In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the human good is the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. Aristotle concludes this from an invalid argument. On the one hand I do agree that the activity expressing virtue is a requirement for the human good. But on the other hand, I insist that the human good is a state and not an action. By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts.
According to the lecture, the Philip Zimbardo says that people believe in the world which just have two types of people “EVIL” and “GOOD”. However, it just depend on the situation. Philip shows different examples to explain that evil can reclaimed, and good can become bad. People become evil since they affected by the environment, negative situation, and social life. On the other hand, Philip says that when people are at the right time to do the right thing, they will become a good or right person.
Over the centuries, the most challenging question to find an answer for; is about the human nature. Are people born with evil nature or good nature? However, until today, no person can find the truth about humanity. In fact, almost all people defend about the goodness in their souls and believe that they are far away from wickedness, although wars, murder and violence show strong evidence of evil in humans. In contrast, Shirley Jackson in her short story argues that evil is firmly rooted in human beings.
According to the Confucian scholar, Mencius, human nature is likened to that of water. "The goodness of the human nature is just like the downward tendency of water. Just as all water has a down going tendency, all people have a tendency toward goodness... you can push people into doing evil, but that is not their basic nature" (Bilhartz, 2006, p.287-288). Mencius continued to explain that human beings have an inherent goodness and the human nature should not be blamed for any evil act committed.
The perfect person may be considered to be someone who is all good. Somebody who does nothing wrong and lets no evil affect his decisions. But this raises the question; what is good? In another of Plato’s works named “Euthyphro” the questions “what is holiness? What is sin? ” is addressed (5).
Pojman asserts that this question highlights the question whether or not morality and religion are intertwined. Moreover, Socrates’ comments and critiques of Euthyphro’s claims provide readers a powerful model for what true dialectic thus promoting the development of a strong intellectual spine and the true core of
Discuss the implications of XunZi and Mencius’ views on Human Nature RE Philosophy Group 2 2015 Group Members: Chen Jin Yang (4) Li Ze Hua (15) Lu Shao Qin (18) Aaron Tan (25) Theodore Kuah (27) Introduction Human nature is an abstract concept, defined in modern terms as the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioural traits of humankind.
Studies have shown that people tend to act more decorously when they are under the impression of being observed. This suggests that human nature is more bad than good in general. Over the decades, various philosophers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes have argued over the nature of humanity. Though this question remains unanswered, there is paramount evidence throughout history to suggest human beings are inherently malicious and immoral. The purpose of this essay is to portray my different views on why I agree with Xunzi about human nature being bad.
Some commentators have suggested that Rousseau believed that man in his natural state was the height of perfection, but this is simply not true. Rousseau held that man in his natural state, which was more of a hypothetical scenario rather than his attempt to discern or expound upon the literal truth and historical accuracy of the origins of humanity, was neither virtuous nor vile or unethical. This is because Rousseau also argues that man, in his state of nature, was amoral. Man only becomes moral or immoral, or at the very least concerned with such concepts, when he enters society. Rousseau argues that man lacks the capacity for reason, and being as such man has no concept of good or evil, and so therefore is unable to be moral or immoral.
Plato had a great expectation of humans to purely seek the good and righteous. However, human nature has flaws that create cracks in Plato’s ideal
Evaluating the morality within ourselves they evaluate morality on the principle of what is wrong or right. As equally
The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
Throughout history many great philosophers have attempted to unravel the origins of virtues by developing moral theories of their own. This document is designed to provide the reader with an overview of some of the more popular theories concerning morals. Three of the most popular moral theories are… Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism. Though Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism differ in many ways, they also share similar fundamentals. Utilitarianism is a highly acclaimed theory that is morally based on consequentialism.
The idea of virtue ethics was first introduced to the world by Aristotle over 2,300 years ago in 325 BC (Rachels 173). Virtue ethics operate on the belief that people develop good character by looking at the virtues they admire in other people and emulating them. In order to do this, a person must ask themselves what kind of person they want to be and focus on choosing characteristics not specific people to emulate. Unfortunately, virtue ethics were quickly overshadowed by other perspectives on ethical theory as Christianity gained popularity and values changed. As time went on people stopped asking themselves, “What traits make a good person?”
“Plato’s philosophy is an attempt to justify Socrates’ belief in the objectivity of moral virtues.” As one of Socrates’ most loyal disciples, Plato’s own philosophy was heavily influenced by Socrates’ own thoughts and teachings. Much of Plato’s philosophy is a direct extension of some of the questions Socrates posed, i.e., Socrates asked what justice is, and Plato explored this question in his own writings. It is Socrates’ code of ethics, however, that most closely corresponds with Plato’s ethics.
