Ethics for Everyday Life - Assignment Example

What is philosophy all about? What is the matter of ethics? How have we distinguishedin our class the terms ethics, morality, and values? What is the distinction between descriptive and normative language? What is the language of ethics? Finally, the ancient Greeks consider ethics as a matter of the good life. What do they mean when they talk about the goal of our lives as eudaimonia? What do you find most engaging in the discipline of ethics at this point in your life? How do you understand the good life? Philosophy is an art, subject or a view itself that revolves around the basis of everyones opinions. It is the reasoning that one uses when he tries to define certain things and the root values for that reasoning are based in Philosophy. Morality revolves around the personal belief of an individual that would be more concerned with good or bad in comparison to ethics in which the beliefs of the society as a whole are given importance. Values on the other hand can be explained as the belief of an individual that relates to his personal traits. These values can be derived from the cultural beliefs or the opinion of the person himself. Descriptive language revolves around the concept of judging as to what is wrong and what is right. On the other hand normative language is a way through which things are rather done in light of the judgments given. Ethics particularly focus on normative language as the individual is supposed to do the task based on the beliefs and not just accept the facts (Robin 1-9). Philosophers have used eudaimonia to explain a state in which the person accepts the citizen virtues as instinctive behaviors. This state would mean that the person has reached his ultimate goal in life as explained by the Greeks. I believe that doing the right thing is the most important part in the discipline of ethics. A good life is not all about money but rather revolves around reasoning and functionality of a human being. It is necessary for individuals to be involved in reasoning and functionality as per the virtues to have a good life (Robinson 42-43; Sandel 20-40). 2. What are at least three elements or characteristics of the tradition of Socrates and Plato? What are at least three ways that these two philosophers are in disagreement with the Sophists: Parmenides, Thrasymachus, and Callicles. Do you think that the Socratic/Platonic emphasis on seeking the Good is the best approach? Or, do you think that the Sophists agenda makes sense in that they are training their students for success in the world. Does one or the other really matter? The three characteristics of the tradition of Plato and Socrates revolve around the beliefs in philosophy. Both the philosophers laid down a method through which the incorrect hypothesis could be rejected by dividing a series of questions. The tradition is mostly related to the belief in Good and doing the right thing. Thirdly, the search of virtue is considered as the most important characteristic provided by the philosophers. The two philosophers were strictly against the Sophists and they used different reasons to deny their teachings. The Sophists were striving hard to teach their students a way to success whereas Socrates was teaching them a way to find virtue through which they could find happiness. Socrates and Plato believe that they are in the phase of learning even though they know quite a lot than others and this argument can be seen as a denial to the methods of the Sophists. The Sophists claim to have great knowledge in the subject they are teaching but when they encounter an argument they usually give up. Similarly Socrates does not deliver his knowledge for a fee but the Sophists usually take money for delivering their knowledge. Lastly they deny the Sophists by arguing that the method of teaching adopted by them is totally wrong as they believe that they are more knowledgeable than the student whereas Socrates believes that everyone is knowledgeable in their own state. I believe that the approach of Socrates is better than the Sophists approach because virtue in itself is a cure for almost everything in this world. If we go after success we might fail on the aspects of virtue, however if we go after virtue we surely are destined to succeed in life (Plato, Grube & Cooper 21-30). 3. Anthropologists like Ruth Benedict are ‘cultural relativists.’ Define what it means to be a ‘cultural relativist.’ What are the claims that are made from that position. However, there is another theory called ‘ethical relativism.’ What is its definition? How does it differ from ‘cultural relativism?’ Why do ethicists believe Benedict has made a logical mistake in moving from ‘cultural’ to ‘ethical relativism’ the way she does? How much do you hold that the ‘morally right’ and the ‘morally wrong’ are culturally determined? A cultural relativist can be defined as an individual who determines the difference of cultures based on the theories of moral codes. In other words, these individuals base their concerns on the morality of the culture itself and not other factors. Individuals who are related to being cultural relativists believe that the culture cannot stratified on the basis of rights and wrongs as certain things are moral in certain cultures whereas others are not. On the other hand ethical relativism is a theory that relates to the rights and wrongs of the culture as being practiced in the world today. Ethicists believe that Benedict took a wrong decision in changing gears to ethical relativism as she would not be taken into consideration the beliefs of the specific culture that is being pointed upon. The cultural devices and modes differ in terms of opinion and thoughts and hence it is necessary for Benedict to take that into consideration. I believe that morally right and morally wrong are things that happen around in the world and they should not be determined by the culture. This is because certain practices in the cultures are ill-defined and hence should be frowned upon (Robinson 17-31; Rachels 18) 4. Thomas Hobbes represents a theory that is called Psychological Egoism. First, explain what that theory holds, and then explain why it is a common, even popular position that many people endorse. What are at least two problems with this theory? What is your personal view regarding human self-centeredness? Psychological Egoism is a theory that revolves around the self-interest of an individual rather than the greater good of the society. It is a theory that many individuals follow to satiate their nature. It is a common belief of many people that psychological egoism revolves around selfishness and everyone acts in a good manner so that they can get something return. This theory however has its own problems when analyzed from a rationalistic point of view. In many cases a person acts in accordance to his own benefit but he does not even know that this will lead to his own benefit. Similarly certain individuals get happiness by doing things that may prove helpful to others and this clearly denies the concept of the theory. In this instance the individuals would not be doing it for the other people but would be doing to get happy themselves. In other words these individuals do not qualify to be called egoistic or selfish, hence the theory would not apply here. I believe that human self-centeredness is an in-born trait which cannot be modified. It can be manipulated on specific instances and that is where morality comes (Pogman & Fieser 81-86). 5. Then, there is the theory of Ethical Egoism, held by Ayn Rand, among others. What does she believe to be the difficulties surrounding ‘altruism’ (other concern) as a principal motivation for our actions? Why does she value ‘self-interest’ as the most valuable motivator for our actions? Do you agree with her assessment of selfishness as a virtue? Why or why not? Ayn Rand believes that altruism or ethical egoism is the perfect answer to leading a life in this world. She believes that one can benefit only if personal concerns and satisfaction is kept above all. In other words one can only survive in this world if he is able to keep his interests above all. She believes self interest is a valuable motivator for all our actions as it helps us to survive in the world. This self interest in accordance to her belief will help one to preserve oneself. I think that selfishness is not a virtue as it is something which is not in-born. Selfishness comes as a way through which many can possibly thrive but it surely is not a virtue as it does not help the society as a whole (Pojman & Fieser 89-91). References Top of Form Pojman, Louis P, and James Fieser. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Bottom of Form Top of Form Robinson, David. Ethics for Everyday Life: A Practical Guide. London: Icon, 2012. Print. Top of Form Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986. Print. Top of Form Plato, , and G M. A. Grube. Five Dialogues. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1981. Print. Top of Form Sandel, Michael J. Justice: Whats the Right Thing to Do?New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. Print. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Read More