Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relativism ethics
A short History of Ethics
Essays on ethical relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Relativism ethics
In chapters three and four of A Short History of Ethics, Alastair MacIntyre makes a clear distinction between two philosophical doctrines at loggerheads: the Sophists and Socrates. The Sophistic amalgam of personal success, lust and power is constantly interrogated by an interlocutor in an endless plight to reveal Sophistic ignorance, fruitless desires and the right to universal justice. MacIntyre identifies the codes of both parties, and further complements the debate with historic examples to conclude the social success (or lack thereof) and persuasion of both sides.
MacIntyre begins by outlining the general amalgam of Sophistic theory: success. The areté (virtue) of a Sophist is to be a successful citizen through conforming to the social convention of justice (14). Employing the dialogue, Theatetus, he reveals Protagoras’ doctrine as being the link between relativism to knowledge, “As things seem to an individual percipient, so they are” (15). The truth is discovered in personal perspective, and therefore it was required to adhere to public convention to achieve success. However, MacIntyre questions this take on “personal realism” because it interestingly defeats the purpose of Sophism; if all ideas are equal in comparison to the truth, then superiority of truth is undefined.
Unfortunately, social convention varies with each state. What a Sophist must heed in one state may be completely different in another. With this, MacIntyre exposes the first flaw of Sophism: an individual has not been given a guide to the social conventions of a city-state, and therefore must adapt to the criteria of each state (16). The questions of social action and living need to be defined as non-moral or pre-moral; a tool branded as the natural man....
... middle of paper ...
...strongly believes that good and bad cannot be synonyms for pleasant and painful, but really adjectives to evaluate the extent of pleasure and pain (30). This therefore reinforces the requirement of a limited desire since the desire itself can only be defined by evaluating the extent to which one wants the desire.
MacIntyre closes by evaluating the concept of good as per a desire and a goal. Without a goal, a limit cannot be defined, and therefore there will never be any satisfaction. And, when man does not know what a satisfying desire may be, then there is no guarantee of achieving this desire. If an object is to be good, Socrates justifies that it must be defined by your own rules of a good desire. The Sophist intent to disestablish the universal truth, render desire limitless and to persuade only for power promises a truly unintelligible and lost individual.
morals are acquired, and conformity to a standard of right is attained. In the novel The
Ross, William D.. "What Makes Right Acts Right?" The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. 753-760. Obtained from PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Readings – Ethics. University of Alberta eClass.
A second and stronger objection to Mackie’s version of the problem of evil is explained to us using the terms 1st and 2nd order goods and evils. 1st order goods/evils are purely physical. Examples are pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. It is claimed by many theists that 1st order evils such as pain and suffering are necessary for 2nd order goods like courage and charity. However there exists what Mackie calls a “fatal objection” to this claim and that is that along with 2nd order goods there must also exist 2nd order evil...
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
The purpose of this essay is to elaborate on John Ludwig Mackie’s argument that all moral judgments are false considering they presuppose moral objectivity which is itself inaccurate. To do so, I shall explain Mackie’s reasoning as to why the belief that moral values are objective was founded, and clarify Mackie’s arguments for why such an idea is misleading. Furthermore, I shall demonstrate how John McDowell’s color analogy can successfully prove Mackie wrong. The argument of this essay will establish that Mackie is immune to the idea of moral objectivity for he finds it queer and unsupportive of the relativity shown throughout the world. However, Mackie fails to acknowledge that properties that are dependent on
17, No. 3, p. 252-259. Urmson, J.O., (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics (Blackwell), ch.1. Wilkes, K.V., (1978). The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics. Mind 87; repr.
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
Socrates devotes a generous amount of The Republic to creating a Utopian society wherein philosophers rule. As he believes that philosophers ought to lead a city, Socrates first defines a guardian by unmasking elements belonging to philosophers. Above all, philosophers have a hunger for wisdom, and are individuals, “capable of comprehending what is eternal and unchanging,” (Sterling and Scott 174). Additionally, Socrates categorizes truth, pleasures in the soul, generosity, magnificence, courage, grace and temperance, (Sterling and Scott 174-177)...
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Of the three main ethical systems discussed in class that I chose was, ethics of virtue. Ethics of virtue is an ethical theory that emphasizes an individual’s character (morals/virtues), rather than following a set of rules. If people focused on being good people then maybe the right actions will follow. Virtue is a skill that cannot be taught, it’s a way of living that can only really be learned through experience. Aristotle stated that, “a virtuous person can be seen as someone who has ideal character traits”. It requires a person to seek the ultimate good according to their moral virtues. I use this ethical system all the time because of how I was raised and it defines the type of person I am. The outcome and motive is
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
Virtue of Ethics. Virtue of ethics is based on principles and the virtues of individuals. This approach is based or featured on the individual rather than the actions a person takes. It focuses on the “virtue and moral character of the individual or person performing the action” (Rachel’s & Rachel’s, 2015, p. 159). “Duties” and “rules” are not the focus to this approach as like with the deontological approach (Rachel’s & Rachel’s, 2015, p. 159-160). It also does not focus on the consequences of action like the consequentialist approach does when it comes to ethics. It does however, still consider and focus on whether the action is right or wrong. The virtue of ethics is more of a “guide of characteristics and behaviors” of how an individual
Beauchamp, T. L.(2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3), 259-274.
Ethics is a system of moral principles and a branch of philosophy which defines what is acceptable for both individuals and society. It is a philosophy that covers a whole range of things that have an importance in everyday situations. Ethics are vital in everyones lives, it includes human values, and how to have a good life, our rights and responsibilities, moral decisions what is right and wrong, good and bad. Moral principles affect how people make decisions and lead their lives (BBC, 2013). There are many different beliefs about were ethics come from. These consist of; God and Religion, human conscience, the example of good human beings and a huge desire for the best for people in each unique situation, and political power (BBC, 2013).
The concept of morality differs for every individual. Morality is one 's concept of right and wrong as defined by the individual 's society, family, religion, ethnicity and even gender. It is also subject to the individual 's interpretation and experience. This lends credence to the idea that no one 's morality is exactly the same. The next logical question to answer would be how does one develop their morality? Developmental behaviorist such as Piaget and Kohlberg developed theories for this moral development and how it progresses from childhood into adulthood (Barsky, 2010). Kohlberg 's theory centers around three levels of growth: preconventional reasoning, conventional reasoning, and postconventional reasoning. The levels progress from