapter Emulating Moral Exemplars she states that while one might naturally be inclined to wish to become a moral exemplar, it is important to accept that for most persons this could not be accomplished.
In conclusion, Equality's true motives behind his work are much more selfish than they first appear to be. Equality strives to fulfil his own personal desire rather than contribute everything to society, and this isn't necessarily a negative thing. Selfishness and selflessness can be balanced, and this balance is crucial to a functioning
Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory. Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to
People are afraid to stray from what they have been conditioned to think by society. They believe that they aren’t doing anything wrong, because the patriarchy rewards them for acting a certain way. The problem is that just because something is the norm, doesn’t mean that it’s the only right answer or solution. This paper highlights that in specific ways. Humans feel the need to categorize everything, but gender isn’t something that is black and white.
Ayn Rand also had an argument against ethical egoism believing it is a mistake to treat the interest of some individuals as being less important than the interest of others. She thought on the fact that your interest is yours is not relevant to their importance relative to the importance of the interest of others. So, it is a mistake to treat your own interests as if they are more important than the interest of others. Personally, I agree with Ayn Rand’s view supporting ethical egoism. I’ve realized that I only do whatever I choose to do for my own self benefit and self-interest.
After reading The Defense of Socrates, many may question the premises on which Socrates’s argument rests. However, I believe there is a more important matter to consider that lies not within his words Socrates, but within his deductive reasoning and the unstated conclusion of said rash reasoning. The cornerstone of Socrates’s dashing defense is simple: one should value tr¬¬uth, wisdom, and self-worth over superficial gains and reputation. However, in making this case he also crafts a potentially controversial claim: that the best life is one in which one ignores their reputation and superficial desires. While reputation and materialism are not the crux of Socrates’s argument—they are really just asides he brushes off—they are an aspect of
The beneficial side of ego is that it “constitutes the essential identity of a human being” (Rand Introduction) but the detrimental side, according to visionlaunch.com, is that it can “completely eliminate objectivity”. If people didn’t care for themselves, then they wouldn’t know how to care for others and vice
Aristotle’s account of morality and his concepts of moral virtue arise from his understanding of human nature. He noticed that every action of man has some end in view, and these ends seem to be an endless chain. For this reason, he he asked “what is the highest good?” for humans. He concludes that happiness is the highest good, and the ultimate purpose for human life, and is the only goal to pursue in itself. Many activities are directed towards various virtues such as honor, a good reputation, wealth and pleasure, but are ultimately acted upon because it will bring about happiness.
It may be a difficult personal choice, but that does not imply there is a moral paradox. The other option is that the two choices are, on-balance, the same level of good or bad. This can also make for a difficult choice, but the moral system dictates that there is no immoral answer. A system of morality which is based solely on balanced judgements is the easiest way to debunk moral paradoxes, but it lacks a consistent set of personal values. It is a framework for individual morality.
The virtue of good engineer includes creativity, good understanding of culture, morality, and capability of communication. In utilitarian and Kantian view of ethics, such virtuous values are not taken into consideration. This short paper suggests how future engineers should apply the virtues and excellences in their fields and why virtuous engineers are more likely to contribute to society and make it better. In Aristotle’s view, virtue(arête) is defined as an essential factor to achieve happiness of an individual, while happiness(eudaimonia) is defined as an ultimate objective of human-being. Aristotle insisted that the order of priority may decide whether one’s goal should be considered as a means or the goal itself.
With this being said, an informed individual may be less driven to help another person due to the fact that they want to avoid a run in with the law themselves. When it comes to morality, it is not contingent upon ones religious background or the laws that govern the state or province in which they live, rather ones morality is contingent upon the guiding principles that govern said individuals life. For example, when it comes to the scenario described above, ones morals may tell them that intervening and placing themselves in harms way is not justifiable and surpasses practicability. Whereas another individuals morals may tell them to adhere to the ideal of universalizability, which means that they a lot the same action to another that they would want done onto them and thusly they would get involved. With all of these things in mind, ones morality is not strictly limited to their religion or laws but rather what they find to be permissible and
If the choice causes them to be worse off, it is still better than not existing at all. Lastly, even if the action is considered morally wrong and harms the future person, it is still morally better to choose this action as opposed to denying this future person the right to live. The choice you are worried about will not affect the existence of these future people, but rather, it will only benefit or damage them but not violate them existing. (Serada, class notes). As Parfit states, “Since these two choices will be worse for no one, we need to explain why we have a moral reason not to make these choices.