In Mortimer J. Adler 's book: Desires Right and Wrong The Ethics Of Enough, he touches on several philosopher 's thoughts, especially Aristotle. Adler has written forty-eight books over fifty years dealing with philosophy and ethics. He was the Chairman of the Board of Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and also Director of the Institute of Philosophical Research. Many of his conclusions are accurate and his condemning of several philosophers are just. Adler first looks in chapter one at the idea of "enough." Several examples help bring this concept to light: the speed limit is often just right, not too fast and not too slow; the number of pills a doctor prescribes would be said to be not too little or too much. One may even pay more …show more content…
Root causes he mentions for wrong desires are: seeking only one ultimate or whole good; saying, "something that while good as a means, is a limited good for those who desire it as an ultimate end;" (Adler 37). An apparent good (e.g. ethnic cleansing) can be in reality bad. Further, these wrong desires are fit into four categories by the author: pleasure, money, fame and power. These four all have their place for good, but become a fallacy in excess. Looking at right desires, vices can be many but virtue has a singular moral character. For every singular truth there are several errors. Along with Aristotle 's thoughts moral virtue is concerned with the end but also the means. Adler writes: "The maxim about the end justifying the means applies only to the unscrupulous expediency required for the pursuit of wrong ends" (65). If a person is thrown over the lifeboat in order to save many, the saved are in a worse state because of their (erroneous) moral choice. Freedom as a right desire (moral virtue) is obtained three ways as enumerated by Adler on page 66; these are: natural, acquired, or by circumstances (the poor can 't dine with the rich). All want the freedom to act a certain way, and freedom to not need to act a certain way. However, wisely pointed out, if people have unlimited freedom they will err in taking another 's freedom away. What of other thinkers viewpoints concerning moral …show more content…
Adler brings up Kant 's error in thinking that only reason provides for a moral philosophy. Kant 's view is faulty because it disregards intrinsic nature (beyond cultures, we 're all human). Kant 's Universal-ability thesis: Can the rule that governs your action work for anyone- is essentially the Golden Rule. The writer however erroneously writes: "The Golden Rule is concerned only with your actions as affecting others, not with your desires as affecting yourself" (Adler 90). However, the Gospel of Matthew says: "The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’" (NASB Mt 22:39). Indeed we should love others, but there is clearly a sense that every man loves himself. Paul wrote: "for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church," (Eph 5:29). The author then turns on David Mill 's Utilitarianism: "the greatest good for the greatest number." His condemning is correct, for if we make 10% of the human population slaves to the other 90%, is this really "good" just because of quantity? He also rounds on John Dewey who doesn 't give any purpose "highest good" for people to follow. After giving his opinions on other 's philosophies he then returns to the core of
Alfred Adler was born in 1870. He published his first major psychology book, Understanding Human Nature, in 1959. Alder has a passionate concern for the common person and he was very outspoken about child-rearing practices, school reforms, and prejudices that resulted in conflict. Alder created 32 child guidance clinics in the Vienna public schools and began training teachers, social workers, physicians, and other professionals. Alder believes that where we are striving to go is more important than where we have come from. He saw humans as both the c...
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
Kraut, R 2014, ‘Aristotle's Ethics’, The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Summer Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
Whilst discussing the basics of moral philosophy, every philosopher will undoubtedly come across the works of Immanuel Kant and David Hume. As they progress into the thoughts of these two famous philosophers they will notice the stark contrast between the pair. Quite simply put, Kant’s works emphasizes that reason is the main source of human being’s morality, while Hume’s work depicts human desire as the driving source of morality. Obviously these two points of view are very different, but it is difficult to say which of these philosophers are more correct than the other.
In order to reach a better theory to address what makes a life go best we must admit that there are things which are worthy of being desired due to some intrinsic properties they have, as opposed to assuming all things which are good for an agent are good only because they are desired by the agent; this notion however, is too far a departure from the idea of Desire Satisfaction Theory, and requires an alternative ethical theory to account for it.
Spinoza, Benedictus De, Samuel Shirley, and Seymour Feldman. The Ethics ; Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect ; Selected Letters. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1992. Print.
Aristotle. "Nicomachean Ethics." Classics of Moral and Political Theory. 3rd ed. Trans. Terence Irwin. Ed. Michael L. Morgan. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.
Louden opens this section with this statement: “… it is commonplace that virtue theorists focus on good and bad agents rather than on right and wrong acts.” This is a good th...
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he thoroughly indicated a well-defined direction in order to achieve our true nature to which we seek happiness. For Aristotle, to be human means to be a rational animal who flourishes through reason to achieve the highest human good. To achieve happiness, one must li...
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, trans. Schneewind, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1982, 72.
But Scheffler had “to concluded that this theory in question cannot be acceptable” (Scheffler, pp, 536). The idea of The Greatest happiness theory is that a person must consider the consequences that his action has on everyone. The theory demands that you must consider that the feeling of your daughter to that of a homeless man. This idea is impractical because no one would want to live in a world where you are subjected to rein in your emotions to match a society idea of acceptance. This is why this theory could not work. While it is true that there is a golden rule that states to do onto other as you would have them do unto to you. Everyone should be treated with equality, yes, but not everyone matter to a person. No one would follow this theory. No one would want to follow this theory it is inconvenient to all those involved. If for example say at you want to be a gift for your daughter and they are a homeless family, this principle states instead of buying the gift for your daughter you should give the money to the homeless family. The happiness that the gift would have brought your daughter would be nothing compared to the happiness that they money given to the homeless family would cause. The fact is that you should forsake your love one for a stranger. The idea that everyone should be treated equality would require that everyone being poor, because if you are giving all
In utilitarianism, all moral actions promote the greatest happiness in the greatest amount of people. This is done indiscriminitley, meaning that every person counts as one unit and nobody 's happiness is placed over another 's. Indeed, Mill believes that all humans are seeking, as an ultimate end, happiness, and all other pursuits are simply means to that end. He defends this view by raising other possible ends and showing that they are all a part of happiness, rather than a separate puruit. He also shows why, once we have attained a higher sense of intelect and other faculties, no human, save for extreme circumstances, would ever choose to revert to a simpler state of mind, despite the fact that these simpler people may be more satisfied with their lot than those of higher faculties. He believes this a general principle, although sometimes a lack of willpower can cause a person to seak a lower principle. Mill solidifies this sentiment with the statement: better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Mill writes that thinkers are still arguing the foundation of morality and constantly squabbling over the definition of right and wrong. He tells the reader that Plato wrote that Socrates first postulated the idea of Utilitarianism in his writings against the Sophists (Mill 1). He says man must test what is right and wrong seemingly against his own instinct, and that instinct can only give general principles of moral judgment (Mill 2). He writes that the intuitive and deductive schools taught that there is a science of morals but did not have a first principle. Rather they relied only on second principles to guide moral action. Mill writes that utilitarian arguments are indispensable for moralists and that the greatest happiness principle has influenced even those who vocally reject it (Mill
A major problem in society John Stuart Mill highlights is that there is not a set standard for judging what makes something right or wrong. Clearing these principles is one of the fundamental steps for consensus on moral thinking. Mill believes that what makes something right or wrong is based on whether it is thought of as “good”. However, this only further raises the question on what is considered good. Mill purposes the goodness as a principle of utility, otherwise known as greatest happiness principle. Whatever brings about the most happiness is what is the most good. While others argue that natural instincts disprove the principle of utility as well as any other standard on morals, Mill believes the consistency of moral beliefs throughout history shows that there is in fact some kind of foundation.