Despite the fact physical beauty is highly valued in society, it is not the driving factor when it comes to determining morality and making ethical judgments. To support this, I will be introducing Aristotle’s virtue ethics and David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature to demonstrate that beauty is independent of virtue and does not influence morality as it is not considered when discussing morality. Kant argues that beauty is equivalent to morality. He states, “The beautiful pleases immediately, disinterestedly, as the result of freedom of the imagination, and with universal validity. Virtuous motivation pleases immediately although independently of any antecedent interest, on the basis of a free employment of intellectual faculties, and with universal validity.” Assuming Kant is referring to physical beauty, Kant explains that beauty is something that is objective to all as it pleases and provides freedom to humans.
Beauty equals love, but love comes from seeing something beautiful, then you cycle back to questioning beauty, and so on and so forth. Burke also points out that perfection does not cause beauty. He finally goes on to say that beauty is “some quality in bodies acting on the senses”. As he goes through the rest of the sections that we read through, Burke states and defines some qualities of beauty. He uses words such as smallness, smoothness, and delicacy, as well as explaining the “beautiful” colors and sounds, which are softer colors and sounds without any darkness with them.
In Hume’s view the judges allow for reasonable critiques of objects. Hume also pointed out that taste is not merely an opinion but has some physical quality which can be proved. So taste is not a sentiment but a determination. What was inconsistent in the triad of commonly held belief was that all taste is equal and so Hume replaced the faulty assumption with the true judges who can guide society’s sentiments.
His principle explained that a good action is on that brought pleasure while one that caused pain was evil. Bentham goes ahead to differentiate virtue and pleasure and their relation to utilitarianism. He explains that a virtuous person is on who stands for moral values and safeguards the happiness of those around him, qualities that are closely related to utilitarianism as they bring about pleasure (Driver 1). They also argue that the purpose of an action is independent from the morality of the action. These arguments give us the perception that Utilitarianism is different from other moral aspects.
I believe, however, that Emerson’s method best describes how the soul transcends. The act of recalling beauty in its true and perfect form, Beauty, will lead to transcendence and the recovery of the soul. To Plato, transcendence comes not from experiencing anything in the material world as Emerson says, but “only the study of unseen reality can draw the soul upward” (223). Ultimate, true Beauty is the soul in its purest, transcended form: The soul must be seen as it truly is. It must not be distorted as we find it when it is hinged to the body and its miseries.
Experience shows that such a policy consi... ... middle of paper ... ...le relates that the healthy exercise of virtuous function in a well-rounded life exploring personal interests and friendships is the cause of which happiness is the unavoidable and fitting effect. In other words, if you pursue the cause you will create the effect, but if you pursue only the effect circumventing the cause, you will miss both effect and cause entirely. “Aristotle rejects the Epicurean principle of pleasure; because, though a proof that isolated tendencies are satisfied, it is no adequate criterion of the satisfaction of the self as a whole. He rejects the Stoic principle of conformity to law; because it fails to recognize the supreme worth of individuality”(Hyde, 175). Even after this comparison it is difficult to contend which of these three theories would be a valid philosophy today.
His essay, first published in 1757, “Of the Standards of Taste” strives to answer the longstanding question of the objectivity of judgements of taste. Hume argues that there are no objective criteria which regulate the correctness of judgements of taste. He never withdraws his belief that recognition of beauty is fundamentally reliant on sentiment. His essay on taste, however, is his defense of an aesthetic standard in which he declares that some opinions are better than others in the sense of being more accurate . Hume illustrates that not all opinions are equally good, but they appear to have the same claim upon us.
It is generally thought that the crux of this question of morality has to do with the magnitude of selfishness accounted for in the acts and thoughts of individuals. If we can think of selfishness as an empirical property, honesty, compassion, and benevolence are acts and attitudes that involve much less selfishness than their moral opposites. This realization, of course, does not answer the question we are considering, it merely pushes it back one metaphysical level. So the revised question should be this: When is selfishness morally acceptable, and when is it not? Nietzsche, in proposing that selfishness is, in a sense, completely free of moral blame at all, comes to a conclusion that is completely opposite to the rest of the philosophers that we have studied.
These are either the actions are actual or possible. Therefore, Kant and Aristotle have different takes in happiness, and they describe happiness in different ways as it comes from their theories. Both disagree on happiness’ moral importance since they tend to take happiness as just caused by individual moral actions. These are because happiness is determined by whether someone is feeling painful or has pleasure. Since moral is the virtue that a person holds and which give them their dignity, that is why disagreement on happiness in their theories comes in.
In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill offers a defining of utility as pleasure or the absence of pain in addition to the Utility Principle, where “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Through this principle, Mill emphasizes that it is not enough to show that happiness is an end in itself. Mill’s hedonistic view is one in support of the claim that every human action is motivated by or ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure. Suppose one was to record their pleasures down on paper using a graph. At first, one might be confused as to how to go about quantifying their happiness.