Reading first, Brutus enlightened the crowd of Rome’s oppressed fate under Caesar’s reign, and questioned, “…Who here is so vile that will not love his country?” (Julius Caesar Act III. sc iii. lines 23-24). Antony’s rhetorical question was better because he logically disproved Caesar’s kingly ambitions by stating a specific instance. Brutus evoked a feeling of patriotism in the crowd, which may have been more effective if he had spoken second.
From this mastery, Aristotle contends, a man will derive pleasure. This mastery does not only benefit the individual, but will also benefit society, and therefore is morally virtuous. In contrast, Epicurus’ ideals promote the pursuit of pleasure whether knowledge is attained or not. This philosophy is potentially hazardous because the individual’s pursuit of pleasure can result in harm to himself and his surroundings, classifying it as morally unsound. Epicurus fails to define the boundaries of moral virtue, merely stating there could be harmful consequences without specific definition, Epicurus ultimately fails to develop a strong moral program.
‘Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?’ In Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma, Plato is asking ‘is x good because God loves it or does God love x because x is good?’ An example of this is murder; is murder wrong because God says it is or is murder wrong because it is wrong morally? If ‘x’ was already good before God commanded it then there would be no purpose to God whereas if God commanded ‘x’ because it’s good, then God would have a purpose as he would have to guide us with what is moral and what isn’t. The view that moral rules are true are good because they were commanded by God is called the divine command theory. ‘The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any particular moment.’ If moral actions are good or bad because they are commanded or forbidden by God, certain things follow such as; if they had not been commanded or forbidden by God then they wouldn’t have been good or bad. Furthermore, if God had said the opposite to what He did say then the things that would have been good is now bad.
When Socrates asks Euthyphro if his ‘knowledge of the divine, and of piety and impiety, is so accurate’, Euthyphro replies, “Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have accurate knowledge of all such things.” Here, it is clear that Euthyphro claims to be superior to the majority of the men because of his knowledge of the Gods and what piety is. Euthyphro says, “The pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer.” Socrates refutes this definition of piety. According to Socrates, the above definition is rather an act of piety that the true meaning of piety itself. Here, Socrates asks Euthyphro to explain “that form itself that makes all pious actions pious.” To this, Euthyphro replies, “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious.” This definition provided by Euthyphro overcomes Socrates’ objection to Euthyphro’s first definition of piety. Instead of describing a pious or impious act, Euthyphro has given a clear definition of what piety is, just like Socrates asked him to.
Is it really rational to believe that God will reward blind faith and punish those who do believe in moral justice but do not necessarily believe in him? Pascal’s Wager portrays God as an insecure, arrogant being who must be validated by the belief of mere mortals. Since there is a claim that God is indeed “All-Good” wouldn’t that mean that he would reward those who are just like him even if they did not believe in him. A Being that possesses perfect goodness would not reward an immoral person for the sake of mere belief because that would mean he is not perfectly good. This aspect of Pascal’s Wager is therefore nullified because it negates one of the attributes of God, which is that he is “All-Good.” Another controversial problem with Pascal’s argument is one believing in god for the sake of a reward.
The concept of virtue ethics by the philosopher Aristotle looks at how we should not look at the right and wrong actions we do by following guidelines, but look at us as human beings becoming virtuous people, through doing virtuous things. The statement of the weaknesses of virtue ethics outweighing the strengths is to an extent true, in particular when you look at the limitations of virtue ethics when claiming the doctrine of mean. Firstly by looking at the aim if virtue ethics we can gain an insight to the whole concept, Aristotle claimed that in life our aim is to reach fulfilment of happiness, which he called eudemonia. To achieve eudemonia you have to practice virtues and achieve these virtues, through education, emulation and experience. So we learn the virtue by copying someone who is a role model or mentor to confirm our virtue is right and finally practice and experience said virtue.
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).
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.
Although some may view these punishments as torture being done upon sinners by a cruel God, Dante was attempting to explain God’s divine justice. He is not trying to portray God as an evil being who punishes those who sin; rather, he portrays God as a being of perfect, impeccable morals who punishes sinners with perfect justice. Examples of this perfect justice, or contrapasso, are scattered throughout the epic poem, although three main punishments show how God is not cruel, just fair in his punishments. One such punishment that shows God’s perfect justice, and also manages to demonstrate his non-cruelty is in the First Circle of Hell. Also known as Limbo, this circle is reserved for those who where born before Christ or were unbaptized, yet lived virtuous lives.
Supporting Lincoln’s view of justice, mercy has a better results and beneficial from society then strict justice. Antigone, an Ancient Greek play about the different views of the rights of humans where there are two conflicting sights on law and justice, Creon's insistence on upholding human law and Antigone's determination to uphold divine law. Creon makes the mistake of putting his personal views over and above the divine laws and fails in the eyes of the Gods, when it comes to law he has no mercy. He believes that the most effective approach to justice is through harsh unforgiving laws and swift punishments such as executions. Creon’s beliefs of male superiority and elitism over all women, makes him the judge of right and wrong; good and evil, metaphysical justice and strict justice due to his idea of divine right to rule.