As for someone who is reckless might actually provide happiness or security for some people in different communities and achieve the goals of what they all wanted. Overall, Aristotle is not a relativistic person as he didn’t think of how it might compare to a relative person. I think this has to do with the fact that he is a victorian morality and didn’t really get to experience situations
To be virtuous you have to make choices for the right reason, the choices that are made have to follow the components to virtue to be considered virtuous. Aristotle voiced, “Also, we are angry and frightened without choice, but the virtues are certain kinds of choices, or not present without choice” (1106a 2-4). Not all choices are going to be virtuous ones because of the choices that are made. Not all choices have a good outcome and they could potentially not become a virtuous person. Aristotle deemed, “And for these reasons, the virtues and vices are not predispositions either, since we are not called good or bad, nor are we praised or blamed, simply for being predisposed to feel something” (1106a 7-9).
The two are not arguments against each other, but simply two arguments on either side of the topic. Machan claims that animals do not have rights, but he also says that we should keep in mind that animals can feel pain and enjoyment and that we should consider that when we use them. He says that if we kill them we should do it humanely. Norcross claims that we should not be torturing animals for their use, but he does not specifically say that we cannot kill them. Both conclusions can be true because animals do not have to have rights to stop torturing them.
In conclusion animals testing should not be done because animals are like human beings, they feel, they live, they eat so why would we want to kill animals for any type of testing when we could try it on a human being that might want to let the scientist try it on them. The animals have the right just like anyone else to have a life, a animal can’t speak, but that doesn’t mean that we could take over that and do whatever we want with them. Animals are like us just and just like them, we would not want to be in a cage dying just to try something that might not even
The uniqueness of human beings can also be tested. If we are the only unique animals with rationality, that makes us unique and good, according to Aristotle. Human beings are the only animals that can be serial killers or drug dealers which makes it a unique capacity to human beings but not a good one. This means that just because something is unique, which would be good to Aristotle, does not mean it makes a human
Egoists argue that acting in self-interest can result in position action because the individual knows best how to benefit his own self. If everyone were to act in the interest of others, then the general welfare of all would decrease as they are never working for their own good. Egoists trust that others will act in their own interests, thus making it unnecessary to take action solely for their
The two philosophers believed strongly in the concept of eudaimonia, which is basic human well-being and goodness (Mastin, 2008). Much of Socrates’ ethics was built around this concept, which led to his ethical code becoming basically objective. Socrates’ ethics were based on something of a knowledge/ignorance dichotomy. He believed that people act immorally but they do not act this way intentionally. Like all animals, Socrates believed that we act in and seek out what is in our best interests.
Equality has good meaning in his ideals; however it is easy to subjectively ignore that there is possibility that others may from even actions intended to free them to seek happiness. Ideally a world would exist where all could live together in peace, where all could respect one another’s happiness; but due to the inherently subjective way humans interact with the surrounding world, it is merely impossible for such a world to exist. Rules only seek to try to build such a world; but it’s impossible for
Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to
Moreover, big companies also use animals to test for cosmetics. Furthermore, it could be stated that using animals for cosmetics is ‘more’ morally wrong than using them for scientific research and testing of new medicines, due to the fact that cosmetics aren’t necessary for our living and well-being. So when arguing about animal testing, it could be considered that there are two