In some respect, we can see here one of the seeds of Nietzsche’s later intuitions, and I believe there is no harm in employing them to elucidate this point. For example, in Beyond Good and Evil (from here on BGE), morality is described as a perspective which produces a narrowing of one’s own horizon. Morality, far from telling the truth about the world, is simply an expression of good faith toward the moral view of a particular group. Therefore, all that moralists do is in fact to argue in favour of a perspective which is grounded on their own prejudice and seeks secretly to confirm them
Socrates states that the function of anything is what it alone can do or what it does best. His statement brings up controversy, making the argument fail to back up its point. Socrates argues that a just soul and a just man will live well, and an unjust one badly. This argument consists of the following: 1. The function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else.
Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness. The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person. In Plato’s writing, The Republic, Glaucon challenge Socrates to describe justice and to give reasoning to why acting justly should be believed to be in anyone's self-interest. Glaucon claims that all goods can be distributed into three classes:
Morality, sentimentality, and rational evaluation are some of the thrusts of enlightenment philosophy of sympathy. The first notable philosopher is David Hume who places the spotlight on moral appraisal. 2.3.1 David Hume Appraisal turns out to be the keyword in David Hume’s concept of sympathy. In An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, he places emphasis on appraisal which, according to him, is a passion of settled principle of action where motive is the reason and the action is result. But an action can never be the object of moral approval or disapproval; it is only the agent’s motive or character that can be the object of moral evaluation.
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.
According to Galen Strawson, moral responsibility to punish some of us with eternal torment (hell) and rewards others with eternal bliss (heaven). I am going to argue that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions which is also Strawson’s argument. He has a basic argument that claims you perform the action that you perform because of the way you are, in particular mental respects. To be truly morally responsible for your action, you must be truly morally responsible for your character, personality, and motivational structure or in other words, who you are. We are born with determined predispositions that we are not responsible for and we are exposed to certain influences that we are not responsible for.
Each one has expressed the importance of Aristotle’s view of leadership and opposing the way man has been conditioned to accept knowledge through science and reasoning. Levine and Boaks state that “the broadly Aristotelian account… demonstrates that leadership can and should be conceived of as a master virtue that, correctly understood, serves human flourishing” (2013). Keeping in mind that Aristotle’s Responsibility and the Primary Virtues of Character (Sachs, 2002) and Lewis’ The Abolition of Man (1944), in order to be a leader one must be ethically just, or what you will come to find as moral development. This is the concern of goodness and goodwill for your companions and leading because it is a beautiful, chosen virtue (Ethics, III, 1117a, 10). This courageous leadership translates to Lewis’ preservation of Man, not because you are conditioning man, but because you will make sacrifices in order for man to survive.
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.
Socrates uses reasoning and logic throughout his trial. I believe that Socrates is innocent because he defends himself truthfully with effect. He uses sound arguments and he is passionate about philosophy. Socrates did nothing to gain in life and did not want a high social standing. Socrates is fair and uses correct methods of arguments by uncovering the
Gabriel Navarro Professor Sara Solorzano Philosophy 12 December 2014 Plato's Ethics: An Overview Plato is highly interested in the well being of human beings because according to his point of view and perspectives that is how one can achieve the highest aim of moral as well as conduct. Despite that, most of the first works he ever created were somewhat negative due tot the fact that he tends to diminish traditional values. He believes that happiness rather than being a feeling, it is a state of being where perfection is achieved but according to him it is difficult to comprehend and understand. It is also discussed what happens after someone dies, according to him there is no evidence that the search for virtues and goodness is still in