Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
pericles funeral oration summary
pericles funeral oration summary
pericles funeral oration summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: pericles funeral oration summary
Navigating Interstitial Spaces
“[T]he law permits the Americans to do what they please.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
The protection of virtue, I submit, requires an understanding of interstitial spaces—spaces where formalist adherence to rules and laws does not suffice to adequately promote virtue. Recognition of these spaces spawned agent morality and Aristotle’s practical wisdom. Fascination with these spaces fueled Alexis de Tocqueville’s inquiry into American religious, familial and political mores in Democracy in America. Though America’s formal, codified laws of the 1830s granted “dangerous freedom” to the individual, Americans managed to navigate interstitial spaces with assiduous virtue. This discussion will briefly connect threads from Aristotle’s Ethics, Plato’s Republic, and Pericles’ funeral oration to preface a more extensive examination of Tocqueville’s careful study of the institutions which reinforced virtue within America’s interstitial spaces. The conclusion will examine and evaluate the doctrine of “self-interest rightly understood” as the sole guarantor of virtue in the United States.
Aristotle, one of the forefathers of agent morality, understood that universal and formalist rules alone could not sustain virtue. Practical wisdom, “a truth-attaining intellectual quality concerned with doing and with the things that are good for human beings” allows the moral agent to operate virtuously in a context-specific way. “[I]t is not possible,” Aristotle writes, “without practical wisdom to be really good morally.” Obedience to fixed rules cannot govern action “to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, for the right reason, and in the right way.” In order to cultiv...
... middle of paper ...
...ticipation correlate directly with the correct practice of “self-interest rightly understood” and we accept both Michael Sandel’s thesis about the rise of the “voluntarist self” and Robert Putnam’s thesis describing the decline of American social and political capital—then a gloomy picture emerges about the sustainability of virtue in the hands of enlightened self-interest alone. Without guidance in a wide expanse of interstitial space, it is easy to slip through the cracks.
Words Cited
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics.
Mitchell, Joshua. The Fragility of Freedom.
Plato. The Republic.
Putnam. Bowling Alone.
Sandel, Michael. Democracy’s Discontents.
Thucydides. The History of thte Peloponnesian War. “Pericles’ Funeral Oration.”
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America.
The value attributed to the first virtue, wisdom, whose essence lay in “the perception of truth and with ingenuity,” concerns the comprehension of the nature of justice (7). In fact, Cicero asserts, within the public sphere, “unless learning is accompanied by the virtue that consists...
Ethical theories may be usefully divided into two main types, deontological or eudaimonist, on the basis of whether they take one or the other of these kinds of judgments as primary. (1) In the main, ancient ethical theories were eudaimonist in both form and content (in the kinds of judgments and terms they took as primary, and in the questions they spent the most time investigating). Most modern ethical theories have been deontological, again in both form and content. (2) Aristotle’s central question is: What is the good life for a human being? Kant and Mill’s central question is: What are our duties to our fellow human beings? My second main contention, which I cannot fully argue for here, is that neither type of theory trumps the other, nor should we attempt to subsume both types under some higher ethical synthesis.
In Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville explains the dangers of democracy and explains the virtues that temper these dangers. In this paper, I will look at two issues Tocqueville discussed extensively in late 19th century American democracy and posit what Tocqueville may say about these issues today. The points I will discuss are materialism and religion. In a democracy, such as America, the individual’s opportunity to succeed makes him more likely to become attached to material and money. However, in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, this danger is tempered by religion, which quenches the lust for material by reducing its importance in comparison to good mores. These two elements of American democracy are a small portion of the “Habits of the hearts” of Americans; they are two ideas that complement each other to make democracy appealing and possible anywhere and everywhere. Is this the case today? Is the American’s relationship to materialism and religion similar today to what it was when Tocqueville visited America?
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory to be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents. This requires always taking into account the rational goals of moral agents when making decisions that may affect them. The more important the goals are to the agents, the greater the importance of not obstructing them. Since Sally’s theory has two separate principles, she accounts for the possibility that they will overlap. To do so, she includes an option on how to resolve the conflicts. According to the theory, if the principles lead to conflicting actions, then moral agents should resolve the conflict on a case-by-case basis by deciding which principle should be followed given the proposed actions and circumstances.
Practical wisdom is knowledge of how to secure the ends of human life and for a man who demonstrates this quality his mark should be to be able to tell what is good for himself and his ultimate goal of a good life. In this paper, I will be agreeing with Aristotle’s idea that virtue is a state of character concerned with ones choices and one’s ability to reason.
One of the desirability of virtue ethics is the elasticity to measure each situation independently, searching for action guidance in bearing in mind what a naturally virtuous person would do. This would be clarified and informed by the pertinent facts and personal ethical sensitivities of that situation. This permits and heartens creative resolutions to very difficult problems, which may be harder to disc...
To sum up, looking upon the term self-interest, people not only need to separate its concept with selfishness, but also have to
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
Aristotle's and Kant's ideas of the means and ends of moral ethics are in sharp contrast. Both have strengths and weaknesses in their arguments, but Aristotle's is superior to Kant's because it is more realistic. I will first give the basis of both philosophies, Aristotle first, Kant second. Next, I will expand and question points of both philosophies, Aristotle's end, and Kant's means. Lastly, I will explain the reasoning behind why I favor Aristotle's ethics over Kant's. Both philosophies appeals to reason, but they come to different conclusions.
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
To be good is good but it has to be done for the right reason. Aristotle and Kant are two famous philosophers who have different ethical theories. The theory’s of virtue and duties rest not only on laws and obligations but from what comes from the inside. Morality comes from inner strength, character and how we live our life to the best end.
Human beings are confronted with numerous issues throughout his or her lifetime that would require him or her to examine the best action to take to avoid the damaging consequences. In most cases, individuals restrain his or her action to take into consideration the consequences that may lead to the right or wrong behavior. One’s ethical and moral standards are first learned at an early age from his or her culture, how he or she is raised, religious background, and social system. Scientifically, there are various ethical theories, such as the virtue theory, deontological ethics, and utilitarianism (Boylan, 2009). By understanding these theories one can compare, contrast and uncover the reasoning behind his or her ethical and moral standards.
In Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant attempts to establish a valid basis for ethics. Specifically, he wants to develop an ethical system that has compelling power. He views the traditional, happiness-based ethics as insufficient because they lack compelling power, meaning that they do not have the power to curtail our actions. His solution is that people should be guided by the moral law, which can be discovered by pure reason alone, and which says that any action should be judged by whether or not it could serve as a principle in a universal law. However, I argue that Kant’s proposed ethical system fails in two ways. First, it lacks the compelling power that Kant thinks it has. Second, if the moral law is accessible via reason alone, then different cultures should not come up with the radically different ethical systems that they have come up with over history.
Aristotle’s approach in The Nicomachean Ethics seemed to say that virtues can become regular habits that each human being performs and if performed well can lead to happiness. However, he says that we are not born with these virtues so we have to learn them. Aristotle seemed to observe people using the word virtue to name a person’s action which they did correctly. According to Aristotle, a human must perform actions in society to determine if they are finding the co...
Interest is sparked in this area that Aristotle writes of because there is a natural need for Ethics in human life. John K. Roth states, “Aristotle assumes that all things, human beings included, have a good, a purpose or end, which it is their nature to fulfill”. This helps one understand Aristotle’s way of thinking, and provides insight to the basis of his theories. A common theory explored by Aristotle is the Ethics of Virtues, and how to practice them. A theory included in Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is the unity of all the virtues, and in order to be virtuous, one must exhibit all the virtues. One of these virtues being practical wisdom, or Phronesis.