People are always ask themselves if the actions they do are good or not. People claim egoism as a wrong thing to do. However, is an egoist action means that no altruistic actions can be made or it is possible to do both? A suggestion can be made that maximising self-interest does not benefit all of the people and therefore not sufficient for morality. However, it is clear that egoism is compatible and can overlap with moral actions.
ANALYSIS OF PLATO AND TAO TE CHING AND IDEAL COMMUNITY It is common for ancient philosophers to have strict criteria to comply with in the development and defense of the generation of their respective societies. For example, Plato and Lao Tsu both offer their ideology of what a model community would look like in their books The Republic of Plato, and Tao Te Ching. In their respective books, Plato and Lao Tsu each provide an in-depth analysis of their distinct views of what constitutes an ideal society. Accordingly, both philosophers believe that their version of the ideal community would result in its inhabitants thriving and experiencing the best that life has to offer. In order to create the type of society that both Plato and Lao Tsu desire to emulate, it is critical that the ruler have the characteristics and qualities that will lead the respective societies in harmony with their philosophical principles.
Philosohy Falling through the Center of the Earth: The balancing act of injustice and justice From the early pages of Plato’s Republic Socrates and his companions are striving to find what can be considered ‘justice’. Socrates companions seam to all feel that to do injustice with out consequence is good for oneself. One after another, explanations as to what constitutes justice are raised and soon extinguished. However, it is only when Socrates expresses his view of justice in the city and in man do we see an explanation of justice being willingly practiced and inherently good. In order to simplify justice and prove that it is indeed better than injustice, Socrates moves from describing justice in the individual to the city.
The Pardoner is a prime example of his presentation of humans because he showed that he had good intentions, to help people and to pardon their sins, but he also had his evil side, which was to tell people that they have sinned simply to earn himself a few extra coins. But I ask this, is he really evil, or is he good? Chaucer didn’t think either or. He felt that a person is a person, no matter what they have done or how they think. He didn’t
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.
Self Interest or Privilege Superson approaches the moral skeptic in a way in which helps us to better understand the skeptic’s view but at the same time, by developing a better understanding of the moral skeptic, she is better fit to defeat it. The moral skeptic is aware of morality, yet lacks any interest in abiding by it, rather acting in self-interest. The traditional model of the skeptic dichotomizes morality with self-interest, because it is assumed that the skeptic endorses expected utility and the motives he believes is rational to have (ones that are most in conflict with morality). Rational actions go hand in hand with self-interested actions, and this is identified with promoting the satisfaction of any of one’s desires or preferences but moral ones, or with maximizing one’s expected utility. According to Superson, in order for self-interest to successfully defeat the skeptic it must defeat both action and disposition skepticism, which is where it lacks.
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.
They believed that exercising the opportunity to choose between a wide array of gods to worship offered them a great sense of freedom that they treasured. After all, the Greeks were known for their intellectual distinction of which their means of worship played a huge part. Each city-state, or polis, had an affiliated god who protected and guided its residents. Within a given polis, the belief in common gods unified the people. Ultimately, the Greeks yearned for this unity and order in the universe, which is a characteristic that is not unlike that of people today.
Some philosophers claim that virtue ethics and utilitarianism derive from the human nature that necessarily seeks happiness. In utilitarianism, an action is morally appropriate only as long as the action is team-oriented and such an action seeks the wellbeing of the group. The end of utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism fits the moral inclinations of many people (Boylan, 2009). Virtue
Although their ideas and explanations of how the world works (reality) were fundamentally different, their way of thinking and doing research have influenced all sorts of other sciences that were emerging at that time such as: mathematics, biology, zoology, meteorology and chemistry and they have provided future scholars with a new way of discovering new things. The contrasting views of reality of Aristotle and Plato (and the impacts of these conceptual differences on their formations of scientific knowledge), is a perfect subject for having a look at in the beginning of an introduction course of Philosophy. Furthermore, when comparing these two great philosophers you will be able to get a nice basic understanding of their most important ideas. We can take Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s theory of the forms as an example of their fundamental differences. Moreover, Aristotle’s work based on Plato’s philosophical view of the world was an important point in the philosophical theory of knowledge.