St. Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, And Nel Noddings

Philippa Foot, Emerita Professor of Philosophy at the University of California at Los Angeles, has been studying and writing about the moral implications of killing someone versus letting someone die for many years. She also explains to us the difference between the negative and positive rights of a person and how negative rights and duties are more stringent than positive rights and duties. I shall be looking at this theory and explaining how it applies to certain cases. Before we can discuss these rights and how they apply to these situations, though, we must know what they truly mean.

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

Using the philosophical approaches of Kant's Deontology and Mill's Utilitarianism, I will present the ethical parameters of Dr. Luthan's dilemmas and how

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

‘Something rather than nothing refers to’ the cosmological argument for the existence of God claiming that all things in nature; ‘something’ are dependent on something else for their existence. As Lucretius puts it in his first book De Rerum Natura, “by observing nature and her laws…her first principle: that nothing’s brought forth by any supernatural power out of naught” hence we arrive at nihil fit ex nihilo ‘nothing comes from nothing’

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

This is by no means a moral system. By this definition, the law is as fickle as man and serves as an inadequate canon, an imitation canon to reassure us that we are a moral and just society. Though the Declaration implores the equal distribution of law, all being equal in its sight, it has managed to allow the atrocities committed in the past. The witch hunts, slave trade, oppression of women, exploitation of children and the inquisition are merely a few events where the latter section of the clause ("[the law] should be the same to all") has been unpardonably

The third view is that even during supreme emergencies strict jus in bello laws must be observed; if we allow for exceptions the integrity of the rules themselves comes into question. The fourth view, proposed by Walzer, is to acknowledge a multidimensionality of morality and thereby invoke a paradox: the means by which we must necessarily respond in supreme emergencies are both immoral but morally necessary; they are both morally right and morally wrong, and we must learn to live with that contradiction. Orend himself, who proposes the fifth view, argues that Walzer cannot have his cake and eat it, too. He suggests instead that, while supreme emergency measures are sometimes necessary to secure victory, they are undoubtedly immoral. They are wrong, and while they are also necessary, we cannot pretend that they are moral because they are necessary. But Orend does agree that sometimes during war such measures are necessary to secure victory of victim over aggressor, and therefore a larger justice.

Even with proper morals, death can come easy. Morality is one’s ability to judge between right and wrong but morality is also a factor when it comes to life and death situation, even when one’s morality is just choices can lead to death. Morality is taught as distinguishing between what is right and what is wrong, hoping that it can positively affect one’s life. But what if, choices made by morality lead to one’s death. As one of the Prime Minister of France, Léon Blum, said “Morality may consist solely in the courage of making a choice”.

The book starts to build up the framework for resolving right versus right based off of Aristotle’s view of sleep ethics. Sleep ethics relies on “insights, feelings, and instincts” (Badaracco, 42) to solve moral dilemma and is also known as ethics intuition. Aristotle highly view intuition because it is “more reliable in deliberation than detached intellectual judgments” (Badaracco, 52) and that it “could penetrate to the essence of the issue” (Badaracco, 52). Aristotle’s sleep ethics supplements criteria to denounce me-ism and support development of ethical character. He purposefully made the criteria vague for people “to reflect on who they are and what they hope to become, to feel and act on what they cares the most deeply about, to make commitments and try to live by them” (Badaracco,

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

Throughout life, individuals are often faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas which can be difficult to assess given the factors of the situation and consequences, based on what is right and wrong. In this paper I will be assessing the Trolley Problem in relation to Utilitarianism and Deontology and will conclude which theory is the best way to behave given the situation. In the first paragraph, I will begin by discussing the Trolley Problem followed by the next paragraph’s which will explaining how Utilitarianism and Deontology would approach the situation. Furthermore, I will be discussing which theory I believe is right in regards to the best way to behaving in society, given the possible outcomes of the problem. Since the moral issue of killing and letting die are close in hand, Deontology is the only explainable way to behave because this theory approaches all situations in regard to what is fair and acceptable for all, while Utilitarianism takes an approach that degrades humanity and differs from person to person.

There are four main philosophers that set the basis for different styles of ethics. The four Philosophers that made a huge impact on us all are Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. All four philosophers are very well known for their intelligence and work in the ethics community. Although all of the philosophers have the same goal of defining ethics and how we should behave in terms of the highest good for human beings they all do it in different ways in which they feel is the proper way. Throughout this paper I will be comparing each of the four main Philosophers that we learned about this semester to each other so that you can

The next stage involves a critical analysis of the just described theoretical systems. We will explore the factors and influences involved in a chosen Case Study where personal influences are involved. Thereafter, we will look into different approaches a Kantian and a Utilitarian would address the issue and the reasons behind. It will be imperative to understand the actual factors influencing decisions under each of the moral systems identified (Lukas 22).

Discuss the fascinating parallels between William of Ockham and David Hume, highlighting for example, the Regularist View of Causality.