The goal of both the philosophers is same, but the way they approach it is altogether different. Plato regards world of forms as eternal and calls thought/idea as the supreme reality through which he undermines the physical world. While as Rumi regards the world of meaning as supreme and everlasting through which he undermines the world of forms (physical world for Rumi). Rumi beautifully explains this through the following verses: “forms are the oil, meaning the light- otherwise, You would not keep asking why.
While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”
Aristotle sums this up writing, “Suppose, then, that the things achievable by action have some end that we wish for because of itself… Clearly, this end will be good, that is to say, the best good” (1094a 18-22). Moreover, the existence of a superordinate good does beg the question, of what exactly this good is; the next premise of Aristotle’s argument addresses this very question. As put by Aristotle, “Now happiness, more than anything else, seems complete without qualification. For we always choose it because of itself’ (1097a 37-1097b
Duty as in that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome. This theory asserts that an action is considered 'morally good ' because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the result of the action is good. Expressions such as "virtue is its own reward" and Duty for duty 's sake" are used to attest to the believe that in deontological ethics, some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Since utilitarian 's believe that all actions must seek to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, this would still apply even if that act harms an innocent person. A simple example would be that if a surgeon could save three lives by harvesting the organs of one healthy person, then this is entirely acceptable as it 's helping the greater number.
In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on feeling or sensation; rather than it derives from the rational directly. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates
However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person. Thus, I argue if Kant’s theory were true, it would be very difficult to be a good person as utilitarianism do not allow for acts that go beyond duty. Kant’s argument suggests that good will is the only thing good without qualification. First, Kant begins to distinguish between things that are good without qualification and things that are good only under certain qualified conditions.
The purpose of Aristotle’s function argument is to determine the function of the human being. The role of the argument in Aristotle’s investigation is to identify the true human good, which in essence, will help humans to live well and happy lives. He uses rationality as a basis for his arguments, stating that the characteristic is unique to human life because no other living organisms are able to act and think in accordance with reason. Therefore cannot live, to the same extent, the happy and function-fulfilling life that humans are able to. It is useful to understand the concept of function as it applies to human beings because without it, we would not understand how it connects with our virtues and human good.
This is why we take various actions, to ensure enough outer goods to obtain health, leisure time and the ability to have virtue in our lifespan. Furthermore, another point Aristotle emphasizes, is that moral virtue is located somewhere between extremes and deficiency. That’s where the Greek saying “παν μετρον αριστον” comes from, meaning everything is good but don’t over or under do it. Keep everything in moderation, except virtue. Aristotle believes that no human ‘will’ is bad, if it can be controlled by reasoning based on moral principles.
He, accepting the inductive dialectic way, copes with each certain situation and attempts to put into practice it to his collective concept. In this concept, he believes that an individual should live beautifully, well and justly and he put forth a claim that “one should never do wrong” so that he can live beautifully, well and justly (49b). What wrong means is doing people harm (49c). Why do humankind make mistake or do wrong? In accordance with Socrates’ view, one makes mistakes either willingly nor unwillingly.
1. Introduction Classical Athens and Sparta were notably two of Classical Greece’s most impressive poleis. Classical Athens is appreciated for its devotion to philosophy, mathematics, science, and democracy. Whereas, Classical Sparta is recognized for its devotion to war junta. However, their different objectives ensue that the first is recalled for its libertarian ideals and the latter as a fascist city-state.
In today’s world, hate speech can be found with ease; you can witness it over coffee, a celebrity you follow can share hateful tweets, or a public demonstration can get out of hand. With hate seemingly running rampant, we must question what actions to take in order to resolve this issue, and how to do so without undermining the First Amendment. Hate speech, despite some negative effects, does not need further legislation enacted, as it is already addressed by several laws in place. The eradication of hate speech requires a larger social change before we can introduce further legislation. While the First Amendment protects the fundamental right of free speech, there are exceptions to this right that are currently regulated.
The Age of Enlightenment consisted of a metaphorical molting of ideas, which were advanced by the brandishing’s of social, political, religious, natural and intellectual epitomes; concomitant collisions of man’s perceptions of the natural order of things as he saw fit to define or decipher. The days of Protagoras, Plato and Aristotle had seen immersions deeply imbedded within muthos and logos as argumentative foundations. The Greco-Roman era—which was steeped in the worship of heroes and demi-Gods--soon dissolved into calls for unquestionable compliance and devotion to a singular, omnipotent and omnipresent deity. For millennium, man had unquestionably—if not blindly—followed the biddings of those in authority; whether they be immersed