If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of
For example, as morality is a part of rationale, the good performance of morality can lead an individual towards a virtuous and good life. Thus, when human function is done well, it is in accordance with virtue and best human life is achieved. In addition, it can be inferred that since Aristotle’s definition of happiness is to be virtuous, performing rational activity well can lead to happiness. In addition, Aristotle states, “if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete” (1098a18). This means that eventually there will be one virtue that is inclusive of all virtue and that displays an end, and this virtue will be in line with the self-sufficient and inclusive concept of happiness as the chief good.
Sequel to the time of Nietzsche, morality has been seen from the light that it is the commandment transmitted to us by a supreme lawgiver whom we must obey. Thus, the idea of the supreme lawgiver must be seriously defended for if it disappears, our morality must go with it and what a disaster that would be. Nietzsche however deviates from the popular consensus as far as morality is concerned. In tracing the origin of morality he wanted to point out that the force of morality is not the function of its divine or semi-divine origin and that crediting a god with our moral code is but a myth. For him, moralities evolved over time as natural phenomena in answer to a need to hold society together, to ensure their perpetuation and to help contain the drives and impulses which could without some check or sublimation, threaten or destroy the fabric of human relations.
We must grant him his due regarding some of the absurdities found in theology. And yet, it escapes him that perhaps religious doctrines exist to serve subtle moral purposes, and that scientific fact is not their major concern. His opinions about religion epitomize all the myopia common to materialism and atheism. He forgets the profoundly inspirational qualities of faith; he ignores religion’s storehouse of literature, myth, and consoling rituals; and he entirely forgets the critical importance of religion in passing on a culture’s moral values. Had he understood the nature of man more deeply, he would have understood that only philosophers and saints can be induced to do good by appeals to reason alone; for the average man, only the fears of eternal damnation will keep his baser instincts in check.
Two are duties to ourselves - namely that of cultivating our intellectual talents and preserving ourselves (hence forbidding suicide), and two are duties to others, namely honesty in promises and helping them to achieve their own ends (G 4:29-30). I will discuss the plausibility (and implausibility) of two of these examples. First, to discuss the most plausible of these examples, I will assess our duty toward others to contribute to the fulfillment of their ends. This example encourages that we not only refrain from taking away from other’s happiness but that we actively and positively work to contribute to others’ happiness (G 4:430). I think that this is plausible and effective because, as Kant argued, if this standard was universalized - in other words, if everyone worked to contribute to their own, and to each other’s happiness and wellbeing - we can potentially actualize the virtues of harmonious and respectful coexistence.
In his book “The Republic”, Plato argues vis-à-vis Socrates that the philosopher is, in fact, the happiest person. He draws this conclusion when he compares it against that of a money-lover and an honour-lover. This paper will expound on the argument put forth by Socrates and in doing so will provide the reasons for my support of his argument. In Book 9 of “The Republic”, Socrates wants to find out the type of person that enjoys the most pleasant life and therefore, suggests that the soul of each individual be divided into three parts: the appetitive, the spirited and the rational. He corresponds each of these to people and categorizes them into three different kinds, based on what part rules them.
Even though Franklin criticizes the influence of religion on people’s life, he also understands and tolerates the social use of religion. “I grew convinced that truth, sincerity, and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance of felicity of life; […] Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertained an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us.” (Franklin 55) These feelings of solidarity formed a common identity which eventually results in the beginning of the American Revolution. Away from the Anglican Church and the English royal dynasty, people formed their own identity independently. They became a
Pleasure, in this case, is intrinsic or valuable for its own sake. There is no doubt that the purpose of self-harming is to achieve some form of relief, and that is its single most important goal for self-harmers. They may inflict pain on themselves for the purpose of feeling pleasure brought about by the body’s endorphins; they may make use of the physical pain to distract themselves from the emotional pain; but they want to feel pleasure just for the sake of feeling pleasure, corroborating the claim that pleasure is intrinsically good. According to a value hedonist, an instrumental good provides the most value for him or her, and the possibility to feel happy as well. In this case, the instrumental good is pain, although it is rather absurd to call it as such.
In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics). Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism. Deontology only focuses on an action that is right or wrong without regarding the consequences On the other hand, consequentialism consists on having the most positive outcome on every situation. (“Deontological Ethics”). The patient and doctor relationship should be based around trust and honesty.
There is nothing wrong with doing things for yourself that will make you happy. Happiness is the most important part of life. Also looking out for your own good will be better in the long run and will end up benefiting yourself and others. If you don’t seek what is good for yourself than happiness will be unattainable and if you are unhappy than you cannot make others happy, which will lead to people around you to suffer. Also your friends should be happy that you are doing things to look out for your own good because friends want the best for each other and doing things to make yourself happy is what is best for yourself.