Cicero believes that human dignity provides humans with moral duties and responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to uphold the superiority placed upon them by living a life that is guided by reason and not by urges. Cicero uses the term superiority to compare humans to animals. He distinguishes humans from animals by the ability to reason. Animals cannot reason; thus, they live their lives by following instincts. Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to reason. As a result, Cicero believes that the ability to reason has made humans superior to animals. If humans were also to act based on primal instincts and desires, their actions would be befitting to those of an animal and not a human. Consequently, humans would fail to uphold
the superiority placed upon them. Therefore, humans should not live as an animal and submit to their instincts or desires, but instead, should be learning and following reason to uphold their dignity as a human. In this reading, Cicero is teaching Marcus about moral duties and human dignity provides humans a reason to fulfill such duties.
Cicero’s essay, titled On Duties, presents a practical approach concerning the moral obligations of a political man in the form of correspondence with his young son. Essential to the text, the incentive for Cicero to undertake On Duties emerges from his depleted hope to restore the Republic within his lifetime. Cicero therefore places such aspirations in the hands of his posterity. The foremost purpose of On Duties considers three obstacles, divided into separate Books, when deciding a course of action. Book I prefatorily states, “in the first place, men may be uncertain whether the thing that falls under consideration is an honorable or a dishonorable thing to do” (5). Cicero addresses the ambiguities present under this consideration and codifies a means through which one can reach a justifiable decision. Subsequently, he expounds the four essential virtues—wisdom, justice, magnanimity or greatness of spirit, and seemliness—all of which are necessary to conduct oneself honorably. As a result, the virtues intertwine to create an unassailable foundation upon which one can defend their actions. Cicero’s expatiation of the four virtues, though revolving around justice and political in context, illuminates the need for wisdom among the populace in order to discern a leader’s motivations. This subtly becomes apparent as Cicero, advising his son on how to dictate decision-making, issues caveats regarding the deceptions that occur under the guise of virtue.
Pro Caelio is a speech given by Roman politician and famed orator Marcus Tullius Cicero in defense of his former student and now political rival Caelius. Caelius was charged with political violence in the form of the murder of Dio. Caelius’ defense was structured so that Caelius first spoke in his own defense, following him was Crassus, and finally Cicero. Cicero attempted in his defense to not just refute the accusations brought forward by the prosecutors. Instead, he first demonstrates that Caelius is an upstanding citizen and provides many examples to prove this. He further defends Caelius by swaying the jury in his favor through the employment of comedy. Vice versa he turns the jury against the prosecutors through slander (i.e. he constantly
Brutus, Honorable Man Brutus, an honorable conspirator? Honorable is defined as genuine, truthful and displaying integrity, while a conspirator is defined as one that engages in an agreement to commit an illegal or wrongful act. Anyone can clearly see that these two words do not belong together. There are also other reasons why Brutus should not be considered honorable. In the play, three distinct acts can be recalled.
According to Aristotle, ownership of tangible goods can help to develop one’s moral character. I agree with his philosophy. Owning an object or other goods helps one to discover certain virtues, such as responsibility or purpose in caring for what you own. All objects you own, you must acquire, either through purchasing or through gift. Depending on how you acquire the object, defines its value, either monetary or sentimental. These different values help to develop one’s sense of self, as one grows as a person and develops one’s moral character. By learning these important skills, such as responsibility and purpose, one has a better understanding of oneself.
Being able to think and reason should be a primary requirement for deserving dignity and respect. With no ability to think or reason how could an animal even understand that it is being treated differently than other animals. Fukuyama argues this point as well, “Human reason…is pervaded by emotions, and its functioning is in fact facilitated by the latter.” Clearly moral choice cannot exist with out reason but it can also be seen in other feelings such as pride, anger, and shame. Humans are conscious of their actions, in spite of acting on instinct as other animals do. Animals do not contemplate any deeper meaning of life or justify complex mathematical equations or even think about the question ‘why’; Humans, however, do think about those things. It is our conscious thought that sets us apart from any other animal in the world. Yes animals have perception and problem solving abilities, but unlike they are not able to understand complex knowledge based concepts, although they can solve problems within their normal parameters. Every animal on the planet should have the ability to solve problems but only to a certain extent, the extent of survival. When a situation becomes a matter of life or death animals must to be able to learn to live. Survival of the fittest has ultimately
Acts of a Friend Everyone in life develops at least one friendship in their lifetime, some stronger than others. In some cases a friend might ask for a favor that would be considered immoral. Cicero and Montaigne express their opinions toward this situation and how a true friend would act through the story of Blossius and Tiberius Gracchus. Both come to the same conclusion but they have different reasons as to why they hold that position.
In the end, the characters of Julius Caesar all have more complicated relationships with honor than they appear at first glance. Brutus, while well intentioned and seemingly honorable, cannot see the line that separates honor from murder, Cassius who appears dishonorable in every way aims, at least in part, to protect rome and its people and Portia who appears dedicated loyal and honorable, commits suicide and believes the lies she is told about her self, beneath the surface of these characters, lies complex motives and twisted logic, which makes singling them out as honorable or dishonorable, nearly impossible, as they are very human, and humans are rarely one or the
While his two premises seem to be sound, Aristotle suddenly pushes his logic to an unfavorable ground as he concludes the discussion of what the human function is. Aristotle seems to be deriving this conclusion from the assumption that human are the only beings that are capable of rational thinking. Something else a human being can do that an animal cannot, however, is have sexual intercourse without reproduction in mind. If Aristotle means to make conclusions based on what distinguishes a human from an animal, then the function of a human might as well be to pollute the world with atomic
In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, Brutus and Cassius are both considered honorable men by the public. But, like all traits, honor is in the eye of the beholder. Honor is defined as evidence or symbols of distinction. Those who are placed in power are often chosen because of their traits, which include being honorable. If those in power have any faults, it could diminish their position in the eyes of the public.
Men have thought themselves to be the superior species for a long time, but Peter Singer brings a new perspective on the topic in his essay entitled Speciesism and Moral Status. Singer’s new way of thinking of it states that determining morals status requires the comparison between the cognitive abilities of humans and nonhumans. The main points he focusses on in his essay are cognitive capacities between animals and humans with severe mental retardation, religion affecting human’s beliefs of superiority, and finally the ability to suffer and how similar humans and nonhumans are.
The goal of human life according to Aristotle is Happiness as he stated in Nicomachean Ethics, “Happiness, then, is apparently something complete and self-sufficient, since it is the end of the things achievable in action.” Aristotle states that happiness is not just about being content in life but that one has to have lived their life rationally, well, and to the fullest of their capabilities. Happiness, according to Aristotle, can only be achieved by focusing on mans’ life as parts of a whole.
Cicero, was truly a man of the state. His writings also show us he was equally a man of
After Julius Caesar’s death in Act III, Brutus and Marc Antony spoke out to the people at Caesar’s funeral. Both speeches by William Shakespeare, given to the Roman people by the main characters in this Act, Brutus and Antony were both ways of trying to get the people on their side. In the speeches spoken to the crowd, they used a variety of the same three classic appeals such as Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. Each speech pretty much had the same structure but one was way more effective on the crowd than the other. And I am going to explain everything put into the speeches and the outcome of who won over the Roman crowd in the end.
This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.