I think Plato’s argument that what is holy and what is approved of by the gods are not the same thing is convincing. If we’ll take a deeper look, being holy and being approved of have a big difference in terms of standards and construction. First, what is holy means something that is sacred or sanctified. In terms of standards, the things that are considered holy are natural. Meaning, these are the things that have been blessed and considered holy because of divine interventions.
In terms of construction, these are the things that are concrete. Meaning, these cannot be bend or changed in any situation that may occur. On the other hand, what are approved of by the gods are things that are created on a case to case basis depending on different factors like the notion of justice. Compared to those that are holy, those that are approved by the gods may be changed or modified. What is holy may or may not be approved by the gods, while what is approved of by the gods may or may not be considered holy.
Discussion 4: Though there are the co-called “white lies” that are used so that people won’t be able to hurt other people from the truth and protect their personal interests, still a lie is a lie. For me, there are no particular incidents by which we can say that it is right to lie. As I’ve heard before, “A lie only produces a thousand more lies. ” Truth hurts but lies are worst. Also, it has been stated that telling a lie is a sin. May it be minimal, still, it is lying. Kant said that moral good must be based on reason. If a person would tell a lie for the reason of protecting his/her personal interest, is the lie considered moral?
Of course not. Because it was also stated that “Kant wants to use moral principles as a protection against people that would want to behave only in their own best interests, for personal gain, or based only on feelings. ” I think, the scope of morality is way too big because morality may also depend on each culture and belief that people possess. Discussion 5: Most situations that we see on TV and even in real life are scenarios of big kids bullying the smaller ones in school. The big kids would harass the smaller ones to make them do their assignments, exams and even take money or snacks from them.
This can be a simple example of using other person merely as means. On the other hand, there are also those who are kind who protect the smaller kids and help them to keep away from the bullies. This is a case in which a person is respecting another person as an end-in-him/herself. Referring to Kant’s text, “The moral system of Kant depends too on the idea of our freedom. Kant describes being free as following our own rational principles, instead of just our desires “, I think it is impossible to live a life in which we do not use other people merely as means.
This is because, there are no perfect persons in the world and when we sometimes use our freedom, we tend to choose to do the things that would benefit us rather than opt those that are entirely moral and rational. Not using a person in this world is much too ideal. Discussion 6: I believe that people should do what is in their own self interest as long as is morally right and does not oppose any rules or law governing him/her. I don’t agree with Ethical Egoism. Indeed, there are things which we desire or want for ourselves.
But, the first question we should ask is “Do we really need what we want? ” because in the first place, not everything we want is really essential to us. A “want” is different from a “need”. Also, what we ought to do is analyze the things we want. If we think these “wants” are justifiable and attainable but in a righteous way, then maybe we can pursue these. If I have the ring, I’ll think very carefully of what to do with it. Ideally, I would do what is rightful and fair. Discussion 7: I don’t agree with Mill that the proper standard of making the world a better place is through happiness.
Mill stated that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness… the happiness of a group of individuals taken as a whole is desirable for the group as a whole”. Let’s say for example, we have a group of corrupt politicians. Their action to produce happiness is through corruption and what is desirable for their group is stealing millions of money from the people for their personal benefit. It supports the idea of Mill yet did they make the world a better place? No. therefore, happiness is not the proper standard of making the world a better place.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX