He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
Looking at these events from a non-religious perspective the gods can be seen as symbols of Odysseus’ personality. Athena represents the strong-willed side of him, while Poseidon can be seen as his self-destructive tendencies. These conflicting characteristics are keeping him from reaching his final destination of Ithaca. Odysseus is cunning and witty but he can be pompous and arrogant at the same time. Self esteem is not a short coming for him.
This characterises Iago as a dishonest & deceptive character, contrary to what seems to be popular belief; it allows the audience to question their previous impressions of Iago, who initially appeared to be an honest and loyal character. The other characters are continually led to believe this, solely due to the reputation he has gained for himself merely for the success of his plan. The way Iago represents himself – as an honest and loyal man – is what leads to the eventual success of his plan to manipulate Othello into believing Desdemona cuckolded him. Othello begins to trust Iago; he entrusts him to take the responsibility of escorting his wife, Desdemona, to Cyprus: “My Desdemona must I leave to thee” (I iii 291) and he places trust on
Arguments that justify illicit drug use falsely assume that the hedonistic intent of drug users are ‘good’. Misused prescription drugs are opioids, offering pain relief. Being recreational, illicit drug use is “an activity that is done for enjoyment” (Macmillan dictionary ref), so they are generally used with the intent of promoting illusory happiness. Utilitarianism approves of this by ascertaining a meaning of life aimed at fulfilling primitive desires such as the ‘quick fix’ of illicit drug use. These impulses are perceived as unjustified temptations in natural law because “true happiness is not found in … wellbeing … but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love” (CCC 1723).
This is the issue that is at stake with both readings of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and Garret Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics.” Hardin’s essay that is serious in tone, while Swift’s offers similar views appears to be poking fun by starting at in a serious tone at first glance but in reality is far from it. One illustration of this similarity can be found in the objections each makes in their actual quite differing arguments. Hardin argues against the ideas of “kind-hearted” and “well-meaning” liberals, and Swift says, “let no man talk to me of other expedients…” Jonathan Swift’s essay, “A Modest Proposal,” describes a satirically “fair, cheap, and easy method” to address the great amount of starving children in Ireland by fattening up these undernourished children and feed them to Ireland’s rich land-owners, but Garrett Hardin‘s concept is moral obligation is not a one way sacrificing to others; however, it is built on a foundation of sharing and cooperating. Throughout the article, Swift makes a motion for the prevention of the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
Katarina Majerhold AGAINST homophobia In this paper I discuss a Neostoic notion of human emotions in connection to homophobia, linking homophobia to an emotion of disgust and shame. However, I show that these emotions are learned and culturally constructed (and how negative they are). In order to change and modify these to positive human relations I propose a new philosophy or rather a new philosophical technique, I invented, called philosophical clowning and is based on the Epicurean premise: 'empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering.' So philosophy of clowning is a technique which promotes a peaceful, playful, joyous, kind, compassionate and explored life - yours and with the others and offers one of the new ways towards a peaceful, democratic and compassionate society. 1.
Socrates is supposed to be in a different | | |position since there is a jury to be convinced, and he believes he has a | | |strong argument since everyone present who is related to those who may have | | |been corrupted is there to defend, not accuse, him. | |Socrates says, “but either I do not corrupt them, or if I corrupt |Socrates admits that there is a chance that he is corrupting the youth, but | |them, I do it involuntarily, so that you are lying in both events.|that would only be if it is happening as an unintended effect. If, in asking | |But if I corrupt them involuntarily, for such involuntary errors |questions to seek out wisdom he has somehow corrupted the young men of | |the law is not to hale people into court, but to take them and |Athens, then he says he should have been told that what he was doing was
In the beginning of Book I, Socrates convinces Cephelus and Polemarchus that justice is not only doing good to friends and wrong to enemies nor is it only useful in certain aspects of life. Rather, justice is something that should be in every aspect of your life. But when Thracymachus questions this theory by saying justice only benefits some, Socrates (and Plato) is forced to clarify. He goes on to explain why justice is beneficial to every type of person. He explains that the strong can only be powerful when they make just choices, otherwise they will be overthrown by a united majority.