The example he gives that a tyrant gets happy through being unjust and controlling draws us back to his first argument saying that ‘ruling being the advantage of the stronger '. As seen, he 's still standing on his point of view regardless of his approval to Socrates 's argument. He just continues to give examples to support his view without any real purpose behind that. He opposes Socrates 's argument saying the injustice makes a good life and, moreover, craftsmen are actually interested in their selves and not their subject. Thrasymachus declares that shepherds fatten their sheep for own interest in mind, not the sheep (343b).
Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome. Immanuel Kant designed ‘The Categorical Imperative’ theory which was associated with the fact that it was commanding us to practice our morals and desires in a specific way which was exercised through two rules. Kamm (2000) claims that these components were to ‘(1) treat persons as ends in themselves and (2) do not treat them as mere means’. Kamm is basically suggesting that we seek happiness of others, as that is morally right, however fulfill capacities of one’s own intellect. From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical.
He wanted greater good for his people and thus he had no other way but to contain the spread of this virus by culling the strays. Hence, I believed that man is inherently good. This is supported by Plato and Aristotle that considered man as a rational animal. Jean-Jacques Rousseau agreed with Aristotle that men are able to distinguish what is right and what is wrong. Rousseau believed that what differentiate men from animals is our capacity for moral choices.
He comes up with the several suggestions about piety: “to prosecute a wrongdoer is pious and not to prosecute is impious”; “what all the gods hate is impious, and what they all love is pious”; “where there is piety there is also justice” (Plato (1997), p.88.). In Euthyphros actions to prosecute his father he relies on this statement. Even though, he considers himself as pious man, Euthyphro is pious in prosecuting his father. Look at Euthyphros notion “to prosecute a wrongdoer is pious and not to prosecute is impious”. Let imagine this case as his father is guilty and he would hide it from authorities, from
Mr. Utterson 's surprise at this comment reflects this idea of the time: a well-groomed man must be in good moral standing; therefore, this unashamed selfishness is surprising. In Julia Wedgewood 's review, she draws attention to Stevenson 's representation of "the individualizing influence of modern democracy in its more concentrated form" (qtd. in Stevenson 137). While Mr. Hyde performs the crimes, Dr. Jekyll is the one who freed this evil and maintains the responsibility for Mr. Hyde 's actions. In his letter, Jekyll admits to allowing his conscience to blame the incidents entirely on Mr. Hyde (Stevenson 46).
Wolf proposes the sane deep-self view states that for an individual to be morally responsible for some action they have committed, if and only if (1) this individual is able to control that action by their desires, as well as such desires are governed by their deep selves, and (2) the individual’s deep self is sane. Consequently, Wolf’s proposal evidently proves why JoJo cannot be held responsible for his actions committed. Hence, JoJo is an insane individual. For one to be considered sane, Wolf claims one must have an idea of what one is doing and to have beliefs/values that correctly correspond with the way the state of the world is. JoJo’s beliefs and values essentially do not match up with how the state of the world is and thus he is considered insane and is suffering
Haimon attempts to explain to his father that killing his Antigone, or even locking her up in a cell for the rest of her life would cause more pain than pleasure for the entire community. Haimon tries to convince his father that utilitarianism would provide the best outcome for the community. Julia Driver, A Normative Ethical Theory and Moral Psychology researcher and has a Ph.D. in Philosophy, states that utilitarianism is “generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good” (Driver). With the view of utilitarianism very few people, if any, would be hurt. This belief of utilitarianism would mean that Antigone’s brother would be buried, and Antigone would be taken out of her cell alive, free of any charges.
Furthermore, Jeremy Bentham, a believer of Utilitarianism, emphasized the idea of quantity over quality. In conclusion, I believe torturing the man who placed the bombs reveals the possibility of learning where the bombs are placed, therefore through Utilitarian influenced beliefs, I would judge it morally right if it maximizes the majority of people's
Machiavelli’s advice is there for the people who hold power and exposes the truth in human nature. However, although Machiavelli opens up the honesty of humanity; he teaches that there are a lot of people who are not good, so one must also learn to not be good. The thing that is wrong with this is that evil does not combat with evil. Evil can not conquer evil, good conquers. Therefore, The Prince explores the reality of human nature as self-interested and wicked.
Nevertheless, Hobbes says that men are naturally individualistic and (political) society benefit to avoid war of every man against every man. Hobbes holds that the natural condition of men is “condition of war”. Therefore, creating commonwealth is the only method of preventing conflict between people. Hobbes disagrees the point of Aristotle (about state is natural) and Hobbes holds that creating state is not natural; it is a voluntary agreement or