Difference Between Confecius And Confucius

Each individual justifies their actions and wishes by appealing to various moral principles based on the local or individual conception of the good. In the argument of morality and where are those moral judgments come from, brings us to the central question of ethics, that is “What is the good for human beings?” More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle gives his answer in Nicomachen Ethics suggesting that the purpose of morality is to enable us to lead good lives, and it is necessary to acquire virtues to achieve the good. However, this view of ethics based on virtues led to a relativism toward the notion that believes the criteria of ethics is tied up with virtues which the local and individual approves to be good. In other words, the conception of goodness is based on the tradition or custom of the local society/groups or the individual. Therefore, many suggest that the high degree of individualism that was shown in Aristotle’s virtues ethics theory proves that he supports cultural relativism. In this paper, I will defend Aristotelian ethical approach based on virtues and refute relativists argument by showing the objections that against the local ethical objectivity.

Virtue ethics is a concept that is used in the process of moral decision making. It is dependent on the individuals themselves rather than on society, culture and religion. Aristotle was one of the main philosophers involved in virtue ethics. He was an advocate for virtue. Virtue ethics are associated with the type of person that one should become. It is solely concerned with human nature and morals. This essay will explore Aristotle’s conception of virtue. I will discuss Aristotle’s belief that virtue ethics are vital in achieving the ultimate goal of happiness. I will further consider and examine his theory of the Doctrine of the Mean. Finally, I will explore how Aristotle distinguishes between the two kinds of virtues and this will result

As the Korean old proverb goes, “Read the Analects of Confucius when you are young and read the Tao Te Ching when you get older.” Personally, the Analects of Confucius appeared to me because its ideas are very down to earth. Many people believed that two texts are complementary and do not replace one another. The reason why is that two texts have different ideas. The Analects of Confucius is dealing with more practical things but Tao Te Ching pursue ideal things. Therefore, I strongly believe that we have to read both of texts in life so that we can have a better life.

Philosophy can best be described as an abstract, scholarly discourse. According to the Greek, philosophia refers to ‘love of knowledge’. This is an aspect that has involved a great number of clever minds in the world’s history. They have sought to deal with issues surrounding the character of veracity and significantly exploring the endeavors to respond to these issues. This paper seeks to compare and contrast the philosophy of Aristotle with that of Confucius. This is with a clear concentration on the absolute functions of these philosophies and how they take care of the particular responsibility of a person and the broader society and the resultant effects on societies (Barnes, 1995).

Recalling from the discussion on Euthyphro, the ancient Greek approach to moral philosophy was oriented towards overall character development, what one could think of as a universal approach to morality. The central question is “How should I live?” To which the answer is quite tersely, “live happily and noble.” Yet it is notable that this approach characterizes the person’s life, rather than their explicit actions. In other words, being a virtuous person is not simply reducible to doing the right thing or making the right decision. In this older form of philosophy, actions are sheer reflections of what has genuine moral worth, the character of a life fully lived. Therefore, it would appear that these early philosophers saw that the moral worth of people takes precedence over the rightness of their actions. For many, the concept of trying to “live honorably” sounds old fashioned. This is because it is old fashioned. This notion of regarding yourself as an “honorable man” or “virtuous woman” can, nowadays, strike many as arrogant or self righteous. In addition, other might perceive such thinking as reserved for their grandparent’s generation or the devoutly religious. Yet this is precisely what both the Platonic and Confucian moral traditions advocate. This approach of virtue prompts readers to consider moral standing in broader terms than simply doing the right thing. Rather, Confucius suggest

Aristotle wrote the first book ever written about ethics titles “The Nicomachean Ethics,” and it is still one of the greatest and most influential. Its purpose is to teach us to be virtuous rather than to understand what virtue is. (Aristotle, 2009)

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

According to Aristotle, a moral virtue is a concept that depends on our behaviors, actions, and determines our character which helps us achieve a good life. The book is

According to Aristotle virtue is achieving excellence of the soul. (1) For man to become virtuous they must build habits that model virtuous behavior. Aristotle believed that moral virtue forms through habit and no one is born virtuous. Under this premise virtue is both learned and practiced through our behaviors. When one acts in a moral and virtuous way they become more virtuous, the opposite is true also that if one acts in a non-virtuous way they will learn to become less virtuous. To be virtuous you also must maintain a balance which is called the mean.

To Aristotle, ethics is not an exact science, it’s ruled by broad generalizations that work most of the time and are found with those of experience, the men of practical wisdom (Nicomachean Ethics, 1094b15-1095a10). We don’t need a focused study in the sciences to understand the good, all one needs is a proper understanding of how the external aspects of life: friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth operate in concert. No aspects of friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth ought to be practiced too much (excess) or too little (deficient); moral virtue is action performed between two extremes (Nic. Ethics, 1106b5-25). And it is by consultation that one may find the middle ground between excess and deficiency, The Golden Mean (Nic. Ethics, 1097b5-20; Nic. Ethics, 1104a10-25).

I think that Confucius was more correct in his views than Mencius, not because of differing views (although they did differ at certain points), but because of the way these ideas were carried out throughout his career, and ultimately, his life.

In Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the idea of moral virtue. Aristotle emphasized the importance of developing moral virtue as the way to achieve what is finally more important, human flourishing (eudaimonia). Aristotle makes the argument in Book II that moral virtue arises from habit—equating ethical character to a skill that is acquired through practice, such as learning a musical instrument. However in Book III, Aristotle argues that a person 's moral virtue is voluntary, as it results from many individual actions which are under his own control. Thus, Aristotle confronts us with an inherently problematic account of moral virtue.

All of these different systems and philosophies highly emphasize: the harmony between people, the benevolence that one must have, filial piety, loyalty, righteousness, and courtesy for a successful and healthy society. Even though they all have a different idea, their goal is the same. The morality and ethics of human behaviors were also part of the teachings that shaped the culture of today. Even though the goals of these philosophies were similar, like their beliefs about man and society; their ideas were a little bit different and each had their own focus. The difference in focus between Confucianism and Taoism is that Confucianism was focused on having a structured society. It held as a principle the brotherhood of humanity. The

Aristotle, provided his account of morality, then Hume also has his own set of morality. In which, Hume mentions that “reason is the salve of the passion”(Prompt). While, Aristotle’s view is that passions are the slaves of reasons. Even though both have their own sets of morality, one of them has a better concept of morality. Hume has his own set of morals in which there are flaws. In this paper, I shall have to agree with Aristotle over Hume. Aristotle’s concept that our passions are the slaves of reasons. In this paper, I will agree with Aristotle and I would have to disagree with Hume. I shall start off with a brief introduction of Aristotle’s morals. Next, I will move on to the reasons why Aristotle has a better reasons than Hume. Then finally, I will give my closing remarks on the topic.

In The Trial and Death of Socrates, the question is posed to the philosopher whether it is right to act in one's own best interest or to obey the State. Crito argues that the State's punishment of Socrates is unjust, but Socrates argues rather that authority comes from God and that to flee the State's decision would be like fleeing God, which would neither be good nor in one's best interest. According to the teaching of Confucius, Socrates would have been following the principle of "Jên," which can be translated to mean "goodness." This paper will show why Socrates was right to obey the State and drink the poison; it will also show how the teaching of Confucius on goodness supports this decision and how Confucius' teachings, on account of their appeal to Goodness, are suppressed in a system of tyranny, where Goodness is essentially outlawed.