Contemporary Thinkers: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aguinas
Question #1 : Please discuss the political organization of the Greek city- states, particularly Athenian democracy at the time of Pericles, Plato, and
Aristotle. Also discuss the backgrounds of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and the fate of the Greek city-states historically.
During the time of Pericles, Plato, and Aristotle, Greece was divided into city-states with a wide variety of constitutions, ranging from Sparta's military dictatorship to Athens' direct democracy.
Most city-states had about 300,000 people, each divided into one of three classes : citizens, metics, or slaves. The citizens represented a total of one - third the population. The members of this class participated directly with politics in the various institutions, and decisions were derived by popular vote, known as direct democracy. This class was further divided into three councils : Assembly of Ecclesia, Council of 500, and the Council of 50. The largest council was the Assembly of Ecclesia, which was a body of all male citizens over the age of twenty. The Council of 500 consisted of 500 members, chosen from lottery and election from the Assembly of Ecclesia. The Council of
50 was made up of 50 members chosen from the Council of 500. The second class of people in the city-states was the Metics. This class was made up of people that were not citizens, either because they were not born in the city-state, or they were prevented from being citizens. The third class were the slaves.
These people were captured from wars and subject to serve the city-state without pay. The interesting observation in the organization of the Greek city-state is that only one-third the population had any power. The other two thirds (made up of metics and slaves) were subject to the decisions derived by the citizens, and contained no power nor voice in the political system. Athenian Democracy had such a division of classes. This democracy had a minority who ruled over the majority, each citizen participated directly in the affairs of the city. The
Greek city-state contained a body of up to 500 jurors who would try cases.
There also existed a body of ten elected generals who would oversee foreign policy and war. One such elected general of Athens was a political id... ... middle of paper ...
...Aquinas distinguishes four forms of law : eternal law, natural law, divine law, and human law. The pursuit of happiness is a search for the good life, which is composed of virtuous actions and falls under the realm of divine law. Generosity consists in giving neither too little nor too much. Aristotle also describes intellectual virtue and moral virtue, which correspond to the soul, or as Aquinas classified it, part of the Eternal law. The effort to perform virtuous acts creates the desire to do the right thing for its own sake and also creates practical wisdom. Because human beings are not purely rational a flourishing, happy, human life demands the exercise of both the intellectual and the moral virtues, all of which are interpreted by Aquinas and classified accordingly. Works Cited
1. (E.E.)Introduction to Political Thinkers William Ebenstien and
Alan O. Ebenstien Harcourt Brace College Publishers ©1992 by Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
2. (NAB) The New American Bible for Catholics World Catholic Press ©1970 by the
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine
3. (Manning) Dr. Kerry James Manning
4. (GME) Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia ©1995 by Grolier Electronic Publishing,
Inc.
Duty may be performed without strain or reflection of desire, which means your duty, or responsibility, should be performed without hesitation. “Dutifulness could be an account of a morality with no hint of religion” (Murdoch 364). Religion’s demand for morality and being good trumps a person’s decision to
Our ideas about laws and philosophy are borrowed from those of Justinian’s code, which was the main set of laws of the empire. For example, the Declaration of Independence says the “unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Doc. D) This is similar to the “maxims of law... to live honestly, to hurt
You are all probably thinking, how can we attain happiness for ourselves and the state? The answer lies in virtue. In particular, "human good turns out to be activity of the soul in accordance with virtue," (Aristotle, Ethics Book I). While some may think wealth is the final end, i...
happiness is found by living in accordance with human dignity, which is a life in accordance
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a state that makes something good, and in order for something to be good, it must fulfill its function well. The proper function of a human soul is to reason well. Aristotle says that there are two parts of the soul that correspond to different types of virtues: the appetitive part of the soul involves character virtues, while the rational part involves intellectual virtues. The character virtues allow one to deliberate and find the “golden mean” in a specific situation, while the intellectual virtues allow one to contemplate and seek the truth. A virtuous person is someone who maintains an appropriate balance of these two parts of the soul, which allows them to reason well in different types of situations.
one’s only moral duty is to promote the most favorable balance of good over evil for oneself”
Plato and Aristotle Plato and Aristotle have two distinct views on wellness. However, each man’s opinion on wellness is directly tied in to his respective opinions on the idea of imitation as a form of knowledge. Their appreciation or lack thereof for tragedy is in fact directly correlated to their own perspective on wellness and emotion. Firstly, it is important to consider each man’s view of wellness—that is how does each man go about addressing emotional stability. One important consideration is the approach Plato takes in relation to Aristotle.
Humanity fantasizes the act of kindness through the hope of a ripple effect that will create a domino of kind acts. “The Grateful Foxes” actualizes this effect as a part of life. The man who rescues the fox because of his moral obligation is rewarded his son’s life (Freeman-Mitford). The lesson of the story is to pursue the obligation of human good—it explains that a kind act is the means for having kindness in one’s life. “However, good deeds can be engaged in for either altruistic or egoistic motivations” (Kulow 560) and this raises the argument whether pursuing this obligation is true. In a study done by Katina Kulow called “In Pursuit of Good Karma: When Charitable Appeals to Do Right Go wrong” the pursuit of good karma is brought into question. The studies did conclusively argue the link between the belief in karma and one acting for future rewards (Kulow 560). The choice to act to be rewarded is deemed as egotistical—the choice to act kind for the benefit of one’s self is a fault of one’s character. Contrasting, the thesis of the study is the reasoning behind the man’s kind act in “The Grateful
... divine law and letting reason govern one’s actions, they can achieve complete happiness. One must not totally disregard temporal goods, but their actions should be based on their goods of the will, not temporal goods.
One of the innumerous aspects philosophical thinking is concerned with is the question of morality. It goes back in time until Aristotle, who can be considered one of the most profound thinkers in the history of moral philosophy thanks to his theory of virtue. In Aristotelian terms, Joseph Kupfer defines virtues as ‘excellent qualities of individuals that make them valuable to themselves and to other people. […] Virtues are necessary attributes for happy common life because we need to be able to rely on others, as well as on ourselves, in order to flourish’ (1999: 23). Essentially, to act virtuously benefits not only to one...
Virtue, then deals with those feelings and actions in which it is wrong to go too far and wrong to fall too short but in which hitting the mean is praiseworthy and good….
...st luckily desires to do things that are in accordance to duty. An action has moral worth if and only if it is done from the motive of duty because it may go against our desires, but we still ignore what we might want because we know what we must do.
Plato’s character in “The Ring of Gyges” is trying to convey certain points about human nature and wisdom. In Glaucon’s fictional story, Gyges is a shepherd who stumbles upon a mysterious ring which allows him the power to become invisible. Gyges eventually gives up his lowly life as a shepherd and becomes an authoritative and crooked dictator due to the power of the ring. Glaucon’s main point in this story is that people are inherently immoral and will look out for themselves over the good of others. Due to his assumption about the nature of the human race Glaucon proclaims that in order to keep human’s from causing damage to others our social order should emphasize a government that will contain their constituents. Glaucon’s proposed social order became the building blocks of the social contract theory of government; “People in a society mutually agreeing not to harm one another and setting up sanctions when they do,” (Caste, 2014).
...f our acts do not have an impact on the ultimate goal. In regard to this response, I would say that it is in our nature to do what makes us happy, whether it is true happiness through virtues or happiness from material things. Either way one is going to do whatever they can to obtain what pleasures their soul. Our acts shape and mold us whether we know it or not. Our acts and decisions shape us, which can change our goals as well. If we perform virtuous acts then our goal will be virtuous which is why all of our acts should be aimed towards that goal.
Even the most moral person in the world should do unjust things if they knew they could never be caught, because they have the opportunity to gain something with no repercussions. People in society would see one as a fool if they knew some person had the chance to do something beneficial towards oneself without the chance of getting in trouble, and did not pursue. People do not believe that acting morally benefits one personally, only the status of being a moral person; when the opportunity appears, people will choose to act immorally because they feel it advances them from their current state. One does not strive for true morality, but instead attempt to be perceived as a moral person, to gain status in society, through unjust acts. This goes to show that people truly see morality not as an intrinsic good, but rather as an instrumental good, used to acquire more material goods and resources. People view the choice to act morally as a nuisance, not because that is their first choice of action. People will choose the action that benefits them over not receiving any benefit, unless they feel they can be caught or have to suffer injustice in the future and consequently would put them in a worse situation in the long