This makes the theory ‘agent centred’. A key feature for Virtue Ethics is philosopher Aristotle who stated that all series of actions are aimed towards ultimate end- happiness and that fulfilment is the goal of life (final and efficient cause). In Greek, the world telos means end/purpose. ‘Teleological’ approaches in ethics judges the rightness of moral actions based on how much they lead to achieve to fulfil a purpose, For Aristotle ‘happiness’ can be understood in three different ways:- 1) Happiness as a life of enjoyment or pleasure 2) Happiness as a free member of society 3) Happiness as a philosopher Therefore living pleasurably is not enough, we have a responsibility to live a good life! Another key feature of virtue ethics is Eudaimonia which is the idea of justified and deserved ‘happiness’.
It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe. This is consistent with some views of God, however, it is far from an all-encompassing explanation. The argument is not considered to be the end-all-be-all defense for the existence of God. However, it is a good
However, I do not find the argument to be that convincing. After reading this argument, I did not find it to have stimulated my mental capacities. However, based on what it has presented, the argument is valid and most of all makes sense because it originates from definitions that provide a solid base for the argument. The objections to this argument do raise several valid points to the concept of whether or not the “maximally great” being in question does have a universal position across all the worlds he may or may not exist in. What if there is no level of “maximal greatness” in one world?
However Kant challenged Descartes argument, he said that an idea of something does not make that something exist. Kant used the example of a unicorn to help demonstrate his point: we may have an idea of exactly what a unicorn is in our head; however this idea does not cause the unicorn to exist in reality. Kant then concludes that existence is something additional to the mere idea of a thing and then criticises the ontological argument by stating that existence is not a predicate of God. Kant also criticised the ontological argument in the form of drawing a distinction between analytic and synthetic statements – he said that analytic statements tell us something factual and true whereas synthetic statements tell us something about what exists in reality, and can also be untrue. Kant then argued that God’s existence in the ontological argument is based on a synthetic statements (‘God is that which than greater cannot be imagined’ and ‘existing is greater than not existing’) therefore more evidence and proof is required in addition to the ontological argument in order to verify the existence of God.
According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
One major strength of virtue ethics is that it allows the moral agent to make ethical decisions based on his or her moral well-being, not just based on what is legally right. Therefore this ethical system can be seen to have a greater weight over others as someone who follows it are doing so because they believe it’s right rather than following rules. This then also acknowledges that morality is complex and so rejects simplistic maxims as a basis for moral truths. However, this can also be seen to be one of the weaknesses of virtue ethics. Robert Louden stated that as virtue ethics is focused on the individual, it neither resolves nor attempts to resolve big moral dilemmas.
He argued that they were part of the structure of the mind and that we would have no experience without them. He says that sight, smell, touch etc. are all meaningless to us unless they are brought under these innate concepts. Kant believes in a world beyond our conceptual scheme called the noumenal world which he says we can know nothing about and it is impossible to discuss. People have criticized this view by say that how can Kant know that the Noumenal world exists if there is no evidence of it.
Descartes believed that in order to have this idea of a being that is truly infinite; something must have put that idea in our mind. He believes that it could not have been ourselves because we are not infinite beings; however we have this idea of what a perfect being is and therefore something outside of us must have put that idea there. In order to prove that a perfect being was the outside force that would have put that idea in our minds, Descartes follows his central argument. The main pillar of Descartes’ argument is the causal adequacy principle. This causal principle revolves on the idea of existential dependency.
Something important to consider when looking at the theory of relativism is that it is just a theory. I personally believe it to be a good theory in general, but it should not be interpreted as a foundation for a belief structure. Nor should it be applied to every set of circumstances encountered throughout life. It is purely illogical to assume that one single theory will provide us with the proper guidance required to successfully negotiate every “right or wrong” decision. Relativism allows people to understand that individuals develop belief structures
It’s not clear as to whether Spinoza meant (a) there cannot be two substances with all the same attributes in common; or (b) there cannot be two substances with an attribute in common. Spinoza uses the phrase “nature or attribute” which suggests that he meant (a) because a substance’s nature constitutes sharing all of the same attributes not just some. This interpretation helps his argument for premise one the most because if substances are distinguished by their attributes, then substances cannot have all the same attributes in common. For Spinoza, substance is something self-conceivable, however, this conception of substance does not work if there are substances that share something in common because we would conceive one substance in terms of an extrinsic property. Hence, our conception of one substance would be understood via an external property in relation with the other substance.