He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
Furthermore it emphasises the need for people to break bad habits of character, as they prevent one from achieving full happiness and being a moral person. Such bad habits are greed and anger, and these are referred to as vices and in order to be a good person, we must stay away from these vices. The origins of this theory date at least back to Plato and Aristotle. Although modern virtue ethics does not have to take the form known as "neo-Aristotelian", almost any modern version still shows that its roots are in ancient Greek philosophy by the employment of three concepts derived from it. These are arete (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom) and eudaimonia (usually translated as happiness or flourishing.)
For example, if it is morally wrong to lie, then everyone should never lie. Even if the consequences of a lie are great, it must not be done. Kant’s theory is cold and unemotional. However, Kant viewed this as the best way to make ethical decisions. Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences.
As history shows, Socrates is a believable character as the Apology written by Plato has many examples showing he truly is philosophical and wise. In sections 21a, and 28e, examples can be found of what it means to be philosophical from the view of God and Socrates and how he fits the profile. Sections 33b, and 33d, can be used as examples of how Socrates’ wisdom has influenced those who chose to learn from him. Lastly in section 29b, and 32a Socrates speaks the truth and part of philosophy means to investigate the truth, therefore by him speaking (of) the truth it makes him wise. In 4th century BC Gods and oracles play a big role in society as they have a huge influence on how people choose to live and act.
The ‘Lockean Liberalism’ is a paradox only in theory. I view Machiavelli as a true philosopher whose wisdom and wit won influence all over the world. I know this may seem like an irrational opinion given his portrayal as a cynical and ruthless person, but throughout this essay I will try to prove that Machiavelli’s realism and honesty regarding human nature, and his impudent philosophy regarding a ruler and his subjects, can be clearly experienced in the reality of our present society. John Locke, an English philosopher, was born in the sixteenth century. He is renowned for his inspirational work and remarkable philosophy on ‘Freedom’ and ‘The Preservation of One’s Property’.
Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
'The weaknesses of Virtue Ethics outweigh its strengths.' Discuss. Virtue ethics derives from Plato and Aristotle and does not focus on actions being right or wrong, but instead of how to be a good person and the character of a person. It looks at what makes a person good and the qualities (or virtues) that make a person good. Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch.
INTRODUCTION The ethical decision is challenging and probably blurry for decision-makers. Mostly, it creates a dilemma where fierce antagonism arises from listening to the voice of conscience and the voices of other opinions surrounding. Profoundly, the winner is determined by how willing the person is to pursue the goodness and freely choose to pay attention to the inner voice or mute it. Moral philosophers are contributing in providing an instrument to enable us to heed to the verdict of conscience, by which will be the compass through the decision stages. Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not
In the beginning of Book I, Socrates convinces Cephelus and Polemarchus that justice is not only doing good to friends and wrong to enemies nor is it only useful in certain aspects of life. Rather, justice is something that should be in every aspect of your life. But when Thracymachus questions this theory by saying justice only benefits some, Socrates (and Plato) is forced to clarify. He goes on to explain why justice is beneficial to every type of person. He explains that the strong can only be powerful when they make just choices, otherwise they will be overthrown by a united majority.
Kumar Bhattacharyya The Paradox of the Philosopher-King In this paper I shall delve into Plato’s The Republic and analyze his Just state, with particular interest in his assertion that the most ideal ruler would be a ‘Philosopher-King’. Plato hints at the impossibility of this Philosopher-King, yet sets strong arguments as to why a Philosopher King is the most appropriate ruler. He does this through his definitions of what it means to be a ‘Just’ state, and how a philosopher best embodies those qualities that would maintain the Justice, and prevent any Injustice from seeping in. Plato also supports his assertion through his epistemology and metaphysics, which serve to further strengthen his argument. I will begin by recounting the demographic structures that are present in Plato’s “Just” state, and by exploring his epistemological and metaphysical claims, highlight the impossibility of such a ruler.