Accordingly, whatever the excellent person finds pleasurable, should be considered the standard for judging individuals moral quality, as stated in the following passage:
Good and bad, two opposite terms that are used by people. ‘Good’ is known as morally excellent and ‘bad’ is known as being wicked or having an evil character. The ideas of good and bad are thought to be connected to human nature. Human nature is the characteristics, feelings, and behaviours of humankind that is shared by all humans. Because good and bad are two opposite terms and it is in human nature this has led to attempts to explain how both good and bad behaviours affect peoples’ daily life. The debate of on explanations of human’s good and bad behaviour still is ongoing nowadays. Two Chinese philosophers, Mencius (2016) and Hsun Tzu (1963) have relevant approaches to analysing this behaviour. Hsun Tzu focused on human
Human Nature is a very interesting topic with it being something that is in everyday life. Every decision you make comes with some influence from Human Nature. Human Nature tells you a bit of right from wrong and almost tells you what outcomes can be. To give an example from Paul Zak’s “Can a molecule make us moral” article they did an experiment where two people would be in separate rooms and they would both get twenty dollars. One person could choose how much money they wanted to give the other. So basically if you didn’t give the other person money they could take money away. But if you did they could give you money so in the end you have more than what you started with. “ The DM1 to DM2 transfer is understood to be a measure of trust,
Mill discusses how to determine right and wrong, but this seems to be an ongoing conflict. Mill believes that in order to prove goodness you must have ethical morals lined up in order to honor that goodness. Mill also focuses on morality and goodness being proved by legislation and welfare. Mill feels that individuals should practice morality based upon laws and receive proper punishment if they do not obtain goodness or happiness in the appropriate manners; unjust actions should result in consequences. Mill argues that actions should be done based upon not simply the happiness of yourself, but the happiness that will result in others.
For example, happiness is subjective and at times. According to Dan Haybron, “Even as happiness might fail to suffice for well-being, well-being itself may be only one component of a good life, and not the most important one at that. Here ‘good life’ means a life that is good all things considered, taking account of all the values that matter in life, whether they benefit the individual or not (Haybron).” Perhaps a person has to consider morality before their own happiness, but at the end of their life, they had a good life. An example of an act that a person has to consider morality before their own happiness is the matter of divorce. They may have children, and children are greatly impacted when their parents’ divorce. The person who wants the divorce cannot consider just their own unhappiness and leave their family, but has to find a different way to be happy with their own life. Self-biased happiness is not a good reason to plug into the machine.
Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right;
“The universal creative Law of Mind, of which you are a part, creates for you according to your choice. Too often that choice is determined by emotional attitudes, without due regard to thoughtful decision. Too often it is a negative emotional
Mill’s pleasure principle was disputed by both philosophers and theologians because of its apparent lack of association to a code of morality. To this, Mill contended that there can
His preference towards sentiment, instead of logic and reason for ethical morals has laid the foundation for modern philosophers such as Nietzsche who believe that emotion is the key factor which determines our moral judgement. Nietzsche and Hume are very similar in the fact that their belief of human nature and that “Christian theology and morality are not conducive to human flourishing,” this shows that Hume even though at the time very despised by other philosophers is a major influence later philosopher (Beam 299). Even though Hume’s moral principle is very agreeable amongst many people there are obvious problems with his ideas and his generalizations for all moral value. First, Hume argues that all individuals have the innate moral or
Newsstands proclaim it. Talk shows trumpet it. Scandal, murder, and deception! People share a common disdain for these evils, scorning those who commit the dirty deeds. Laws are upheld to prevent people from doing “bad” things, but how do people come to an agreement on what is truly wrong? Even as society moves away from traditional teachings and perspectives, many acts are still universally looked down upon. Throughout history, the majority of civilizations have held surprisingly similar moral ideals regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although moral relativists believe that morality is individually determined, there is, in fact, an objective moral standard that governs all humanity, because a sense of right and wrong is universal, transcends time and culture, and is evident in the majority of people.
We are born with faculties like we are with passions. “We are not made up of good or bad nature; we are not praised nor blamed”(page 225, Mayfield). This quote is explaining with passions and faculties are how we feel and desire which is neither right nor wrong, good or bad. Since passions and faculties are not defined, state of character is virtue. State of character is our actions and our habits. “The virtue of man also will be the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well” (page 225, Mayfield). In order to have true virtue you need to act to “accordance with a golden mean of moderation” (page 78, Palmer). This means that you need to find an intermediate so you will be praised and succeed. You can’t take too much or too little. Too much for someone could be too little for someone else, therefore each person needs to find their own individual mean.
David Hume's ethical theory sits between philosophy and modern day psychology. He uses the empirical method to study the natural tendencies of human beings to engage their emotions, and in our emotions is where morality could be understood best. One must remember
For starters, McGinn a former Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy, who is now a philosophy professor who wrote “Why Not Be a Bad Person?” starts this excerpt off by asking the reader what reason there is to be a good person. Except, then McGinn explains the only reason to be a good person is because it is good. For the reason than to be virtuous is because it is more than “virtue is virtue and vice is vice” there is ultimately no real reasoning to be virtuous. You should just care about things because they are yours, but if you choose not to care then it is a “oh well it is your own fault” situation if things do not benefit you. McGinn summarizes these main points by stating we have intrinsic values to take into consideration and to be good for the reason that good is good and bad is bad.
Both are powerful forces that contribute to morality. However, Hume concludes that it is the sentiment, feeling, or pleasure that human beings feel that ultimately shape their morality.
Our conclusions on any occasion are direct consequences of any developed concept in our minds. We see the world as we want to see it through our personal perceptions. When we are categorizing anything as desirable or otherwise, we judge using the concepts that we hold to us. Although different concepts may shape different conclusions, they are all influenced by beliefs and experiences. So, to what extent do our beliefs modify the conclusions that we may reach? The knowledge obtained through out someone’s life through their experiences, or belief system direct decision making almost completely. In my essay I will explore how Ethics and Human sciences correlate with this topic. I will also implement and tie in the connections of Reason and link these concepts with belief and experiences.