Differences Between Plato 's And Kant

Through Plato’s Apology and Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” both contend that living an unexamined life is living a life of ignorance and futility. On the other hand, living an examined life is living an enlightened life full of intelligence. I agree with Plato and Emerson’s similar ideas that without knowledge, life as it is, is not worth living. They both argue that having personal beliefs creates an intelligent society. Having knowledge allows for one to set goals and objectives to achieve within a lifetime, which gives purpose to one’s life.

Plato reveals the views of Socrates on the query of whether virtue is knowledge and whether virtue may be taught in a number of dialogues, mainly in Meno. In the dialogue, Socrates creates several differing arguments on virtue, which include the definition of virtue and questions on whether persons can attain it. In addition, Plato demonstrates the means by which virtue can be obtained, as well as ponders on whether persons are born virtuous, whether virtue may be taught or it is an added factor for righteous individuals (Novelguide.com n.pag.). The paper will focus on Socrates' query of whether virtue is knowledge as well as highlight whether virtue may be taught.

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

First, it is important to define ethics and how its components play an extensive role in our society. The term ethics is defined as “Moral principles that govern a person 's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.” (Oxford); ethical decisions are the ones that per se determine whether or not murder is wrong. Likewise, ethics consists of different ramifications and perspectives from many philosophers. Moreover,

Philosophers have unique and yet similar ways of interpreting life through a variety of different values and beliefs appointed to oneself. Some philosophers have the ability and courage to stand up to what they are trying to accomplish or for what they believe in, even if consequences follow their actions. Machiavelli and Plato have different perspectives and goals in their writing, however their stories also have some underlining similarities such as being non-Christian. This paper will be examining some of these similarities and differences that can be found in Machiavelli’s “Prince” and Plato’s “Apology” and which thoughts I would come to agree or disagree on.

Normative ethical subjectivism is an ethical stance that attempts to specify circumstances under which an action is morally right or wrong using four distinct arguments that try to prove this claim. Normative ethical subjectivism claims that an act is morally right if, and only if, the person judging the action approves of it. Stemming form this view on ethics a normative ethical theory has been made. An ethical theory is a theory of what is right and wrong. This stance on ethics is the opposite of another ethical stance called methethical antirealism. Methethical antirealism is centered on the idea that because there is no right and wrong actions, just personal preferences there is no such thing as morality. It also states that morals are

In this paper I will discuss how Plato 's Apology and Phaedo have difference ideas of what it means to be a philosopher. I will explain how in the Apology, the philosopher is wise in how he/she understand that they are wise because they know that they don 't know, and in Phadeo the philosopher knowledgable and are concern in gaining more knowledge.

Normative Ethics – a discipline of philosophy that focuses on the study of ethical action

Centered on psychological, sociological and philosophic principles such as virtue ethics, deontology, utilitarianism and intuitionism, for instance, many theorists argue that our decision making ability or ethical judgements are based on our own experience, or the nature of our standards of reason. Ethics, whether personal or professional, is about our actions and decisions. Moreover, it is acting in a way that is consistent with our values and choices, not just simply following the rules. Our Code of Ethical conduct originates from our values which are greatly influenced by our morals; they provide guidance and are our standards for the ways in which we carry out and view right and wrong actions; these standards are derived from our fundamental beliefs. Ethics are usually the principles we use to form decisions on what is right or wrong, good or bad and are typically cultivated from our culture, environment, and religious beliefs. Moral responsibility is said to be innate and/or instilled within an individual outside of themselves, however, studies also suggest that moral attitude and action are also affected by

Ethics are constantly regarded as the moral principles that influence a person’s behavior. Ethics are concerned with distinguishing between good and evil and is a concept that persuades people to act in the most positive way. Each society has created their own ethics where everyone is expected to follow certain values. Deviance from each established ethics system is met with social cost that regards deviating from the established norms as morally corrupt and potentially can be justified actions that will have them return to the system or leave society. Ethics can be societally agreed upon, to the point in which all individuals that belong to that society agree that such values are true. Part of our innate urge to be accepted by society not

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who was concerned with producing an ethical theory that was logical and absolute, and did not change depending on the situation, countering the views of John Locke and other empiricists of the time. His ethics are based on duty, rather than looking at the end product of an action. He thought that his theory was so important that it could be rivalled with the Copernican revolution, in that it would utterly change everyone’s concept of morality in the same profound manner. There are two main dictionary definitions of duty, obeying a superior, and obeying the moral law in doing the right thing, and Kant was concerned with the latter.

In general everyone approaches an ethical situation differently depending on his or her priorities. When it comes to our ethical decisions we tend to approach them with normative basis. This sometimes includes our virtues, principles and the consequences that we might be able to handle. Often times, these normative basis go hand-in-hand and we tend to use them together when it comes to decision-making. This all depends on which of the three is more important to the individual.

In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each

Within philosophy, ethics is the division that focuses on morality, which defines behavior as right and wrong. Ethical principles represent standard guidelines for behavior, while also justifying a person’s given course of action. Society defines what moral values and behaviors are held and legislated (DeNisco & Barker, 2016). Further, ethical principles include the concepts of autonomy, freedom, beneficence, fidelity. Autonomy entails a person’s desire to direct themselves, while freedom is the person’s right to do as they please. However, this right is contingent on members of a society agreeing, whether explicitly or not, to abide by behaviors that do not deceive or force others–behaviors that lead to peaceful interpersonal relationships. Beneficence is the person’s motivation to do good, and fidelity is the individual’s

Immanuel Kant became one of the most iconic, and potentially crucial philosopher since Aristotle himself. Like Aristotle and Aquinas, Kant also believed God exists and that he could have an impact on our lives if we let/wanted him to. But ethics mainly evolved around humans, more than God. Kant believed that ethics were acting out of a sense of duty. A good act could not happen unless the good act came from the person’s duty. Kant viewed normal things that today we find as good, like happiness, as bad because he saw the total view rather just what