The Observation of Moral Life to Its Codification - Admission/Application Essay Example

Month Universals: Contrast the views of Plato with Aristotle on the nature of universals. ‘Universals’ are general ideas according to the medieval philosophy. The dispute about the universals discussed whether they are objectively real or they are only the names of things. The problem of the universals with its definition first appeared in the teachings of Plato. He maintained that general ideas (universals) have a real existence, while the individual things that appeared to people really existing did not exist in fact. Ideas composed a special world, the reality of which was permanent and immobile. The ideas were the true cause of all things, their properties, relations, and, simultaneously, their goal. The general was dying in the individual specific things. Aristotle criticized Plato’s concept. Of the crucial importance for Aristotle was the fact that general was manifested only through the individual that was given through the sense experience. The ideas depended on subjects that could be perceived. As the essence of things, the ideas could not be separated from the things, essence of which they were. 2. Teleology: Describe in some detail the role of this concept in Aristotle’s metaphysics and his Ethics. Teleology is the philosophical doctrine of explaining the development of the world by the finite and purposeful reasons. Already in ancient philosophy, the processes of development in the wildlife and in the history were explained with special purpose causes. The principles of such teleological explanation were formulated by Aristotle. He believed that like the human activities included current goals, the natural phenomena included inherent potential target, which was realized in the course of the development of the phenomena. This goal served an internal cause, through which the movement from the lower to the higher stage was performed and finally reached the highest stage of development. The whole process Aristotle called “entelechy”. He considered the latter as the purpose cause and the teleological explanations were complement to casual explanations. Ethics of Aristotle is implicitly of teleological character. He is not interested in the act, but the act aimed at achieving good. Anything that helps to achieve this benefit or purpose is correct; anything that prevents the achievement of true good is wrong. 3. “The Center does not Hold”: Why is this a concern for Descartes and how does he address it? How does Hume attack his proposed program? Using a method of radical doubt, in search of the most significant principle, Descartes refers to our “self”. He considers “cogito”, the area of human consciousness, as an ultimate reality, because it is the only thing that has an immediate evidence for us. Descartes said, that he did not know if there were any sorts of conceivable objects, but he was determined that his doubt existed. The doubt is the act of thinking. In this respect, according to Descartes, if the one thinks, the one exists (cogito ergo sum). The latter is the first and the most significant situation for which the reverse cannot be imagined. Thus, to the nature of thinking and to the human, as the thinking being, physicality is irrelevant. So, according to Descartes, there is no “center” for the one, except himself. Since even “self” can be questioned, there is no one unquestionable center. Criticizing the substantial understanding of the “self” of Descartes, Hume denies the validity of the presence in us any “self”. Hume assumed that we had no idea of “self”. If the idea of self is generated by certain impression, this impression should remain of the same identity throughout the life. Hume admitted that there cannot be any impression that remains unchangeable during the lifetime. 4. The Problem of Induction: What exactly is it, what are its sources in Hume’s philosophy and what are its consequences? Induction is a method of reasoning from the particular to the general. The philosophical problem of induction was first developed in the mid 17th century by David Hume. Hume questioned the validity of the induction reasoning, putting forward the question whether on the basis of a range of experiences that happened to us we can make judgments about the cases that we had not met before. In other words, we cannot make the claim that all swans are white basing on the fact that we have met only white swans. What would happen to our conclusion when we meet the black swan? Hume himself gave a negative answer to this question, regardless of the number of cases already met. This problem is a typical confusion, because the one can uncritically assume the existence of a positive solution to “Hume’s problem of Induction”. However, Hume had shown that the positive solution did not exist. 5. “You cannot derive ‘Ought’ from ‘is’”: What, precisely, is the point of this expression, and what consequences did it have on Ethics after Hume? “You cannot derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’’, which is also known as Hume’s Law, is a principle that affirms the impossibility of the transition of the ‘is’ judgment to ‘ought’ judgment solely on the basis of logic. Hume showed that ethics makes a rough mistake when thinking that certain assertions about the moral duty and right can be derived on the basis of the current state of affairs. From the beginning of the 20th century Hume’s “’is’ – ‘ought’ problem” began to attract attention of the philosophers, logicians, and theorists of justice. In particular, with its help Poincare pointed the futility of the scientific study of morality, and Popper considered Hume’s Law important in relation to the Liberalism doctrine. Hume’s ideas were important for the methodology of sciences that are aiming to justify certain values and demands. Regarding Hume’s Law, ethics cannot move from the observation of moral life to its codification. In this respect, all the systems of normative ethics are not based on facts, but are autonomous and equal. Read More