According to Kant, a person performs moral duty because he recognizes it is the right thing to do; however, if the reason as to why he acted in such a way is because he wanted to pursue a certain self-interest, then that action is considered evil. If there is a pattern to this occurrence, which is called impurity, it makes the person become slightly more corrupted, but not enough to be considered evil yet. Finally, if a person deliberately and always choose to prioritize self-interest over moral duty, that is, he will only perform moral duty if it conforms to his self-interest, then that person is categorized as wickedness, which is the highest degree of evil. Now, my question is simple: Is a person considered evil if he chose to perform moral duty because it would benefit him in a way or another? My answer is no if and only if it does not involve any sort of pain or suffering.
Kant described universality as demanding the same delight from others when one thinks of an object as beautiful. Universal validity implies that others should share our judgement and if they don 't, they do not have a sense of taste. Kant goes on to explain why an individual feels the need to have this shared judgement is because we judge confidently, meaning we are correct. Kant believes that universality is a product of the human mind and that there is no objective property of a thing that makes it beautiful. Kant further distinguishes a feature called judgments of agreeableness which simply means if a person likes something, they do not claim that everyone else should too.
Thrasymachus believes justice is the good of another-- doing what is of advantage to the more powerful. This is a revisionary definition because this is a perversion of the word justice as it is typically associated with morality by his peers. Justice is not defined by laws the more powerful have written, but is defined by what is advantageous to the more powerful as in the example of the eulogy therefore excluding obedience as Socrates assumes he means. He offers an implicit conception of where everyone must work towards the good of the most powerful. By defining this as justice there is no need for exercising self advancing interests in order to act just.
Emerson repeats “Trust thyself” throughout the selection. This motto ties the first section of the essay together. To rely on someone else’s opinion or judgment is cowardly, but someone who is self-reliant exhibits originality and is child-like – free from selfish needs – yet mature. Emerson also said it is important for an individual to resist the pressure to conform to societal norms, which conspire to defeat self-reliance in its people. “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist .
This idea does not judge people by the principles of utility but follows set of rules that promotes the most happiness. And finally, some people believes that common sense is wrong. They have three responses to go against the anti-utilitarian arguments; all values have a utilitarian basis, our gut reactions can’t be trusted sometimes, and that we should focus all the
According to Hume, morality comes from reason, or what is also known as “a taste of sentiment.” Reason uncovers the truth regarding reality, whereas, subjects or situations that people feel are neutral, will not truly cause us to rebel or take any action. Reason can only create action when what is discovered “matters” to us. Hume presumed that this ought to be true, but only when there is a sentiment or a desire of some sort that is involved. The probity or impropriety of an act does not have anything objective around it. Morality is supposed to be based upon pleasing feelings of approval or displeasing feelings of disapproval.
So basically I doubt my life, believe that if I do something good I will be rewarded, and believe that the best idea’s come from your life experiences. All of those things are pretty different from each other. They mesh together, but what they make is a bit of a mess. David Gemmell, author of Fall of Kings, once said, “Trust your instincts, and make judgements on what your heart tells you. The heart will not betray you.” I know this to be true, but I somehow cannot do this.
When it comes to the philosopher that is mostly correct about the kinds of personal sacrifices that morality shouldn’t demand on us to make in the name of common good, it is Bernard Williams. He basically states that utilitarianism is too demanding upon us for the happiness of others, where we can’t even focus on the happiness of ourselves. Not only is a person responsible for the things they do in life, but they have to be responsible for the consequences of things that they don’t do in life that don’t bring the greatest happiness to everyone around them. Utilitarianism states that even if someone were to feel a negative way on a subject due to their values or morals, they should dismiss all personal feelings and emotions to promote general happiness. Williams disagrees and I as well disagree with that statement.
A person chooses to do something according to the “maxim,” or principle, and is only motivated by these principles, while with Aristotle’s theory, the idea of happiness is what motivates the person to carry out their actions. Aristotelianism focuses on what the best person to be is, while Deontology focuses on what the best thing to do is. I believe that people should not be virtuous or doing the right thing if it will make their image or who they are look better. I believe that if one honestly thinks that an action is the right thing to do, then they should carry out that action. For example, if I were in a situation in which I know a friend of mine witnessed a crime happen, I would tell her to do what she thinks is morally right, whether it was to ignore the situation
Singer is a utilitarian philosopher, along with the likes of other famous philosophers such as David Hume and Henry Sidgwick. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism in which it is believed that the right act to perform is the one that produces the most utility, or good. When you view the previous example with this mind set, you can see how the varying situations and choices wouldn’t matter, all that would matter is the fact that both decisions would lead to the same consequence. Yet, Singer doesn’t believe that you have to adapt to his ethics in order to agree that there is something wrong with the fact that people are quick to find fault with Dora, yet have no issue with the choice of the American consumer. Another example from Singer was inspired by another philosopher, Peter Unger, who in his work Living High and Letting Die created several imaginary examples about whether it is wrong to live well without giving money to help people in need.