Confucius has influenced my social justice point of view because I believe that if people practiced their own virtues, then the world will coexist in harmony. Humanity will considerate of other’s well-being, uniting countries, disposing of evil. Society must recognize people’s virtues instead of penalizing humanity for their flaws. Confucius highlights the virtues of humanity, believing that they possess the characteristics to live in a society free of harm or judgement. Human nature consists in instinct virtues of survival, but Confucius also believes that they are not all bad, just poorly dominated by political authority figures.
The quest for happiness is a choice, and thus it cannot be claimed that everyone wants the same thing. I think that Kant’s theory of morality have a better application in everyday life situations. It ensures justice by supporting everyone’s right to be treated fairly not just for the greater good
According to formula two of Kant’s argument, good will is guided by reason. We should follow our own good will in order to gain talents to then help others. Our own good will cannot come from a gut feeling, we should consider our own obligations that Kant has set for us in order to reach our own happiness. We should act to use humanity by not using other people in order to get their means because that is immortal. It is our ability to make our own choices and be rational with the intention of creating good will.
It tells us how we ought to think and behave toward one another considering first, how we want to be treated. For instance, we have the right to freedom of speech as long as we don’t insult the integrity of others. In addition, God gives us examples for how make right decisions and warns of those to avoid. Knowing this, that if we have love in our hearts first, for our heavenly father then we’ll have compassion for our fellow mankind to behave ethically. Since we are made as free moral agents with the ability to choose the standards by which we will live some in society determine their right and wrong behavior based on their feelings of particular situations.
This paper will examine the argument how having virtues can promote a balance in today’s society, and how this virtue ethics can also pose a problem. As mentioned by Thiroux & Krasemann, expresses how the establishment of virtues is based on the measurement of righteous perceptions (72). For instance, as a society we know mainly through trial and error what type of moral codes to develop. Many people undergo errors of society and we established what is common sense because of it. Therefore, virtue ethics isn’t solely on notions to project a list of rules in order to be a decent human being, but to apply these basic principles to how we feel as well (Thiroux & Krasemann, pg.78).
Human beings are self-legislative, morally auto-nomous" (897). It is important to distinguish that it is being self-legislative and morally autonomous and not the mere fact of being biologically human that distinguishes members of the moral community. Theoretically, any species of creatures that had the same measure of self-awareness and moral thought should be granted equal membership into the moral community and all the privileges that member... ... middle of paper ... ...ogy: people may or may not be willing to make the trade-off now, but at some point humanity will. Perhaps how the moral community treats outside entities is important in what it says about the moral community. Is it the ultimate goal of the moral community to shape society into people with empathy for other creatures, no matter how much intellect they have?
A good life worth living in my opinion requires serving and meeting the needs of others, as well as myself. We are expected to give unselfishly to our associates, friends, neighbors and family for good moral cause because it is purposeful in the end. What would we reap from merely relying on our sole actions and how would that selfishness benefit us as a whole in society? This is where Kant and Nietzsche disagree on the definition of what is considered a good life, what is considered moral and who has the worth to decide upon it. I will begin with Kant, as he was the first to develop his theory of morality.
Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics propose two different ideas on morality of an action. Where one focus on the end result and the other on the action itself rather than the result. In my opinion Kantian ethics hold a greater moral value to an action because any action is thought up in a rationalized process, to determine whether it will be moral, where as Utilitarian’s propose that the morality is determined by the consequences, which are never quite certain anyway. Kantian theories would be a better choice for someone who is determined for a particular action because it promotes the value of human traits, and promotes fairness and equality which can be applied unconditionally.
Aristotle seems to believe that using this reasoning correctly, will involve humans going out into society to learn about the virtues. The virtues, like courage, do not come already prepackaged in the correct amount humans need. Humans have to find out how much courage they need and they do this by using their reason. They have to go out into society, use their reasoning correctly, determine the correct amount of virtue, and by performing this function correctly, they can aim at the true good which is happiness. This empirical approach affects Aristotle’s theory because it tries to outline the balanced character of humans with the virtues.
This applies the sense of wisdom because the individual knows that not following a social ritual would invoke a moral consequence: shame. Once an individual feels a sense of shame, their soul is not in harmony. Thus, they would not be living a good life in that moment. Another point Mencius would make is a social ritual is not merely created because it is the right thing to do. Rather, the reason behind why a social ritual was created makes it right.