A major objection Aristotle faces is the relativist view connected to virtues. Contemporary virtue theory holds that criteria of ethical goodness are internal and different across societies, and therefore reject the concept of a single norm applied to all human beings. Supporters of this theory argue that there is no compatibility between basing the theory on virtues and defending the singleness of human good. If virtues differ through cultures, how can Aristotle argue that there is common human goodness? This argument deems the Aristotelian approach useless when proposing ideas of ethical progress, a conclusion quite
Causal relationships are discovered only when the categories apply to the experience. We have no way of causal relationships behind and draw conclusions out of the experience. Therefore, we cannot from the causal order of nature validly conclude about God, freedom, immortality of the soul, etc. Nature is quite impersonal and amoral, and I can be seen as the product of a creator (God), but we cannot confirm that so is (no experience of it). Therefore we are forced to look for moral area outside the areas of nature.
These things are symptoms of political inefficiency. In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic´" (Huxley 237). According to Mond, in a programmed civilization, religion is hard to understand. Also, he says there is no need to bring heroism when in a way, everyone is the same.
A Theory of Justice-John Rawls The good things in life are generally distributed according to moral desert under the idea of using common sense (in the idea of health and wellness) Moral desert- related to justice, revenge, blame, punishment and many topics central to moral philosophy, also “moral desert” Society is blind-sided from the concept of “Justice is happiness” according to virtue. In other words, it’s recognized but never has been carried out. • Society needs to try and realize the conception of distributive justice and the circumstances that are permitted (in the example given its related to common good)
Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source.
In Response to McGrath’s Dilemma Against Moral Inferentialism An influential argument for moral skepticism is the moral regress argument (Sayre-McCord 1996). Moral inferentialists, who think we do have genuine moral knowledge, argue against the moral regress argument by rejecting the picture of justification one finds in the moral regress argument. Sarah McGrath (2004), in order to make room for her non-inferential moral perception account of moral knowledge, presents a dilemma against moral inferentialism, the thesis that all of our moral knowledge of particular cases is inferential. In particular, she challenges the most compelling version of moral inferentialism, which I call moral bridge inferentialism. In this paper, I argue that both horns of McGrath’s apparent dilemma turn out to lack argumentative weight against the moral bridge inferentialist.
(Man’s search for meaning- Frankl). Another critic is that, whilst logotherapy can be effective in enhancing the well-being of individuals from different cultures, its underlying focus is on the meaning, purpose and psychological well-being of the individual. This is an individualistic outlook, with emphasis on the individual, as opposed to collectivistic cultures emphasis on community and the person’s role in it (Cherry, 2017). In my opinion, this can be addressed by adapting logotherapy for collectivistic cultures. This would involve shifting the focus from the individual’s needs and goals to the community’s needs and goals; thus, when discovering
On the contrary, for Locke, the existence of the government was not necessary for society to exist, it was necessary for mankind to exist comfortably. The people Locke had in mind, were to voluntarily give up a small portion of their freedom and were not forced into the political covenant. In turn, they were not united as a society out of common fear, but out of a common understanding that they were the ones who granted the government
With no time or energy for idly speculating aspects of life they have no control over, the group focuses on the one thing in the world they can control: their own actions. Voltaire’s support of realism rings clear in the way his characters ultimately achieve happiness through ethical and practical
Further he explained that neither alternative is true and therefore the Divine command theory is false. So is Plato suggesting that there is no such thing as a definition of holiness, that there is no one feature that all holy deeds have in
Again, this argument provides no evidence to support the claims levied against the pro-life argument. Additionally, the argument fails to account for the emergence of a genetically complete organism, and fails to provide a point in the developmental cycle where non-life becomes life. In fact, should this reasoning hold true, it adds credence to the pro-life position, as either alternative—life beginning at conception, or life continuing at conception—results in the presence of life. In either event, why is this human life deemed less valuable than another human life? Why is he/she required to forfeit the fundamental rights attributed to all human beings?
William R Madden Ethics: Good Reasoning 1. Introduction A. Anyone may have an opinion, but if it is likely to be accurate, that opinion should have relevant information used to support it. 2. Arguments A. A collection of information used to support a theory.
When it comes to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, I believe that he has found a common thread in humanity in the fact that humans strive for the moderate in living virtuously. However, I would argue that the thread is varied enough to have no true worth in discerning the aspects of humanity. People have too different moralities and goals. Because Aristotle allows for these “local variations”, as Martha Nussbaum later terms in her defense of Aristotle, he is acknowledging that there cannot be an overarching analysis of humanity.