The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life

power we must first understand what it is. Faith is what guides us on our finite path of life, for faith is our significant reason for living. The hope that our death will open the doors to the infinite is what drives us to lead a moral life and make moral decisions. This concept of faith has ruled all life throughout history and has caused humans to make moral decisions and live moral lives. Philosophers such as Leo Tolstoy, and Paul Tillich believe in faith, in such a way, while Freud believes

history have attempted to answer such questions, but the most notable are two groups of thinkers from the ancient Greek world: the Sophists and the philosophers. While both the Sophists and philosophers rose around the same period, they developed vastly different worldviews to answer complex questions such as the one posed above. Although both the philosophers and Sophists arose from the same changing sociopolitical landscape of the ancient Greek world, both groups attempted to define the core values

Philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher and held in regard amongst the greatest philosophers of the early part century. He sharpened his philosophical skills through reading the works of the earlier philosophers of the 18th century such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer and African Spir; however, their works and beliefs were opposite to his own. His primary mentor was Author Schopenhauer, whose belief was that reality was

rights and if so, to what extent, is one that has captivated the greatest of philosophical minds since Aristotle. Philosophical opinion and thinking on the moral worth of animals is varied and without a definitive hard line valuation. Add to this, with the cultural variances seen worldwide, a consensus has not been made as to the degree of moral responsibility there is to defending animal rights. The growing body of knowledge of societal differences and beliefs has made the question whether any unbiased

Nigel Warburton is a philosopher and a writer, publishing texts about philosophy, its history and branches such as philosophy of politics. Warburton graduated from the University of Bristol where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree and Darwin College at Cambridge University where he got his postgraduate Doctor of Philosophy degree. The author of A Little History of Philosophy was a member of the Department of Philosophy, followed by his role as a lecturer at the University of Nottingham. Nigel

4. Against the existence of God Ludwig Feuerbach is a philosopher that believed that God did not actually exist. Instead he was created by the human population to create a somewhat perfect individual that they could strive to be. The textbook “The Philosopher’s Way” states “We are divided into two selves: our actual selves-the way we are-and our idealized selves-the way would like to be” (Chaffee 344). Therefore, Feuerbach believes that the “ideal self” is a reflection of all the characteristics

Contemporary ethical theory begins with G. E. Moore (1873–1958). Moore opened up new issues for consideration and altered the focus of ethical discussion. Moore believed that the task of the ethical philosopher is to conduct a “general inquiry into what is good.”This seems reasonably straightforward, down to earth, and useful. If you know what good or goodness is, and if you know what things are good, then you also know what proper conduct is, right? This, at any rate, is what Moore maintained

Is it feasible to find a method which we can use to evaluate moral decisions and prove whether a person acted morally right or wrong? Philosophers have come up with a number of unique views which attempt to be the universal standard for evaluating these decisions, yet others tend to think that cultural relativism is the only answer to this issue. Cultural relativism is the idea that moral rights and wrongs change based on the culture that you are immersed in. In other words, what is considered

The philosophers Aristotle and Immanuel Kant express the sources of virtuous and dutiful actions in a similar, yet different way. Both philosophers agree that an action has moral worth, when it is preformed for its own sake. However, the difference contains a more significant meaning. Aristotle believes that pleasure can be included when preforming an action; while Kant believes that a duty is preforming the right action without the need of inclinations. In this paper, I will present a similarity

a man-made reality his entire life. None of the perceived experiences of his existence were real, meaning there was no truth in his sensation of the world. Despite the pleasurable and happy life he had lived up until realizing his environment was merely a product of someone else’s creation in order to entertain the masses, he decided to choose the objectively more discomforting, unknown and unfamiliar reality- yet, the one that holds moral truth. I put Truman’s life into a philosophical context by