The governing authorities again like to use culturally significant figures in the tales of innovation and invention and discovery. Even with such advanced politics and thought, a class distinction still persisted, and though they had seen the benefit of all this technology, there were those in the upper class who felt it was beneath them to use such tools in any way. T Innovation was of great value to both the Han and Romans. The Han placed a higher attribution to culturally relevant creators. For example, Huan Tan, an upper-class Han philosopher wrote in New Discourses (Document III) of an emperor of myth inventing and refining the pestle and mortar for all people.
Sometimes being physical and violent does not resolve an issue. Hence why he believes persuasion is much more effective. For Socrates, finding the truth through reasoning is a just manner. Socrates speaks with Crito about that even if someone does evil you, you must not do evil back to him or her. If you do evil to another you are injuring them.
John Stuart Mill was a hedonist and accepted that happiness was of great importance and stressed that happiness is more important than pleasure. Mill believed that the quality of pleasure decides on whether an act is good; for example, human pleasures such as reading are what is good however animal pleasures such as eating is not as good. This meant that he felt that the quantity of pleasure did not matter, it was only the quality. Mill continues to develop his argument by saying that everyone deserves happiness so therefore, everyone aims towards their own happiness so everyone should aim for the happiness of everyone. He believed in universalizability which means what is right or wrong for one person in a situation is right or wrong for everyone.
Maybe we would, maybe we wouldn't, but as a philosopher would anyone want their views and ideas to be this common place even after their death. So Aristotle's view of the social class could be thought of as a strategy to flatter and appeal to the upper class. The ones most likely to pass on his views and ideas. Aristotle is as popular as he is, because he tutored Alexander the Great, but it could stand to chance that Aristotle made some of this statements to appeal to Alexander in order to be as popular as he is. This doesn't really fit in with the rest of the idea process, but it was an interesting outlook I stumbled upon whilst brooding.
Conclusion -> draw together main ideas/arguments An outsider does not fit into society and they will do what they see to be right. Although the legal system is meant to be fair, it is only fair to society. If some one is different society tries to outcast them. More often than not, justice does not reach as far as the outsider. Justice is what is seen to be right and just by society and this means that society is catered for.
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.
I don’t think he is a good man just because he trying to fix what he did, but the thing is that what has happened, happened and you can’t change that. Yes he is trying fixing it but I wouldn’t call him a good man because of his actions. The actions are what make the people either good people or bad people. In Antigone there are both bad and good people. In Teirsias’s mind he would probably say they were all good people because when they did something wrong they tried to fix it.
People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view. The main point favoring the cultural relativism argument is that if there are no moral principles, then the principles can only be relative to culture. If someone were to express their opinion about the morals of a culture that they didn’t agree with, including what the culture already believed to be right, then that person would lose the argument without any question. This can be easily disproved because in one culture, not every person is going to have the same moral judgments about what is right or wrong and people can establish objective moral principles. A culture also can’t think of them as having the power to decide which is right and
However, as philosophies such as Epicureanism started to develop, the opinions of society were revolutionized. Epicureanism focused mainly on ethics and emphasized living a happy life through pleasurable experiences. Society became more concerned with this ethical approach and it became more recognized and practiced. The normative ideological shift from philosophies such as Plato’s to philosophies such as Epicureanism was due to the fact that the general population was looking for philosophies that were easier to understand, follow and relate to in order to achieve happiness. Plato had a theory that was based mostly on a metaphysical view of the world.
However, other people may disagree with this and believe that a deontological ethical system is not defensible because it cannot encourage human beings to act morally, as they will not gain enough satisfaction out of doing so, as they would in a teleological ethical system where the ultimate end or goal is human happiness. People may say that it can be hard to keep to deontological ethics when we cannot see how they will immediately benefit us, making teleology much more appealing. In my opinion deontology can be defended because deontologists do not judge actions by their consequences, this is a positive aspect of deontology because it does not allow people to do bad things to secure good consequences, if we really consider human happiness, at first it sounds appealing and simple. However, if all actions were done to secure human happiness then many evil deeds would be permitted, for example it may secure a psychopath with maximum happiness if he can rape and murder women and children. Therefore teleology would permit this as it would maximise the psychopaths happiness.