world, so one would never be sure that one has accomplished without a doubt the highest standard of morals. In his discourse Euthyphro, Plato considered the proposal that it is divine approval that makes an activity decent. ‘Plato pointed out that if this were the case, we could not say that the gods approve of the actions because the actions are good. Why then do the gods approve of these actions rather than others? Is their approval entirely arbitrary?’ (Sofroniou, p12). Plato considered this incomprehensible thus held that there must be a few gauges of right or wrong that are free of the preferences and abhorrence of the divine beings. The third view holds that ‘all knowledge is relative to the individual, in which case there cannot be absolute morality: all ethics are relative to circumstances, people and cultures’ (Brackman). What can be drawn from this view is that it is tricky in light of the fact that, taken to its conclusion, there is no such thing as ethics by any stretch of the imagination. The following section will look at why as human’s do we act ethically.
Furthermore this section will highlight why as individuals, do we prefer to act ethically. Moreover, Lafollette believed that the study of ethics is significant not so that we can understand rationally, but instead so we as individuals can improve how we live (Lafollette, 2007). By being moral, we advance our lives and the lives of everyone around us. It 's particularly imperative to carry on with an ethical life when we are youthful, as it is useful to practice and practice these ideas before being faced with more unpredictable issues. Lafollette hypothesizes that morals resemble mostly everything else that we endeavour to be great at; it requires practice and e...
... middle of paper ...
..., except a good will’(London). These duties are actions that are ethically obligatory and to circumvent the actions that are morally prohibited. Kant argues that ‘a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes. It is good in itself, whether or not it prevails’ (Chen, p242). In Kant’s supposition, we are not moral for our feelings and ideals, for example, affection or empathy, we are moral for duty, both duty and reason can control our feelings so that we aren’t ruled by them, this arrangement of morals made here is along these lines in light of reason and not instinct, our intuitive information. In Kant’s own sentiment to be a good being you should act rationally and to act rationally is to carry on of cooperative attitude, where you are doing your duty for duty alone and not being overruled by feeling. To act out of obligation would be to perform
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
In The Republic Plato argues that some women have the ability to become philosopher-Guardians. This idea during that time wasn’t viewed as a normal idea to spring upon, therefor Plato argues this statement through questionings and contradictions to justify this radical idea. He does so by summing up his ideas and thoughts through his theory of virtue.
According to Kant “… nothing can protect us from a complete falling away from our idea of duty and preserve in the soul a well-grounded respect for duty’s law except the clear conviction that, even if there never have been actions springing from such pure source, the question at issue here is not whether this or that happened but that reason of itself and independently of all experience commands what ought to happen.” (Kant, Page 20(lines 407-412)). Kant points out that the duty is done not because of the ends but because of what is fundamentally good or
Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic. In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by using a personal character.
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
Kant conveys his beliefs by introducing the idea of a moral law. He believes there is a moral law that is to be upheld by everyone. The moral law is an unconditional principle that defines the standards of right action. Good will is a form of moral law because it’s a genuine attitude behind an action. Anything that is naturally good is morally good which sums up to be good will. Actions of good will do the right thing for the reason of simply being the right thing to do. There is no qualification, benefactor or incentive its good will and no personal gain, inclination, or happine...
Morals are developed from the moment we are born to the moment we die, and are cultivated by what we see, hear, and do within our lives, but more importantly by the people we meet. In the world there are all manner of things for us to bear witness to, whether it be the beauty of birth or the gritty horror that is war, in either case men and women are shaped and changed by these events whether it be good or bad. The greek philosopher Aristotle is quoted as saying, “And to say what makes good morals vs what are bad ones is completely based on self, for no two people have the same upbringing, class, or position in life, for how is a slave who has known nothing but the brutality of his/her master to understand under what morals, owned by their
The idea of being just is one that is often misconstrued. What exactly is justice? What does it take for a person to be truly just? Can someone be truly just, or are we only just for the sake of making other people jealous or proud of us? Plato researched this idea of “being just” in great detail. For a soul to be so, he explained, it must be pious, honest etc. For example, picture the idea of two men- Mr. A and Mr. B. Mr. A will always do the just thing, and Mr. B will always do the unjust thing- he is very manipulative and knows how to deceive. Mr. B however, is more widely liked because he does not let people know he is doing the unjust thing, he is just that good at being manipulative. An example of this is the story of the Ring of Gadges-
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
Aristotle believed that an absolute moral standard was not possible because morality is determined by behavior and outcome and these are governed by the individual and the choices made by that individual. The individual is by definition unique, which foregoes that each choice and outcome is unique. The concept of Plato's "good" is seen in terms of the action and the result of the action, rather than a predetermined, 'a priori', standard.
Kant explores the good will which acts for duty’s sake, or the sole unconditional good. A good will is not good because of any proposed end, or because of what it accomplishes, but it is only good in itself. The good will that is good without qualification contains both the means and the end in itself.
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
Moral reasoners should try to be like the Socrates that is depicted in Plato’s Apology. First off, Socrates says that the accusation of him taking money from people in exchange for teaching them philosophy, is not true. So, who doesn’t love free education? Socrates duty is to teach the people who follow him around about his ways. He say’s “the ones who follow me around on their free will the most, are the ones who are better off.”(Plato 4) They often at some points start imitating him and question the people who Socrates is studying. Socrates takes a strong stance when he is called out for corrupting the children. People who are criticizing him (Meletus), have no idea what Socrates teaches them. So Meletus should not be taking shots like
The term “ethics” discusses how one’s morality needs to take acknowledge that of the rest of the members of the group or community t...