The categorical notion of 'virtue' has a long history in moralistic philosophy. It’s first cogent exposition was offered by Aristotle, and it is thought by some that it has never since been expostulated better. Nevertheless, thinking about virtue did not stop with Aristotle, and his ideas are not believed to be unerring truth to everyone. I wish to focus on one central respect in which some moral philosophers, chiefly Immanuel Kant, have had doubts about Aristotle's account of virtue. I think that to a large extent the conflict is misunderstood, but it is also illustrative of some larger, more glaring issues in philosophy.
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?
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.
They clearly define Aristotle's way of studying the world around him, which is empirical and observant of what we can see and know; a trait completely different to what Plato taught. The Final Cause differs greatly from the others because it describes something's ultimate purpose, not just a material viewpoint, and God (or the Prime Mover) has to be our Final Cause as he alone is perfection, and everything good that we do is to seek perfection. The first three causes are the Material Cause, the Formal Cause and the Efficient Cause. The Material Cause is what something is made of, and without the material to make the object, the object could not exist. This essay is made up of words, but without words the essay would cease to exist.
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories. [1] Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action. [2] In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance.
Justice is a term that is used and defined in many ways. Therefore, if justice exists, why can it not exist within a codified constitution? The area in which Plato’s logic falls short on the subject of codified constitutions is that Plato does not take into account the differences that arise from an individualistic world versus a communal one. In the Phaedrus, Plato speaks of a universal truth which should be our ultimate guiding principle (248a-c). However, this universal truth is only known by the individual, who is incapable of knowing that truth until that exact moment that it presents itself.
“Sentience” is poorly defined and even more poorly understood. Some people make fine philosophical distinctions among sentience, consciousness, self-awareness, and cognition, whereas others are more careless in using these terms. Fortunately, we need not argue here over how to define these concepts. In whatever sense the pro-choicer means the word he chooses, it invariably has to do with some sort of mental activity. We can distinguish among three levels of “having” mental activity, and, for a dialectical defense of the pro-life position, the distinction among these three levels is more important than distinctions among different types of mental activity.
One could think that “good” is just relative, another could think that “good” has to do with and absolute goal in mind, and the other could think that a “good” life can’t be known to be good until one reaches life’s end. There are so many different meanings to a single aspect of philosophy. Today we are going to look at three different philosophers, Kant, Nietzsche, and Saint Augustine, and compare their ethical positions. Kant’s main philosophy was this, duty for the sake of duty. What does this mean?
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.
Aristotle and Immanuel Kant work can be called similar because there broaching of the topic of ethics is kind of similar and based primarily on rationality and the law of reason. Their theories are basically built on the secular approach. They also refer to both divine revelations as well as factual scripts in research of their work and therefore cannot be classified under the Natural Jurists. The major difference of both the philosophers was in the authority of ethics. This is what we shall elaborate on more and also provide other contrasting opinions.