“…if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death: then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of the unknown: since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good” (Apology, 29a-29b). This potent statement not only highlights Socrates’ wisdom, it effectively makes use of his belief that he is wise because he knows nothing. By saying that he knows nothing of the afterlife, it gives him the reason to illustrate to his audience that he cannot fear what he does not know. He is able to make the claim that the fear of death is just another type of false wisdom of claiming to know the unknowable.
Happiness doesn’t come from how much knowledge you have but instead comes from your heart when you help someone. There should not be an underlying motive for doing good. Russell connects love and happiness together when he explains that in the opinion of the traditional moralist, “love should be unselfish.” He disagrees with this statement and elaborates by illustrating a situation in which a man asks a woman to marry him. Through this, he portrays that we should try to make our loved ones happy, but it should not be a priority before our own happiness. People can be very selfish even when their initial intentions are good.
Behind every act of kindness lurks a selfish motivation. The Puritans were a religious sect in 17th century New England who believed in predestination or the belief that God had prior knowledge about each person’s fate in the afterlife. A core ideal of the Puritan religion was the principle of humanity being essentially evil and only doing good for others out of fear for God’s wrath or for selfish benefit. On the other end of the spectrum, is the humanists of the 18th century, many of which were America’s founding fathers. The humanists believed in the good of humanity and the concept of a loving, non-interfering God, a concept called Deism.
Antigone sees this pride as damaged, and believes that he does not use logic in his reasoning. The logical way to handle the situation, from Antigone’s point of view, would be to bury Polyneices because doing so would please the gods. Antigone is not afraid of Creon because she recognizes that Creon’s order is coming from his disillusionment of the power he holds. This magnifies Antigone’s determination to resist Creon’s decree. On the other hand, Antigone knows that the gods are not prideful.
The first is that “without freedom there can be no morality.“this is also used as justification for his view that only action can have a moral judgement associated with it. The second is that morality is an innate function of humans “we have it within ourselves”. Jung also heavily implies that the collective unconciuos is a force of good and that styling our actions in accordance with its “wishes” we can find the “right” path. This is not the same as trying to be “normal” which Jung calls “a hell of sterility and hopelessness” but rather the act of conforming to the moral ideal of society. The third is that the“shadow“is necessary for moral behaviour which coincides with his belief that for good to exist there must be evil.
Nietzsche wrote about some moralists and posits that they just accept their cultures’ morality and serve as its shield bearers rather than as rigorous critics. Nietzsche here specifies that his task is not simply to expose the psychological and historical contingencies that make for different moralities, but to question moralities for their objective functional value. According to Nietzsche, that a particular morality comes from an erroneous, mythical tradition does not by itself tell us that, that morality is worthless just because it has traditionally been falsely conceived. Similarly, the psychological ways that we form moral concepts does not invalidate their claims to objective value. Neither does showing the historical and cultural processes
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
Bentham already faced this no easy task, as holding that pleasure motivates every action could explain how a moral principle that is characterized by selflessness and attention, however, to the generality of men? His response (broadcast until today all hedonism) is that there is also a pleasure, which also tend, coupled with altruism involves promoting the happiness of others. Thus, the principle of hedonistic utilitarianism is possible, but why is a moral duty? Bentham simply responds that this principle is unprovable, because it is a simple and first principle. Mill also defends the unprovability the utilitarian axiom.
Immanuel Kant who was a moral philosopher came up with the theory of duty for the sake of duty where he states that one should do good for the sake of doing good, not because there is something to gain from it but for the will of doing good, this is not the same with human rights because human rights are there to govern people from doing what is wrong and unjust, they involve the emotional state of the person and they also have exceptions whereas Kant’s moral theory leaves no room for
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.