Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle moral principles
Summary of aristotle virtue of ethics
Essay on aristotle perception of ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle moral principles
One of the most prominent philosophers of the past century, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, in his extraordinary 1943 novel The Little Prince, wrote, “‘it is a question of discipline,’ the little prince told me later on. ‘When you have finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet’.” This implies that, despite the little prince has unrestricted natural freedom; he still must accept responsibilities in order to maintain harmony with the habitat. Hence, a citizen should comply with social duties in order to sustain compatibility and balance with the society, and personal liberty cannot grow beyond personal responsibility. Therefore, every civil right accompanies with a corresponding civil obligation. However, an incorporation of responsibilities into a human rights framework can jeopardize fundamental human rights safeguards. To avoid this government should appropriately allocate these rights and duties. Specifically, government should maintain social control and conserve social order, but the political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. To sum up, an individual must accept all the social duties in order to enjoy the rights of ‘civic liberty’, but when the faults are detected in the social contract which forces people to ignore their responsibilities, the government should create legal opportunities for society to improve the social contract using mechanisms such as elections or legislatures. Thus, with reference to appropriate theory, this essay will examine the link between rights and duties in a fair society; additionally, it will examine the role of the state in distribution of rights and responsibilities of individuals.
There is a necessity of political authority for the society. ...
... middle of paper ...
...ate is a necessary form of human existence, specifically; state should be regarded as the spiritual and social community of people linked by common notions of law, fairness, justice, and common interests; secondly, the notion of state necessarily implies a notion of social contract; and eventually, by means of the social contract, responsibility is an integral component of societal life. Thus, individuals should understand the inevitable obligation to obey social rules. Thereby, what is crucial is that all the privileges of civil society have a price, and this price is expressed in a duty to accept civil responsibilities. Finally, from one side the state`s mission is to provide equal and free rights and basic liberties to all members of the society, and from another side is to encourage people to obey the law and their duties, and thus maintaining the social order.
Therefore, legislation as deliberate law-making and the voice of the state of the sovereign body calls the common good of the life of man to the forefront of this question, both when democracy rules but primarily when totalitarian despots reign. The politicization of bare life as such legitimates the power of the sovereign state. But as repetitive instances of state-sponsored genocide have shown multiple times throughout the 20th century, state power can and does abuse the life of the citizen, whose life is paradoxically the force of the nation-state itself. It is through this e...
One of Locke’s broadest conclusions is his definition of the role of the state. He defines the states only real role is to ensure justice is done based on what he states are unalienable rights granted to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of estate. Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories.
Each day, billions of people throughout the world affirm their commitment to a specific idea; to be part of a society. While this social contract is often overlooked by most citizens, their agreement to it nevertheless has far-reaching consequences. Being a member of society entails relinquishing self-autonomy to a higher authority, whose aim should be to promote the overall good of the populace. While making this decision to become part of a commonwealth is usually performed without explicit deliberation, there is a common consensus amongst philosophers that something unique to the human experience is the driving force behind this decision. Contained within this something are highly contested points of debate amongst both past and contemporary political philosophers. Two such philosophers are Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. Each of these political writers provide detailed arguments regarding the concept of natural law, the role that reason plays in this law, whether some laws are considered truly rational, and why some people choose not to follow certain principles even when they recognize them to be rational. By analyzing each of these arguments, we will arrive at the conclusion that even though the rational principles that reason provides us can easily be disregarded by the populace, that we can still find a common good within promulgating rational doctrine.
Rousseau’s political theory revolves around a central idea that in order to deal with moral or political inequality (“social” inequality), man must move out of the state of nature and establish a social contract, “a form of association which defends and protects… the person and goods of each associate, and by the means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 432). Although Rousseau’s plan pledges to protect individual liberty, the plan rests on the legislation of the “general will” and the successful unity of a “body politic,” both of which are vaguely defined and become too concerned with state interest.
The philosophy of rights has been a perennial subject of discussion not only because it is embedded in the intellectual tradition and political practices of many countries but also because it exhibits deep divisions of opinion on fundamental matters. Even a cursory survey of the literature on rights since, say, the time of the Second World War would turn up a number of perplexing questions to which widely divergent answers have been given: What are rights? Are rights morally fundamental? Are there any natural rights? Do human rights exist? Are all the things listed in the UN's Universal Declaration (of 1948) truly rights? What are moral rights? Legal rights? Are basic moral rights compatible with utilitarianism? How are rights to be justified? What is the value of rights? Can infants have rights, can fetuses have them, or future generations, or animals? And so on.
Though effective (and desirable) anarchy may be a rarity thus far though mankind’s history, this does not mean that it must continue to be. Anarchism as an actual way of life may be far off into man’s future, but this writer believes that it is nonetheless there, and that it will be the pinnacle of man’s political evolution. Until then, taking ‘baby steps’ in that direction is an acceptable start; simply understanding that the state is an unjust means of society is already a great beginning. Even if it is impractical in modern society, we should not reject it as a goal on that basis alone. As we are all equals, the Golden Rule demands that we treat others reciprocally and respectfully; how can we as a race hope to achieve this, when the supposed flagship of humanity, the state, cannot do so?
There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment
In answering this final question raised, the conclusion to the essay emerges. We have seen how difficult it is to simply define liberty as a single conception, but have discovered many properties that a statement of freedom must posses. In the question between the conflicts of freedom, where two persons individual freedoms create a zero-sum game, the idea of social freedom emerges, and the idea that it is possible for there to be restrictions on an individual's freedom that are morally desirable. To best, and most simply explain in what sense we want people to be free, a balance must be found between the extent to which society may restrict an individual's freedom, and vice versa. As can be seen by observing politics throughout the ages, it is finding this balance that has proven to be the most challenging aspect of the ongoing question of freedom.
Both the pluralist account as well as the personhood account will yield highly indeterminate and, or, unreasonable norms without specification of the threshold as to when an interest or autonomy does generate a right upon others. Griffin introduces this threshold through the addition of the further ground of ‘practicalities’, that rights need enough content so to generate a socially manageable claim. A pluralist perspective introduces threshold criterion through understanding a right to be an imposition of duties upon others, in addition to evaluating the ‘impossibility’ and ‘burdensomeness’ of a the interest. Therefore, if we are assessing not when a right is generated, but rather what can serve as the grounding of human right we return to the question of why the interest of liberty and autonomy are any more pertinent to the human condition than any other
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
If a population is to exist then all of those that participate in the functioning of the society must be willing to give up some of their natural rights in order to follow the laws created to allow the society as a whole to greater protect the people, and the propert...
A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone comprises an essential part of the man.
In her article ‘From Citizenship to Human Rights: The Stakes for Democracy’ Tambakaki notes that apart from playing a political role, human rights are in principal moral and legal rights. Like moral norms they refer to every creature that bears a human face while as legal norms they protect individual persons in a particular legal community (pp9).
This is because interpretations of socioeconomic rights on an international level are regarded as too expansive, going further than what it means to be free from poverty. To be free from poverty, one would have basic subsistence necessary to lead a minimally good life. In this essay, I will argue that there is a human right to be free from poverty. I will focus primarily on the argument that poverty undermines human rights, therefore there is an implicit right to be free from poverty. An implicit right is still a right as some implied rights, depending on the legal precedent and statute, are protected by law and able override explicit rights. By considering the link between poverty and human rights intrinsic, the argument will be presented by questioning the capacity for freedom in relation to the right to liberty. I will also discuss limitations to the argument using the claimability objection to rights and how it is necessary for a right to be enforceable and have duty-bearers to be considered a right. My conclusion will be highlighted by showing that rights can be claimed as entitlements via a pre-existing social
Justice is the first virtue of Social institutions. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. (Rawls, 1971)