Great Philosophers

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

Even though Kant does acknowledge that behaviour and actions that produce a good outcome or consequence is in fact aligned with morality, he believes if you do anything that benefits you is wrong. As a personal example, I volunteer and produce ‘good’ actions because not only do I know it is right, or the good thing to do, but it gives me a sense of purpose. I feel good putting people before myself. Some people will do nice things for others because it makes them feel good as well. In my opinion, if people love to help others and act in ethically sound ways because it gives them a feeling of approval, and the action is causing a positive consequence, that should be moral. It should be a wonderful thing that mankind can actually have feel good chemicals run through there body when assisting humanity. Kant should take this into consideration that if we feel good acting in good ways, it is more likely to be sustainable.

For example, the Analects of government, sage, virtue, and manners give a sense of teachings and positive philosophies to follow in order to become a good ruler and obtaining and giving respect. While the Classics and ideals of popper conduct, political peace, moral power, love and ideal humanity help to reinforce the Analects by giving an ideology of a humanism. As Confucian gives words of wisdom of establish a community who should act only when necessary, use knowledge for the benefit of all, and to live in peace in order to developed a stronger culture. Confucius gives the Chinese people a focus on the cultivation of virtue and maintenance of ethics, creating a community of righteousness and moral disposition to do good and how one should act in a community. Overall, Confucianism is a source of values, the social code of the Chinese, and a substance of

The great and well known philosopher Plato, is the man who was in love. He wasn’t in love with one particular materialistic item or person, but rather the idea of love itself. Then there is Buddha, a man who fears love. Buddha understands that life always ends and in death comes pain. The idea of love to him, only ends in pain and suffering. As expressed in The Gospel of Buddha, Buddha’s eyes were opened to world and when they were opened “he saw the pains of pleasure and inevitable certainty of death that hovers over every being.” He isn’t like Plato, who believes to life, is to live with happiness and to have a happy after life, requires love in the human life or physical world. He also believed that love could carry a man threw tremendous conquest. In Plato’s Plato-Symposium, he expressed that if government consisted of lovers, even in unfavorable odds “they would overcome the world.” These two lifestyles however, aren’t so different. They both revolve around the same concept and that is, life is filled with pain and suffering. The ways they avoid or overcome it, is the only difference. Plato is like the man at the funeral who says, “we had a good life together and I’m glad we got to be together.” Then there is Buddha and he would be the man saying, “her life was too short.”

Kant's theory is different to utilitarians. It is based on a deontological approach, a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. The key aspect in this is goodwill, which is the ability to act out of duty and principle (Seedhouse, 2001). Morality in this theory is absolute, the actions of right or wrong is independent from consequences. The categorical imperative is the foundation in this theory, it determines if the action is

Immanuel Kant was an influential philosopher that looked at ethics and morality from a different perspective from Utilitarians. Kant believed that people are obligated to follow

Confucius, who lived from 551-479 BCE, was a Chinese philosopher, teacher, and politician. Confucius had written a set of books or ideas and concepts called The Analects. These were different collections of sayings that Confucius had written to reflect his ideas about different things like politics, family, morality, and many more. Confucius is also the creator of the commonly used “Golden Rule” of “do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.” Through his teachings, books, and his followers, the philosophy of Confucianism was created. In Doctrine of the Mean, Confucius explains how to perfect oneself and how to become a morally righteous person. He explains how one must maintain a balance into a constant state of equilibrium.

Confucian thought is dominated by the integral idea that each man is fundamentally good, and that man only devolves from this state if faced with outside forces. Confucius emphasized these points when reviewing how best to solve the incessant disorder within China during the Spring and Autumn period. This period of disorder was the primary cause of Confucius’ teaching, with him seeking to remedy the chaos by encouraging people within China to live life according to his doctrine. According to Confucius, “there has never been a man who is not disrespectful to superiors and yet creates disorder. A superior man is devoted to the fundamentals (the root). When the root is firmly established, the moral law (Tao) will grow” (Chan p. 20). Here, Confucius emphasizes

Separated by more than 8500 kilometers but only 52 years, two seminal thinkers have shaped the moral philosophy of their respective cultures. While Western ethical theory has been deeply influenced by Plato’s Republic, Eastern ethical theory has been deeply influenced by Confucius’s Analects. David Haberman describes the Republic as ‘one of the most influential books of all time’ (86). And Bryan Van Norden compares (with considerable fervor) the Analects to ‘the combined influence of Jesus and Socrates’ (3).

There are four main philosophers that set the basis for different styles of ethics. The four Philosophers that made a huge impact on us all are Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. All four philosophers are very well known for their intelligence and work in the ethics community. Although all of the philosophers have the same goal of defining ethics and how we should behave in terms of the highest good for human beings they all do it in different ways in which they feel is the proper way. Throughout this paper I will be comparing each of the four main Philosophers that we learned about this semester to each other so that you can

The first ethicist chosen for this analysis is al-Ghazâlî, who as considered a divine command ethics. al-Ghazâlî 's reasoning derived from not focusing on consequences on earth but what consequences one 's actions would lead to in the afterlife. He believed that everyone should emulate the teaches of the Prophet Muhammad as a model of behavior. Another interesting aspect of al-Ghazâlî 's ethics where that a person shouldn 't try to avoid the less than desirable facets of human nature but to work on controlling them (Griffel, 2016).

Philosophy is a very interesting yet challenging topic of discussion and method of thinking. Most people have never been challenged with the way they think about things. I believe among the great philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, Nagel really brings out some pretty interesting topics that really help your mind think. With the chapters we had to read up on, Nagel challenges us on the topics of us really knowing what reality is, free will, and the meaning of life. Everybody has their way of thinking and their environment, their upbringing have a lot to do with their mentality so when people are shown different other mindsets such as Nagel’s and the many other philosophers people feel that maybe the philosophers have been right the entire time and their life has been a lie.

German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism’s rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant’s perspective this is still prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant’s theory is an example of the deontological theory that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.”( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called “Hypothetical Imperatives”, but rather principles called “Categorical Imperatives” he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.) Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality

Can absurd logic be used as a tool to scrutinize western philosophical texts without missing the point? Using absurd logic, I will demonstrate how two western philosophers differ in relation to the absurd. My case study will examine Socrates and David Hume. It will be demonstrated that Socrates’ actions in Plato’s Phaedo and Apology constitute philosophical suicide by finding sanctuary, giving hope, and appealing to a god. Alternatively, Hume’s actions/claims in the Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Of Miracles conform with Camus’ absurd logic because of his constant skepticism and denial of an escape. My aim is to demonstrate that although Socrates’ actions are deemed as philosophical suicide and Hume’s actions comply with absurd logic, one is still able to comprehend the philosophical issues that both these philosophers raise, while still doing a close reading of the texts through an absurd paradigm.