For example there is a form of beauty, which explains why we can all understand and know what beauty is, without the need to be told every time. However, we have our own opinions on what beauty it. This is because we don’t know forms fully, as only our souls (our only eternal aspect) is part of the Realm of the Forms and the concept gets mixed as we are not perfect. The Form of the good is 100% good, perfect, unchanging, eternal and outside this world. Plato’s definition of good is not the same as the good we define.
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
Aristotle has a monist approach to the soul, unlike Plato he says that the soul cannot exist without the body. The soul is not a body but something that belongs in a body, comparable to the brain; it is necessary and is within all humans and it gives us reason, intellect and an innate sense of justice. This therefore can make his theory more convincing than Plato’s as the soul isn’t ‘immortal’ and dies along with the body, thereby eliminating the theory of reincarnation which is hard for anyone who isn’t Hindu to believe as it is contradictory to their religious views. Aristotle states that all reason is associated with the pure thought of the Prime Mover and the soul is what gives the body its shape and form; he argued that the soul is not a substance but the reason and shape behind the matter. Best described by using the example of a marble statue, as the marble stature is essentially a block of marble but it has a shape and form and like the body the soul, the shape and form cannot be removed from what the statue is, in the same way the body cannot be separated from the soul.
The idea of good will for Kant is the starting point for morality. Only the will is within our control and so only the will can be unconditionally good and can exercise pure practical reason. This will mean total effort involved in making a conscious moral choice. In his writings critique of practical reason he states ‘it is impossible to conceive of anything at all in the world except a good will’. Kant wanted to put good will at the very centre of ethics in which he formed the equation GOOD WILL + DUTY = A MORAL ACTION.
Rather than religion being utilized as a sort of hardware or gadget for getting what one needs, as was valid for Euthyphro's situation, Socrates trusts the basic role of genuine religion is to carry one's own life into amicability with the will of God. Religion and profound quality, in his view, are so firmly related that neither one of the ones can exist separated from the other. Dissimilar to the Sophists, who were familiar with think about the requests of ethical quality as just the wants of the general population who planned them, Socrates has faith in a standard of profound quality that is something more than the human conclusion. He distinguishes it with
Kant argues that only one fact is undisputable, and that simply is that there is a moral law in existence, which then leads to the existence of God. He said that everyone can detect with there senses a moral law existent in the universe and therefore they have a obligation to follow it to reach the highest form of good which he called ‘the summum bonum’ (is Latin for ‘highest good’). Kant says something’s are naturally good, and to do them would be defined as good will, and to have a good will is to do ones moral duty, we don’t act out of compassion or love, we are just doing our duty. Actions should be performed as our duty not out of motive. He said morality was innate; a part of us (a priori), and it was our moral duty to carry it out for good, which must lead to God.
The basic premise of the Kálam argument is that something must of caused the universe to begin to exist, this cause must be necessary therefore it is God. The Kálam argument agrees with the term infinite regression, in which is a chain going infinitely back in time with no beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas was a believer of the cosmological argument, Aquinas set out ex nihilo nihil fit, basically meaning nothing comes from nothing, Aquinas believed since nothing can come from nothing, the universe exists so therefore God must of made it. Aquinas’ theory is equivalent to the second way, in which is ‘causation’. The second way states that cause and effect are natural, whatever happens is caused by something, and something cannot cause itself because that would mean
A form would allow us as humans to know that there is some sort of universal truth, and that through reason we should be able to come close to finding out what it is and maybe even find out what it is. We can not have knowledge about the god’s, we can however through deep thought and reasoning Socrates tells us get a better understanding for the good life and how to live and this in return should shed more light and clarity on the god/s. “what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious”-Euthyphro(p.8) Euthyphro is saying here that he thinks god grounds the moral, but this can not be true according to Socrates . “The same things then are loved by the gods and hated by the gods, then would be both god-loved and god-hated.....and then same things would be both pious and impious, according to this argument.”-Socrates (p.9) When we look at multiple gods it is easy to see how they could not ground the moral for each god may agree and disagree to different piety and impiety which would not allow them to ground the moral because they would all have different views of what was good and bad. With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so.
Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony. Such a conception of individual justice is virtue ethical because it ties justice (acting justly) to an internal state of the person rather than to (adherence to) social norms or to good consequences; but Plato's view is also quite radical because it at least initially leaves it an open question whether the just individual refrains from such socially proscribed actions as lying, killing, and stealing. Plato eventually seeks to show that someone with a healthy, harmonious soul wouldn't lie, kill, or steal, but most commentators consider his argument to that effect to be highly deficient. Aristotle is generally regarded as a virtue ethicist par excellence, but his account of justice as a virtue is less purely virtue ethical than Plato's because it anchors individual justice in situational factors that are largely external to the just individual. Situations and communities are just, according to Aristotle, when individuals receive benefits according to their merits, or virtue: those most
Explain what Aristotle meant by Final Cause: [25] Aristotle’s Final Cause is his theory that all objects have a fundamental reason or purpose for its existence. He questioned why material was the way it was and looked beyond its physicality to what was its purpose and why it exists in our material world. Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed in only the material world and opposed Plato’s world of the Forms. To him, the final cause was important as the material efficient and formal causes would be pointless without the end product. This is the final cause.