Chapter two of Nicomachean Ethics deals with virtue, most importantly, its golden mean—the amount that which the virtue is secreted neither in excess nor in deficiency. For example, courage is a mean between its deficiency of rashness and the excess of cowardice. Another example can be justice, its deficiency being giving too little and its excess being giving too much. As such, Aristotle argues that virtue cannot be good nor can be virtue in itself unless it completes the criteria of achieving the golden mean. At first glance, this argument seems to be inevitable, as it seems that moderation to everything is a necessity.
Kant wanted to put good will at the very centre of ethics in which he formed the equation GOOD WILL + DUTY = A MORAL ACTION. Good will is the motive that produces our determination to be good people and our practical reason helps us get there ‘good will, then, like a jewel, will shine by its own light, a thing which has its whole value in itself’. Kant’s moral theory looks at evidence and tells you what ought to be done. Reason is universal. However to act morally then we must be capable of exercising freedom or the autonomy of the will .The opposite of this is what Kant did not believe in and this is heteronomy and that is something is right because its satisfies some desire, emotion, goal or obligation.
The action of duty must exclude the influence of inclination so it may only be influenced by the objectivity of the law and therefore subjectively respected by us as good. Kant then goes on to confront the claim that moral worth is linked to agreeable condition and the promotion of happiness by stating that the moral worth of an action lies in the principle and not the effect of the action. Kant claimed that agreeable conditions and happiness can be brought about by too many other causes that do not require human rationality, and that human rationality is the only place where the “supreme and unconditional good” (P.2) can
one of the strengths that Kant puts forward in the categorical imperceptive is that it provides justice for all and the dignity of the individual . Kant corrects a tenancy in utilitarianism thoughts to sacrifice an individual for the sake of the happiness of the majority. the insists you cant promote happiness if that happiness undermines another happiness. another strength is that Kant's theory gives humans intrinsic worth as the rational high point of creation. humans can only ever be treated as end in themselves never as means therefor humans cant be expended for some apparent greater good .
A First Class Fool! What is the purpose behind Glaucon’s “Ring of Gyges” example? Do you think he’s correct that the moral and immoral person would behave the same if granted the power of invisibility? Does this establish the claim that it is better to be immoral than moral? 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.
In this essay, I will provide support for the idea that the definitions of a morally worthy act and of a moral worthy person as given by Immanuel Kant are incorrect. I will do this by providing real life examples that show a moral act and a moral person as defined by Kant, and an act and person that I believe to be morally worthy There are many questions involving morality and moral worth, such as what makes a person a moral person, what makes an act a moral act, and how does a person obtain moral worth. Immanuel Kant answers some of these questions. Kant says that for one to be a moral person they need a good will. Kant also says that “an action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which the action is determined.
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS BY RALWS Rawls describes two principles of justice. The second one which is known as the difference principle is that inequalities are allowed only if they benefit everyone. The problem with this principle is that it represents a prescription that will only be seen as satisfying by people who are already biased in favor of greater equality in society. While his logic is sound enough it is only valid insofar as one accepts his axiom: that society exists for the betterment of all its members, and that individual benefit at some point has to be sacrificed for the sake of others. I personally think that most of the people are never ready to give up their rights for the betterment of the society.
Bentham founded the principle of utility, which states that an action is right if it “produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.” Bentham believed good is the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain, and that the greatest good is the greatest pleasure that creates the less pain overall for the majority. There are two main types of Utilitarianism act and rule. Bentham is known as the Act utilitarian. Act utilitarianism is when making a moral decision the best or most moral action we can perform is one that will enable to bring the best consequences for the majorities’ happiness. For example a man has the choice to shoot one person and save thousands or walk away and let thousands die.
This could therefore suggest that humans have higher status than animals and the environment itself, as we are able to feel what he called “higher pleasures”, than animals and the environment cannot. Therefore, we would have more power over the effect we have on the environment and the moral decisions towards animals. In relation to environmental ethics, utilitarianism breaks down as its principles are based on human feelings. Therefore, Bentham’s’ hedonic calculus merely accounts for humans and has no suggestion as to whether animals should be treated in the same way or not. Furthermore, the suggestion that the “greatest number for the greatest good” should always be followed produces the problem when the greatest good for the environment in neglected
For utilitarian school of thought, an individual strives to do the most good, even at the expense of the minority. Utilitarianism and Kantianism find the basis of their differences in the idea that the ends justify the means. Utilitarian beliefs support this idea while Kantian philosophy rejects this. Modern ethics were devised from these two basic ethical beliefs in an attempt to combine the best aspects. Generally, the morally “right” action benefits the majority while affecting the fewest amount in a negative way.