“Two things, above all others, fill the mind with ever increasing awe and wonder: the starry heavens about and the moral law within” - Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant’s theory of ethics is deontological. Kant relies heavily on duty and principles. Kant ignores consequences and decides if an action is good or bad by it’s intention. For example, if a person sets out to do something good; but fails and it turns into be something bad, they are not to blame. Their intention is all that matters.
Machiavelli’s philosophy about the nature of man is that man as a whole is mostly bad and while retaining a few good qualities will lean towards his own self-interests when all things are equal; “that man has qualities that will bring him either praise or blame”. He also portrays men as selfish and fickle creatures as he writes, “..this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous..”. Hobbes on the other hand, views men in a “state of nature” as being completely self-centered and willing to do anything to get what they want; mankind lives in a dog-eat-dog world where everyone looks after only themselves and has no regard for others. Hobbes describes this self-centered way of life as being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He also shows men as incapable of conserving or prolonging their life without living under a ruling body, “augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him.” It is evident that both Machiavelli and Hobbes’ views of man greatly influence the way they think that man should be controlled.
The first argument, that subjectivism creates infallible moral agents, reads as follows. In subjectivism, to say something is bad is to say one has a bad feeling about it. As one can not be mistaken about their feelings, one can not be mistaken about moral judgements. For those who have encountered someone with very objectionable moral viewpoints however, perhaps violent homophobia or racism, it seems obtuse to suppose such people to be as equally moral as a loving and accepting person. The argument concludes with the claim that, despite the supposed infallibility, people are often mistaken in their moral judgements.
In actual fact they have neither. They cannot make a man wise or foolish…” (Crito 44d) This talks about what we as humans are truly and most harmed by, which is foolishness. By discussing these beliefs in such a manner as to question self-knowledge, Socrates assists the reader to set certain standards for how they live. One of the most important concerns that Socrates held was the fact that we are held back by bodily attachment because of the fact that we become obsessed with unimportant materialistic things rather than doing what we actually should be doing like cultivating our souls. “So long as we keep to the body and our soul is contaminated with this imperfection, there is no chance of our ever attaining satisfactorily to our object, which we assert to be Truth.” (Phaedo 66b) The human is so completely enslaved by their bodily needs that their sense of goodness and justice is off.
| * Very self- absorbed * Believes pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life * Helps other solely to make himself feel better * Indifferent to moral consequence * Nothing is entirely good or entirely evil * Recognizes he is disgusting * Accepts that he cannot force society to conform to his desires | Svidrigailov comes closest to living Raskolnikov’s “extraordinary man” philosophy. Svidrigailov is an important character in Crime and Punishment because his decisions and lifestyle portray the punishment and fate of men who adhere to the “extraordinary man” theory. There comes a point in the novel when both Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov feel a sense of hopelessness and listlessness for their beliefs and actions. Raskonikov, however, is redeemed by his love for Sonya and the love his friends and family. He experiences humility.
So, oppressed people can not win the respect of oppressor. He believes in this way the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor because acquiescence is the easier way to encounter oppression, also it is not the moral way. In Dr. King’s opinion, the second way is resorting to physical violence and corroding hatred. He believes violence not only brings impermanent results, but also is impractical and immoral. According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding.
Since every ethical system should evaluate itself as the best and only moral system, and every other system is flawed and immoral, it is assumed that moral judgements about ethical systems are meaningless. Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are subjective. It is holds the belief that there is no objective morality, that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Only that, moral systems are just made up and supported by the circumstances of the action. Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists.
The chaplain, the novel’s clearest advocate for Christian morals, addresses the dangers of Alex’s “Reclamation Treatment” when he tells Alex that “goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.” F. Alexander echoes this sentiment, albeit from a different philosophical standpoint, when he tells Alex that the treatment has “turned [him] into something other a human being. [He has] no power of choice any longer.” Burgess’s novel ultimately supports this conception of morality as a matter of choice and determination and argues that good behavior is meaningless if one
Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of
In this respect, morality and Socratism are the expressions of a vital drive analogous to those which give birth to the figures of Apollo and Dionysus, as they are both connected to the metaphysical inquiry into the nature of things. Still, the Socratic worldview fails in seeing its dependency and connections to these drives, and thus fails to see its connection to life and its irrational kernel . According to Nietzsche, this mindset is the result of a pathology, as it gives too much merit to appearances while it excludes the Will from its view, making the former absolute and arranging them in a rational but insincere way. Socratism is then made of the same substance of the drives which inspire tragedy insofar as it is an expression of life, but, in both a literal and a metaphysical sense, it is the result of a sick form of this substance – it presents a metaphysical view of reality, just like art, but at the same time causes life to retreat within the safe walls of reasonableness, as by contrast art pushes the person to transcend them . In some respect, we can see here one of the seeds of Nietzsche’s later intuitions, and I believe there is no harm in employing them to elucidate this point.