The existence of synthetic a-priori judgments is absolutely crucial to Kant’s argument in the Critique of Pure Reason. Not only is their existence essential to his argument but also their specific manifestation within Kant’s wider framework is. Analytic a-posteriori would undermine Kant’s Transcendental Analytic as the only possible explanation for the emergence of consciousness. Steven Palmquist was one thinker to have challenged Kant’s rejection of the possibility of analytic a-posteriori judgments. It remains to be seen that a line of papers systematically and slowly explore consistent type of analytic posteriori, generating a consistent reciprocal theory to Kant’s.
Scholars have, however, been divided whether this claim is compatible with the position Plato attributes to Thrasymachus in the first book of the Republic. Plato’s account there is by far the most detailed, though perhaps historically suspect, evidence for Thrasymachus’ philosophical ideas. In the first book of the Republic, Thrasymachus attacks Socrates’ position that justice is an important good. He claims that ‘injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice’ (344c). In the course of arguing for this conclusion, Thrasymachus makes three central claims about justice.
However, without the other three an object would not be completely understood so they are also necessary. The Four Causes originate from Aristotle’s reaction to the rejection of Plato’s theory of the forms, which Aristotle saw as inconceivable and unreasonable. Unlike Plato, who discovered meaning in a different reality, Aristotle was much more intrigued by the world around him to provide evidence for his theory. With these four causes Aristotle believed that the concept of a thing could be completely grasped, enabling a comprehension of a thing to truly occur. The Material Cause – What is it made from?
First I have to say that I hold Philosophers in general including Plato in the highest regard, and I do agree with Plato on that Philosophers would make the best rulers. Having that said, I do find his ideas on “morality” and more specifically who the “moral” person is, very much unrealistic. In the world Plato paints with his analogies in The Republic, such “moral” persons might exist, but in reality I find it hard to believe. I do however agree with him on one point and that is: it is better to be moral than immoral; on everything else I lean more in favor with Glaucon. In The Republic, Glaucon Plato’s brother plays the “devil’s advocate” and claims that being “immoral” is more beneficial than being “moral”.
In this essay I will discuss four different classifications of justice that are proposed by Socrates’ interlocutors, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, as well as his rebuttal to each of their proclamations. A final section of this paper will be dedicated to how Polermachus’s outlook on justice, which is doing good to one’s friends and harm to one’s enemies, can most effectively be defended against Socrates’s response that it is unjust to harm anyone. This is because of Socrates’s inadequate dismissal of Polemarchus’s claim. Socrates offers an unclear definition of what causing harm is. Therefore, it can be presumed that specific types of harm such as constructive criticism and disciplinary punishment are deemed unjust when they actually can be efficient instruments in the formation of a just human being.
In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers. Kant reasoned that the morality of an action lies solely in the cause and not in the effect; that is, in order to call an action morally good or bad, one must first analyze the motives for carrying out said action, making sure the action itself is from duty and not just coinciding with it. He also gave the groundwork for understanding how to determine if an action is morally good or bad by use of what he calls the “categorical imperative”, where you take a principle in a given situation (such as lying) and imagine a world where every person lied all the time. That would raise a contradiction and paradox in itself, because in order for lies to exist, there must be the existence of truth; this contradiction, Kant claims, is the reason why it cannot, under any circumstances, be morally permissible. However, the
An analysis of Kant’s ethics of duty and freedom as a response to all previous ethical theories proves the characteristics of the Kantian ethics and the most significant contrast to utilitarianism, according to Kant, is the ethics of duty in which normative judgments are made on the basis of the character of the action rather than its consequences. According to the Kantian ethics, people have the duty to act in certain ways even if it does not produce the best results. “The ethics of duty is rooted in Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative ‘Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,’ which in turn is rooted in the belief that humans are rational beings capable of self-determination and self-governance. Every responsible person is therefore entitled to dignity and respect.” (Budd and Scoville, 2005, p 9). Thus, the views of Kant, who is the most important supporter in history of deontological ethics or the study of duty, insist that the single feature that gives an action moral value is the motive that is behind the action.
PHIL 102 Essay One Topic: Utilitarianism. Are classical act utilitarians really committed to doing unjust things in order to maximise utility? Give reasons for your answer, and explain the implications of your answer for your overall assessment of classical act utilitarianism. The “Injustice” Objection to Classical Utilitarianism – a beginners’ guide Those new to philosophy may find it useful to follow the directions below in presenting their essay. 1.
In order to achieve this excellence the mean between two extremes must sought. One extreme can be distinguished as too much, or an excess, and the other as too little, or a deficiency. By these vices and virtues are we judged, Aristotle says. In most cases, one extreme opposes the virtue more
As Lord Acton said ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. The principle of the separation of powers assumes that certain functions should be carried out by different institutions and that no one institution should trespass into the territory of another. Its origin date back to Aristotle, the father of Political Science. Although he did not discuss the issue in great detail, he analyzed the functions of the three branches without suggesting their separation. The separation of powers however, acquired greater significance when John Locke, an 18th century philosopher argued that the executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty.