What Matters to Us? Ethical Hedonism explores the maximization of our pleasure and happiness as a fundamental obligation for morality; but Nozick’s experiment demonstrates that pleasure and happiness doesn’t only matters to us. This essay argues that Nozick’s thought experiment, the “experience machine” exemplifies the weaknesses of Ethical Hedonism, as perfecting the machine illustrates that to truly live our lives; we must value other matters besides pleasure. Firstly, this essay will discuss Nozick’s thought experiment “the experience machine” and what the experiment reveals. Secondly, reasonable objections to why I wouldn’t enter a machine that promises me maximal pleasure as Nozick identifies several issues exposed by the thought experiment.
The philosopher David Hume established a theory of judging artwork that helps individuals understand the subtle elements of a piece of art that make it aesthetically pleasing. As a matter of fact, the notion of delicacy is central to his whole philosophical project because it explains the capacity of an individual to view art that is devoid of prejudice and bias. Hume then makes a distinction between sentiment and judgment that clarifies the level of preciseness they possess in relation to a given work of art. Furthermore, Hume articulates the nature of prejudice as it can negatively influence one’s’ judgments. The manner in which one judges art needs to be in a mindset that allows for controlled thoughts, rather than let one’s prejudice interfere
Perhaps, the main hoe wants to maintain a certain image, and that image involves being in a stable relationship. In this situation, the innocent significant other is only used as a tool to help the main hoe achieve the outward validation he or she wants (since the relationship itself is not the “end” for the main hoe). As for the pro-side hoe argument that used the Theory of Utilitarianism to argue that the existence of side-hoes is moral, there appeared to be some logical flaws. The main argument, that the existence of the side hoe increased the overall happiness of all involved may not have been valid. The conclusion that, “overall happiness was maximized” did not necessarily follow from the premises that the innocent significant other was kept in the dark, and that the main hoe and his side hoe were happy together.
As a conceptual object, there is no real physical form for love. You can’t touch or sense love directly, but you may feel it through an indicator or cognition. Before we have an acute definition for love, intelligent philosophers, thinker, and writers have separate explanations on love itself based on different situations. Socrates, one of the significant philosophers who emphasizes rationalism, uses deductive reasoning to explain that the telos of love is one’s desire. The purpose of loving is to produce good or beauty, the ideal objects that highly promote one’s morality.
These are not the words of one who has been freed to find personal happiness; these are the words of an individual has become overly dependent on the collective mindset of self sacrifice. Equality sees this subjectively as her expression of love for him; for it is not sacrifice if she gains happiness in suffering with him, but this simply breaks the fundamental ideals of his new individualistic ways. This brings to light the fact that a society cannot truly exist in which individuals know how to treat one another without unintentionally or unknowingly being at detriment or asking for the sacrifice of others. Without
Being virtuous, then, is doing something for no other reason than to be good. Choosing to be nice or do good things for others with the motivation to have them help you in some way later, have them like you more, or really any reasoning other than just wanting to do something nice and good for them for nothing in return is what constitutes a person as being non-virtuous. I think virtue ethics can stand on its own without supplementation, but it requires more thought and action on the individuals part than simply looking to a set of rules for all the
Niccolò Machiavelli, Baldassare Castiglione and George Washington all had small factors of similarity within their interpretation of an ideal person, some more than others. Machiavelli valued the unpleasant truth, so that people would view the world with a notion of realism. He also always wanted to be in control and make his own decisions without anyone else's opinion to mar his idea of keeping authority with others. And he furthermore pushed the trait of fake sincerity. Instead of truthfully being honest, religious and merciful, he told one that you should fake it, so that when the time arrives, you can switch your personality.
This form of good is used to talk of goods that are loved for the goods themselves. He then says that goods should be called two separate things, the goods that are good for their uses, and the other being the goods that are good by themselves. Aristotle then asks if the goods that are good by themselves are called good merely because of a singular idea. What things would people call good by themselves? Aristotle asks if things that are pursued even when alone and isolated, things like intelligence and pleasure, would be considered for this.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
This is showing Augustine’s understanding that life’s pleasures are wonderful, but surrendering to them leads to immoral actions and unrighteousness. However, Augustine does not recommend indulging in worldly pleasures in moderation and keeping a balance. Instead, he argues that eliminating earthly possessions and secular pleasures all together will bring those closer to