The question of the morality of government has been one ever since the first prehistoric humans came together to form bands of nomads. This question was especially something the ancient Greek philosophers argued over as they were ruled by a patriarchal democracy. Plato and later Aristotle grappled with this question over who should rule and what various forms or kinds of rule would look like. Aristotle mentions a few various true forms of government such as a kingship, aristocracy, and polity as
Hume focused on the question does our morality come from our rational nature or our sentiment nature? According to Hume, the judgments and recommendations of morality arise not from reason, but from moral sense. Hume argued that virtue is always accompanied by a feeling of pleasure, and vice by a feeling of pain. Therefore, we praise an instance of virtuous action precisely because it stimulates in us a pleasing feeling, and we avoid committing a vicious action because we anticipate that doing so
Introduction: 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
ignorance are excusable. However, acts not from ignorance, but in ignorance are inexcusable. Controversially, giving another an excess is an unjust act, but being unjustly treated is involuntary. Aristotle’s views on ethics and justice pertain to what is good for the whole of society. His views are unique and will be discussed further when explaining his virtue theory and justice philosophy. There are many other philosophers that have significantly contributed to the discussion of ethics that will
stripping us of our passions. In “Morality as Anti-Nature,” Nietzsche claims that all religions are founded in a moral code of conduct that is supposed to lead to happiness. However, Nietzsche thinks that these religious rules keep people from being happy, because passions are part of what make people happy. I agree with Nietzsche that every religion and morality is founded on a general principle of ‘do this and do that,’ and I also agree that religions and morality do some damage to our passions.
Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature
Kant and Hobbes have completely different interpretations of morality. The vast differences between them is due to their opposing schools of thought. Kant’s view on morality is very analytical and strict. Whereas, Hobbes’ view is both provisional and tentative, depending on the outcomes. Although these differences between their philosophies were present, they both took a subjective stance in their reasoning meaning, they believed moral philosophy should be centered on the person. This essay will
Plato’s Republic proposes a number of intriguing theories, ranging from his contemporary view of ethics to political idealism. It is because of Plato’s emerging interpretations that philosophers still refer to Plato’s definitions of moral philosophy as a standard. Plato’s possibly most argued concept could be said to be the analogy between city and soul in Book IV, partially due to his expansive analysis of justice and the role justice plays in an “ideal city,” which has some key flaws. Despite these
Fredrick Nietzsche would probably be worried about my morality. Growing up in an atheist household where Nietzsche’s assertion that “God is dead” was mostly true, the “sklavenmoral” of Christianity did not provide me with my set of morals, but neither did culture, as Nietzsche suggests, because neither of my parents were interested or educated in philosophy and art; I was only introduced to these subjects in school, after my morals had already been formed. Although Nietzsche may have been worried
moral action is related to the human good as conceived of by each thinker. First, Aristotle was as much of a scientist as he was a philosopher. This shows to be true in his development of both his beliefs about morality along with the decision making process. Aristotle believed that morality was very important in one’s life. He also felt that if someone wasn’t virtuous, they may not necessarily be a bad person but likely to lack guidance. He believed that some people thought that the happily life is