Aristotle did, however, acknowledge that the mean may not be the same for everyone or consistent throughout all circumstances. This description of virtue differs significantly from the description provided by Plato in his dialogues. Plato claimed that virtue is a type of knowledge since qualities are only beneficial when they are accompanied by knowledge. Virtue is always beneficial, thus, it must be a form of knowledge. If virtue is knowledge, vice – being the opposite of virtue – must be the lack of knowledge.
Also, a single person cannot make an expectation for themselves from committing a wrong action. Kant felt that if an individual makes an exception for oneself then its consider wrong and unfair. The propose of universal law is to bring good actions because Kant want good to be spread universally and everyone is treated equally. The second imperative is hypothetical, which mainly focuses on the idea of humanity. Kant mainly focuses on that we should treat individuals with humanity.
He could have fixated on the positive and negative consequences of a person's actions; such as what impact Euthyphro's prosecution would have on his family. Or, he could have fixated on whether a particular action complies with the rules or not, such as the question of whether his father transgressed a law. These are some approaches of other philosophers. However, these were not Plato's main intrigues; Plato was eager instead to consider, what actions are most salutary for the human soul. As a result, Plato is kenned for his fixate on virtue ethics, an approach to ethics that places highlight on one's moral character.
There must be a categorical imperative that Kant states “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can concomitantly will that it should become a universal law.”. Kant claims his categorical imperative is the only principle of morality (the only categorical imperative), we are entitled to expect that it determine the principles of morality uniquely. Since, if it leaves multiple incompatible sets of maxims open (we will have no basis for choosing among them), then there being no other principles of morality on which to base the choice besides categorical imperative. Assume that a person who believes s/he is acting from duty as the universal law suggested, it is possible that this person believes ‘false’ universal moral law. CI actually an imperative cannot tell what is moral or not because it doesn't really tell us what actions to perform.
The just individual doesn’t lust for everything but goodness. Thus, Socrates comes up with a new idea. He thinks that philosophers are the most appropriate people for that just people definition. Singpurwalla says that the philosopher, the paradigmatic just individual, is motivated to rule the city the philosopher aims not at his own personal good, but at instantiating goodness in the city. In addition to the definition and the nature of the justice, Plato also shows that justice is worthwhile.
Thus from the analysis of this excerpt, morality is unnatural for human beings but brings about desirable social goods. Initially in the discourse between Plato and Glaucon, Glaucon argues that only those who are too weak to inflict injustice or defend themselves from injustice being done upon them, are the ones to devise a contract against it. Glaucon states “The purpose of the compact is to bind them all to neither suffer injustice nor commit it” (Glaucon 110), demonstrating how this pact of justice merely provides solitude for
Throughout history there has been an abundance of ancient philosophers, including Plato, who explored metaphysics and its relationship to the real world before Descartes’ began questioning the idea. Nevertheless, his views on dualism are very different from Plato’s. As we know, Plato thinks and feels as if the body is just a vessel for the soul, but Descarte on the other hand strongly believes and shows proof that both your soul and body are connected and intertwining. Stating one is not superior to the other, both work hand and hand, affecting each other. Descartes states that “I reflect therefore I am.” Descartes shows through his dualism that though the mind and body are separate , they are connected and reliant on one another.
Whilst Plato’s concept of justice attaches more importance to duties, Aristotle’s views lay emphasis on the system of rights. Also, Plato’s justice establishes a system of classes whilst Aristotle establishes equality between different members of the state. However, Socrates sees justice as the whole idea of man’s existence hence his unshakable desire to obey the laws of the state. Eventhough Thomas Hobbes and John Locke regard justice as the basis for maintaining peaceful coexistence in human society, they differ on how it comes about. To Hobbes, human beings are irrational in nature hence the need for a system (state) to maintain law and order.
Kant at various places says that the formulas of the CI are equivalent, but he also often treats them as separate principles (referring to my third chapter).CI1 and CI2 are equivalent in a sense that CI1 plus a rational requirement to treat one’s own humanity as an end in itself entails CI2. However, CI1 and CI2 (as I understand it) could be separate principles. By itself, CI1 does not specify the standards of rational willing that determine whether a person could accept a moral principle or not, it basically requires us to act in ways that are justifiable to others. CI2 is a principle requiring humanity in oneself and others to be treated as an end in itself, which would be the Kant’s intention of moral content to refute the emptiness
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