Goodness: Is it something that we strive towards because of our innate human intuition, the compelling pressures of society, or the high expectations of religion? Whatever the reason may be, most feel the need to please just like a child feels inclined to answer “yes” when his or her parent asks if they are being a good boy or girl. So, if human nature is inherently good, what defines this goodness, and why do people make poor decisions against their better judgement? Two philosophers, Aquinas and Augustine, seek to answer these questions in their respective books Summa Theologica and Confessions and tend to agree with one another with each of their answers. Nevertheless while most of their statements seem correct, this paper will address …show more content…
Therefore, someone’s goodness does not need to be complete for their life to be complete or total. Nevertheless, both philosophers should explicitly state whether or not their definitions relate to people, concepts, or both because while this accurately describes people and objects, concepts are much more complicated. For instance, murder is an evil that exists in this world but should not according to Augustine and Aquinas. It could be argued that God indirectly created it by creating humans, so it could be related to goodness in some far-fetched way. Therefore to account for this incongruity, both should have explained that things must have been directly produced by God to always be considered good in some way or should have emphasized that this explanation only relates to people and …show more content…
However, some act regardless of what they perceive to be good, thus ignoring the fundamental laws of humanity. Of course, Aquinas realizes that people sin because of errors in intelligence and because of uncontrollable emotions, but he also claims that people’s actions still reflect what what they believe to be good, whether it actually be right or wrong. Aquinas should have directly addressed this discontinuity between people because some know that their actions are wrong. In response to this, Aquinas could have said that they act sinfully for the good of themselves, which would comply with his previous explanation. Still, some act against all forms of good, even against the intentions of good for themselves. For example in the short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find” by Flannery O'Connor, the antagonist, the Misfit, murders innocent people because he thinks there is no point to life, even though he knows his actions are not necessarily good, even in his own
Good and evil are two of the most ambiguous terms in the English language. There are definite themes of good and evil throughout Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Most define good as “morally righteous” and evil as “morally wrong or immoral”. These two definitions raise an important question. What is morality? Philosophically, morality can be described as a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. So, if morality is a code that all rational persons set forward, are immoral people irrational? Or do they believe in a different code that is set forth by them and other like minded persons? How is morality judged? Should the morality of an action be judged by the action’s motivation or the action’s consequence? Morality as a philosophical construct is very ambiguous and is debated by many philosophers. To understand good and evil conceptually, one must first fully understand morality (Gert 1-2).
Thomas Aquinas’ many-sided theory of goodness is that it can be found in all things in some way, and Christopher Hughes deeply explores this in his reading Aquinas on Being, Goodness, and God.
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
The nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences.
In his Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals, Hume rebukes the arguments of skeptical, philosophers who deny the existence of moral distinctions. He doubts that an individual can be so indifferent that he or she is unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Hume believes that the differences between men arise from nature, from habit, and from education. Hume believes no skeptic, no matter how doubtful, can claim that there are absolutely no moral distinctions. Also, he accepts if we disregard these skeptics, we find that they eventually give up their unconvincing claims and come over to the side of common sense and reason. In this paper, it will be shown that ultimately Hume maintains that benevolence is not the basis for self-love, rather it focuses on the utility to please, and the need for benevolence for its own sake.
Whether or not humans are instinctively good or evil has been a much talked about debate for many years and is known as an unanswerable question. Determinists, such as Thomas Hobbs, have come to the conclusion that humans are naturally evil and it is within our basic instincts to be greedy, selfish and otherwise drawn to chaos. Hobbs states that “our true nature arises in times of strife and it is within us, when threatened, to self preserve.” I on the other hand disagree with this famous philosophers take on human nature. In this short essay, I will argue that human beings are born with the instinct to be good and to love one another, as well as to be loved.
Many people struggle with the idea of what it means to be a “good” person and what it means to be a “bad” person. We all want to be good, but it's not easy. Everyone has their own opinion about certain issues, and they depend on their values, judgment, and beliefs to see them through their difficulties. In the short story "A Good Man is Hard to Find," Flannery O’ Connor illustrates her argument of good and evil through a grandmother who struggles with her own sense of goodness, and the Misfit who represents evil. In the story a character who views herself as good comes to realize that this goodness that she believes she has cannot protect against the works of evil.
How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo.
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
In the beginning, God created the world. He created the earth, air, stars, trees and mortal animals, heaven above, the angels, every spiritual being. God looked at these things and said that they were good. However, if all that God created was good, from where does un-good come? How did evil creep into the universal picture? In Book VII of his Confessions, St. Augustine reflects on the existence of evil and the theological problem it poses. For evil to exist, the Creator God must have granted it existence. This fundamentally contradicts the Christian confession that God is Good. Logically, this leads one to conclude evil does not exist in a created sense. Augustine arrives at the conclusion that evil itself is not a formal thing, but the result of corruption away from the Supreme Good. (Augustine, Confessions 7.12.1.) This shift in understanding offers a solution to the problem of evil, but is not fully defended within Augustine’s text. This essay will illustrate how Augustine’s solution might stand up to other arguments within the context of Christian theology.
It is easy to believe that each individual is embedded with a sense of natural law, as this implies that humans are naturally good. Thus, one could assume that it is natural for humans to be attracted to virtuous lives and make every effort to avoid evil. However, Aquinas mentions that this is not always the case. Natural law is not something we are taught. It is something we are born with. Consequently, some individuals are born with a wickedness which mars their natural law. This is supported in the fourth article of Question 94, which
The purpose of this essay will be to discuss whether human nature is good, or evil, or both good and evil, or neither good nor evil. To facilitate the following discussion, human nature here would be defined as the distinguishing characteristics we born with, that we tend to have naturally without the influence of external factors. The definition agrees to Xunzi’s, that nature is what is given by Heaven: one cannot learn it; one cannot acquire it by effort. This essay will explain that the deepest essence of human nature is self-preservation and reproduction, which cannot be truly classified into good or evil. It is followed by how we are diverged to behave goodly or badly, argument against the “good nature theory” and different between self-preservation with greed and aggression.
One of the central developments was to establish what principles is shared by people of different faiths, as Christianity is not completely universal nor necessarily natural in all of its principles set forth. Grotius took part in initiating this development as he denounced the notion of universal Christianity, and suggested a better degree of validity would be possible under a less biased set of moral principle (Coleman, pg. 67). This development was found to be what is most “reasonable” for mankind by modern theorists such as John Finnis, yet branching from the notions set forth by prior theorists. Finnis’ theory operates in the absence of a divine figure, yet still holds a universal standard of what is “good.” This reasonable notion is further evaluated as moral principles are naturally embedded into human beings, and a particular system such as religion is not necessary to reflect such (Coleman, pg.
“The good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of its willing, i.e., it is good of itself” 5. In Kant’s eyes there is no escaping a good will if you are a rational being, therefore we, as humans all have the ability to do good because...
“All of morals comes down to the virtues.” (Keenan, 142) Keenan asserts that these virtues are the cardinal virtues, consisting of courage, temperance, justice, and prudence, and date back to Aristotle in Ancient Greece. The word cardinal is derived from the root, cardo, meaning hinge. Simply stated, the Christian moral life hinges on the cardinal virtues. Keenan suggests an updating of the cardinal virtues to become justice, fidelity, self-care, and prudence. He provides reasoning for the new virtue list. He defines each virtue with its social implications. For example, individuals should seek to set up society with equal justice for all persons. These descriptions help the Christian understand when the virtues are best applicable to self and/or others. Thomas Aquinas adds three theological virtues to the mix: faith, hope, and charity. Familiar from the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians, these virtues seek to help Christian theologians through the ages maintain the integrity of the Gospel and continue to make it relevant in the modern world. Keenan recounts Bernard of Clairvaux’s beliefs that cultivating the virtues is a way to assimilate with the humanity of Jesus. (Keenan, 136) According to Aquinas, “Every human action is a moral action.” (Keenan, 142) The purpose of the virtues is to guide Christians, and when the Christian studies and applies the virtues to his life, his actions will demonstrate morality. The Bible heralds in Proverbs 3:32, “Devious people are detestable to the Lord, but the virtuous are his close