Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relationship between ethics and religion
Relationship between ethics and religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Relationship between ethics and religion
Throughout the dialogue of “Meno”, Socrates inquires what virtue is and whether virtue is innate, acquired through learning, or received as a gift from the gods (Jowett, 1949). After some discussion with Meno, Socrates first proposes the theory that virtue is innate. Subsequently the knowledge of innate virtue is of a priori knowledge, which is in turn contingent on a priori justification (Russell, 2011).
A priori knowledge is knowledge that rests on a priori justification. A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience. There are a variety of views about whether a priori justification can be defeated by other evidence, especially by empirical evidence, and a variety of views about whether a priori justification, or knowledge, must be only of necessary, or analytic, propositions, or at least of ones believed to be necessary or analytic (Russell, 2011).
A priori knowledge of innate virtue is derived by means other than through experience. Plato’s Theory of Recollection was devised to give validity to Socrates presumption of virtue being an innate attribute (Jowett, 1949). The presumption that virtue is in fact a natural attribute pertaining to oneself and is not learned through experience; affords virtue to be an absolute attribute within everyone and derivable by means of recollection. Plato stated, “Thought is the absolute, and all reality is thought” (Hegel, 226). Therefore if knowledge is innate then means to derive true knowledge is through the recollection and reasoning of it. If virtue is indeed an innate attribute, which can be consciously evoked by means of logical thinking and persistent inquiry, that I may deduce to the utmost of my ability to reas...
... middle of paper ...
...ived thus far through logical reasoning and inquiry, the process in which one uses to incite the recollection of morality can still be useful. Although my thinking maybe fallible, I cannot find adequate evidence to refute that our innate knowledge of morality enables us to discern the intent and means that evoke our actions yielding a moral or immoral action.
Bibliography
THE PHILOSOPHY OF PLATO
G. W. F. Hegel
The Journal of Speculative Philosophy , Vol. 4, No. 3 (1870), pp. 225-268
Russell, Bruce, "A Priori Justification and Knowledge", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Jowett, B. (1903). Euthyphro . The Four Socratic Dialogues of Plato , 10-36.
Plato. Meno. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1949.
The value attributed to the first virtue, wisdom, whose essence lay in “the perception of truth and with ingenuity,” concerns the comprehension of the nature of justice (7). In fact, Cicero asserts, within the public sphere, “unless learning is accompanied by the virtue that consists...
Right after Socrates comments how they can both look for virtue, Meno gives him these questions: “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing you did not know (80d)?” This is Meno’s paradox which explains the discovery of knowledge is impossible and if you do not know what you are learning, and that you cannot discover it either. Meno states in his first premise that you either know what knowledge is or you don’t, and whether you do know it or not, you cannot discover what that piece of knowledge is. This,
When discussing specific knowledge, it is often hard to pin down an exact definition of what it is you are discussing. Often a concept or word will get thrown around so often that it will begin to be taken for granted and when pressed, a person may struggle to pin down specifically what it is they mean. Realizing this, Socrates often went out and attempted to fix these kinds of problems and find out what people actually knew, compared to what they just thought they knew. In the dialogues Euthyphro and Meno, Socrates attempts to pin down definitions for piety and virtue, respectively. In doing so, we are shown that the thinkers in question struggle to define these terms, and attempt to do so in vague terms that may vary heavily under different circumstances. What Socrates is attempting to find is one definitive definition of piety and virtue, what is called his One Form Requirement. Rather than defining something by classifying different parts that make it up, Socrates maintains the belief that piety and virtue both can be simplified into one specific form that describes exactly what makes all F actions F.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics the topic of eudaimonia comes up in various different ways. This paper will focus on what it means to say that virtue is necessary but not a sufficient condition for eudaimonia. This paper will attempt to show that the claim that virtue is necessary but insufficient for eudaimonia. For something to be necessary but insufficient for another thing means that it must be present in order to achieve the other thing, but its presence doesn 't guarantee that other thing.
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.
Klagge, JC 1989, Virtue: Aristotle or Kant? Virginia Tech Department of Philosophy, Web version accessed 14 May 2014.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples
Seeing how hopeless Meno is, Socrates propose the theory of recollection as a way to obtain virtue. This paper will argue against this theory. Meno is the first dialogue that does not specify the setting where it takes place. It starts out with Meno’s question, “is virtue something acquired by teaching?”
In the Laches and the Phaedo, courage and virtue are discussed in depth. Also, arguments for the possibility of the existence of the immorality of the soul are given in the Phaedo. In the Laches, Socrates and two generals, Nicias and Laches, wrestle with how exactly to define courage. After discussing and working their way through two definitions of courage, Nicias proposes a third definition of courage. However, this definition of courage that he proposes is actually the definition of virtue. When the dialogue comes to an end, no definition of courage has been reached.
...ritique of a pure practical reason is to be complete, it must be possible at the same time to show its identity with the speculative reason in a common principle, for it can ultimately be only one and the same reason which has to be distinguished merely in its application." (4) An argument may be arrived at a priori but this only signifies that it possesses a rationally consistent form. We must still seek confirmation of a priori conclusions in the a posteriori if they are to have any weight in guiding our actions. In other words, if we are to accept something as a guide to our actions it ought to be sound, insofar as it can be observed as consistent with observation, as well as logically valid. If a conclusion is merely valid then it can only be speculatively valuable. It requires soundness in order to serve as something that is practically persuasive as well.
Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics is a theory used to make moral decisions. It does not rely on religion, society or culture; it only depends on the individuals themselves. The main philosopher of Virtue Ethics is Aristotle. The. His theory was originally introduced in ancient Greek.
... proof than analytic a priori claims or synthetic a posteriori claims. A synthetic a priori claim adds to what is analytically contained in a concept without appealing to experience. Kant explains the possibility of a priori judgements by appealing to the mind’s role in shaping experience. According to him, by applying categories to intuition, we put what is in our minds into our experiences. The categories shape the experience and we can know that that aspect of experience is a priori since it belongs to us. “We can cognize of things a priori only what we ourselves have put into them.”
In the first part (Meno, 78-79, 86c-87c), because Socrates does not know what virtue is and Meno cannot answer it, Socrates says “we would not investigate whether virtue is teachable or not before we investigated what virtue itself is”. What Socrates means here is that, as both of them do not know what virtue is, Socrates uses the same logic as geometers do, when they are asked questions that they do not know, they will make an assumption to answer the questions. Socrates proposes a hypothesis “Among the things existing in the soul, of what sort is virtue, that it should be teachable or not”. Later, Socrates argues “men cannot be taught anything but knowledge?” Which means knowledge comes from teaching.