Morals and Ethics

1125 Words3 Pages

Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Nietzsche all had their own ideas for which one could reach happiness in his/her life. All have similarities in there reasoning except Nietzshe, who contradicts the others entirely. Plato states that to understand virtue is happiness. In turn virtue suffices for happiness and is necessary. Also he intuits that human reasoning prevails over spirited element or a person?s appetite. Aristotle?s arguments relate with Plato, but he builds more to it and finds his own answers. He agrees that all people desire happiness and virtue is necessary for happiness. In same mind with Plato, Aristotle says happiness comes from perfecting our minds and characters. Unlike Plato, Aristotle questions and concludes that virtue does not suffice happiness. His definition of happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance with the most perfect virtue. He believes one must be active and make full use of his/her rational capacities to function well. This perfecting of ones character was Aristotle?s key to happiness. Augustine shares with that of Plato and Aristotle that virtue is necessary, but he disagrees that is all of what is needed. He denies that the perfection of one?s character suffices for virtue or happiness. His revelation is that the chief good is happiness. Being the highest good, it cannot be attained in one?s physical life. Brought forth is the balance of the natural realm and the supernatural realm. This consists of the Cardinal Virtues and the Faith Virtues. This means to follow and to love God. To Augustine, achieving salvation is the highest good, therefore happiness. Nietzshe shares nothing in common with the other three philosophers. He states that perfection doesn?t come from being morally good nor through religion; rather from self-mastery and free exercise of ones creative powers. His virtues(Master Morality) consist of pride, self-assertion, power, cruelty, honor, rank, and nobility. The Faith Values of Augustine are Nietzshe?s ?Slave Morality?. The conclusion is that we as people make our own happiness and we determine right and wrong. The striving and achieving of power is happiness. I agree mostly with Augustine that happiness consists of our physical life as well as what we determine our supernatural beliefs. He would probably argue for strict Catholicism, but I see no problem with other beliefs as long as one focuses... ... middle of paper ... ...rovides us with the agent, a person?s character status, and motive. With this one does not know the act or its effects. This information would be insufficient. All of the information must be present before evaluation or the act could be falsely categorized. 6. Moral legalism is somewhat of an anal approach to a situation. There is no reasoning involved. If it goes against a right, it is automatically dismissed. One problem is moral legalism does not accept exceptions to rules; But in fact, there are exceptions to rules. Therefore moral legalism presents a conflict. Moral Particulism makes exceptions to a rule or law to promote a good. A problem that occurs is that not all moral particularists have the same intuitions or values. It does not take into effect each individual?s sentimental feelings. 7. In regards to capital punishment, a strong deontologist might say that it may be good for a society to execute a convicted killer, but its not right because we are falling to his level by killing. The utilitarian would argue that it?s not right to kill, but this man has committed a horrendous crime and the only justice for the victims is to take his life.

Open Document