The inferiority of the emotional part of human identity to the rational component, an idea similar to that of Aristotelian philosophy, is depicted through the main character Aeneas and solidifies Virgil’s portrayal of the highest good in individuals. Aristotle considers the highest good of humanity as happiness. However, Aristotle does not define happiness as an emotion but instead defines it as “an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle” such as virtues, which are characteristics that allow an individual to perform his or her function well (Insert Citation). This can be seen in The Aeneid, where the hero Aeneas acts in a way that allows him to be able to carry out his purpose efficiently. Aeneas is the man chosen by the gods to be master of Italy and to father a great empire.
I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery. Thus, Plato presents Socrates defending mental health rather than
World history shows endless room for debate. If I have to provide an answer in, perhaps, an absolutist fashion, I would say that moral relativism is more correct in its views of morality: for it doesn’t treat morals as absolute, given, ‘natural’ principles of right and wrong, beyond subject to change. Instead, it considers morals as human inventions, themselves (so to speak): made in a paricular time, in a particular place, in a particular mentality about the world. Morals are relative contrivances of what we would like to have happen, to some
Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.
King addresses the characteristics of unjust laws in 3 points. First point being that just laws are always harmonious with natural morale law. Second point being that a just law is one that uplifts human personality as opposed to degrading human personality. Lastly, a just law can only be created in the most democratic manner possible and if it is not, the minority automatically has the right to disobey the law because they had no say in the creation of the law. As for the first point, a natural morale law must be measured by our natural human sense.
In both readings of Plato’s “The Apology” and Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” one major principle that comes out of Thoreau’s text that Socrates would agree with is that in the face of laws by the state one should only abide if it is moral. Additionally, Thoreau believes that justice is superior to the laws enacted by the government, and the individual has the right to judge whether a given law reflects or flouts justice. Thoreau and Socrates believe that humans are moral beings and that virtue is very important. In contrast, however, even though both individuals have a lot of similarities there were some areas where Socrates’ views differed with Thoreau. Thoreau was all about the will and conscience of the individual while Socrates stood mostly
- Detail the distinction between just and unjust laws. Why is it important Dr. King make this distinction? - One has a legal and moral responsibility to obey “just” laws because they are a “ man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” Any “just” law uplifts human personality. One has a moral responsibility to disobey “unjust” laws because they are “ a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Any “unjust” law degrades human
But are we free when we seek pleasure and avoid pain? Kant’s notion of freedom connects to morality, which displays contrast between duty and inclination, explaining how only the motive of duty, doing the right thing for the right reason, confers moral worth of an action. Kant believes that everything in nature, including humans, “works in accordance with laws,” that all actions must be appointed by law, The formula of universal law that basically states how you should treat humanity as an end rather than as a means. He says we should only act upon the maxim, a principle that gives a reason for action, without contradiction. Davis claims that law is not always reliable when insuring justice; moreover, Kant can support
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.
903729366 Essay 1: Kant In Kant’s “From Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”, he elaborates on the significance of the goodwill: that doing something out of good will means doing it strictly for the purpose of duty, because it is your duty as a person to do the right thing. To support this statement, one must agree that the the good will is a morally valuable thing. For example, my interpretation of Kant says, “if there is not a good will to correct the influence of these (gifts of fortune) in the mind, then these fortunes can over-take good will and bad occurrences may happen.” Kant believes that when we perform an action, the morality of our actions do not depend on their outcomes. When we perform actions with a good will in mind, they will result in a morally valuable consequence. To ask if it is morally valuable would be to ask the question if good will assists people in making the better decision — whether deciding