What about the Different Views of the Gods about Pious Actions - Assignment Example

Pla Euthryphro explains that being pious means prosecuting the wrongdoer, regardless of who the person is. Socrates finds his answer inadequatesince he claims that there other pious actions and he wants to find a model of for a pious action, to understand better whether or not an action is pious or not. 2. As Socrates explains, Euthryphro’s answer suggests only an affect or quality of being pious and not the nature of piety. Since different gods view actions differently being pious is based upon what one believes in and whose god one believes in. This is the same thing as the monotheistic theory since the morally right for God is based solely upon His interpretation of being morally right. 3. Socrates explains that the reactions or effects of things are different, as an action loved is said to be loved because someone is loving it. When someone does not love the action then it is not an action loved anymore. 4. Socrates tells Euthryphro that he is only citing examples of pious actions. 5. Socrates might raise the question what about the different views of the gods about pious actions. What if an action is pious for one god but not pious for another? How will it be reconciled then? 1. Aristotle claims that we gain virtues by adaptation, and this I believe is true. I believe that humans are not naturally good or evil, we just absorb whatever it is that we are socially exposed to. As we mature, we learn to question things so we begin to choose for ourselves which are virtuous deeds and which are not, in our own perception. 2. I agree that there is no fixity with matters concerned with conduct and what’s good for us. As we mature, we, as humans learn how to preserve ourselves by accepting and rejecting beliefs that are beneficial for us. 3. Aristotle explains that virtuous men are only the ones capable of doing virtuous acts. I believe that virtuous men are more important than performing virtuous acts since it is a given that virtuous men will do virtuous acts but those who do virtuous acts may also do non-virtuous acts. 4. I find the premise rather contradictory. Aristotle states that the mean is between extremes but he says that there are some things that are wrong in all circumstances, such as adultery or stealing. According to Aristotle himself, we only adapt to our social environment, that’s how we learn virtues. One’s wrong may be one’s right and the differences in the opinion clouds the premise that some actions is always wrong. So then, wrong actions become wrong only because the social environment rejects the behavior. 5. To find the means, we should always find the middle of the situation. 1. Hobbes claims that men can be equal when a weaker man conspires with other weaker men or use machineries or such to fight a stronger man, whether it is physical or mental strength. And I agree with this since there are instances, like in wars where weaker countries seek the aid of stronger countries to fight another strong country. 2. Hobbes explains it is human nature to gain more than the other, to defend oneself and to gain glory and fame. I believe this is correct. The laws govern the actions of man to prevent man from fighting each other over all things. 3. Government laws are not the only laws that exist in the society. There are unwritten laws, the mores, values of the society, which also govern the actions of man. These controls human nature so there are still unjust actions based on these unwritten values. 4. As Hobbes explains in the earlier part of the article, our actions are based on the human nature to gain, to defend and to gain glory. This justifies Hobbes claim that self-interest motivates human’s voluntary actions. 5. Not all societies have the same laws. Example, some governments enforce laws against abortion but some societies legalize abortion, provided the action is justified such as health reasons. But abortion, no matter what the reason may be, is still destruction of life, which is unjust for the innocent, unborn child. 6. Hobbes believes that sometimes there are unjust actions that could lead to events that may be favorable for the individual, even if he does not originally plan the action because he wants something out from it. 1. Hume explains that human actions depend on their perception of right and wrong, of just and unjust – which are based on morals rather than reason. It has a ring of truth since human actions are always based on what they believe in. Reasons follow only to justify what humans have done. 2. He argues that morality is not a conclusion of our reason since our morals are based on what we perceive to be right or wrong. Morality goes before reason. And I find it convincing since it is a common experience, as he states. 3. Hume argues that the truthfulness of our judgments does not determine whether actions are morally right or wrong because our actions are original facts and realities, which are complete on their own. It does not mean, therefore, that one action is in reference or in connection with another action. And one mistake does not mean it is intentionally done. 4. It is true that certain actions may be perceived by different people depending on how they feel about it. An action becomes wrong only if we believe it to be wrong. 5. Hume explains that since human action is driven by morals rather than reason, we won’t be able to tell the difference between what ought to be and what is really happening. I think one of the counterexamples is using reason to understand and to justify what should have happened from what is really happening. 1. Kant explains that good will is not and will never result to something evil as it is done devoid of personal intentions. But I believe that there is still some personal interest in good will, such as feeling good about helping another. 2. Happiness can result to boldness and arrogance since the individual finds satisfaction in what he has done or achieved and he may view this success as something he alone achieved without the help of another. I believe that one’s happiness may be another’s suffering, therefore, happiness is not always good. 3. Actions done in conformity of duty have no moral content unlike actions done from duty. But I believe that both are the same since you conform to your duty because of the duty itself. 4. I don’t think humans do things independent of their desires. One’s action is always connected to his beliefs and his desires, whether it is the desire to really do something or just to conform. 5. Universal laws, such as the preservation of life, cover different societies, cultures and races. And it is hard to make a universal law as it takes time for people to believe in it. 6. Treating someone as an end means we do things in consideration with the results not merely the actions towards the result. Read More