Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.
In the book, “The Republic”, there is an argument between Socrates and Thrasymachus, a sophist in ancient Greece. This argument is over their two very different opinions about the nature of justice. While Socrates argues that justice is an important good, Thrasymachus disagrees and states that injustice is an important good, not justice. To support his view, Thrasymachus offers three claims about justice. The first is that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger.
In his Autobiography, Benjamin Franklin recognized the merit of the virtuous life that Puritan colonist hold so dear. He began to see that a path of virtue not only led to moral perfection but also to worldly success. And while his path differed considerably from the Puritans, in many ways, they were similar enough to arrive at the same destination. After attending a sermon that defined the meaning of a virtuous life, Benjamin Franklin sought to achieve moral perfection. Like the Puritans, he planned to combat natural inclinations by building a life of strong moral preservation.
Philosophical debate draws concern over who may be right or wrong. Though truly people should not be concerned with the right and wrong but rather the contribution that the thoughts that the debate is developing. Two philosophers who contributed to the basic development of thoughts for philosophy were Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both contributed to three basic ideas of philosophy: state of nature, government and social contract. Hobbes has a negative view upon the state of nature, believing that life for people was barbaric.
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. 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.
He was so convinced of these matters that he gave his life through execution rather than disobey his state by escaping prison. While Plato believed in a similar fashion of obeying those above you, he did not only believe in obeying the leaders of the state. Plato’s belief was that in an ideal state there would be three separate classes, which would rest in a specific hierarchy: rulers, soldiers, and the people. The basic idea was that everyone fit into these casts and would continue in this place for the rest of their lives, with each generation after following. He believed it was right that everyone stay in their place and work together for the common good of the state and its citizens, and similarly to Socrates, believed it to be unacceptable to disobey those in a higher position than yourself.
However, Socrates argues against Crito’s proposal to help using few arguments. Socrates firstly highlights that the opinion of the many should not be counted only the experts, that one must never do any injustice and emphasizing on the importance of following the law. One of the arguments Socrates presents, through the use of metaphor and personification he compares the state and kinship. Socrates highlights the bonds that are required in a family such as loyalty, duty, obligation and obedience is required to the state. Socrates is highlighting that a social contract is in placed which citizens are required loyalty to the law.
The Apology Socrates was a powerful philosopher whose message was shocking to most Athenians, and threatening to the Athenian government. He took credibility from Athenian elitists by doubting the validity of their knowledge, which is in large part why he was eventually put to death. In his apology to the citizens of Athens, Socrates defends his calling from God by stressing the importance of knowledge and the means to attaining wisdom. Socrates’ description of knowledge and its relationship to wisdom can be understood through a metaphor in which light represents knowledge and wisdom signifies the increasing power the light bears as knowledge continues to grow. The concept of knowledge is effectively represented as a light that is inherent in each human.
Kant however, holds many different views than Hume, stating that rules are the basis of morality. This differs from Hume’s idea that our passions and emotions ultimately govern our moral decisions and that reason alone does not provide a motive to act morally. To better understand Hume’s ethical theories, it is important to understand his description and distinctions of cause and effect. According to Hume, our belief that events are causally related is meanly a habit acquired by experience. That is, having observed the regularity with which events of particular sorts occur together, we form the association of ideas that produce the habit of expecting the effect whenever we experience the cause.
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.