Moral Philosophy
According to Hedonism, happiness and pleasure are of the highest and ultimate intrinsic value. John Stuart Mills, a classical Utilitarian, stated that "The Utilitarian doctrines is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as a means to that end." (Rachels 108) Utilitarianism and Hedonism go hand in hand in this situation. There are several aspects of Hedonism that are best defined by the works of Aristotle, Midgely, Frankenna, and James Rachels. These authors take several different, but through approaches to the different ideas of Hedonism. Aristotle bases his arguments on Hedonism in the fact that happiness comes from fulfilling our nature, and human nature is rooted in excellence. He states that the "highest good must be something final" (Nichomachean Ethics 200) He describes the inherent good for all of mankind is happiness and fulfilling our virtues in an excellent way. The two kinds of virtue that Aristotle points out is intellectual virtue(divine) and moral virtue(generosity and self control). There are also two counterparts of the human psyche, divine reason and animal desire. Aristotle says that we as humans need to find a middle ground for our emotions to
There is no logical connection between religion, but yet there is a very strong psychological connection between them. Neitzsche, Hobbes, and James Rachels continue the debate over hedonism as well as the idea of Egoism. She states that some actions are based on human nature. He is an ethical egoist who states that altruism will eventually stop individuality and the weak will be sacrificed by the strong and powerful. To me, this is just another way of saying yourself to be a non-hedonist. God has made all people rational, not just believers; and so, for believer and non believer alike, behaving morally is a matter of listening to reason and following it's directives. Religion and morality should not be intertwined due to its subjectivity and also the fact that religion can deny the progress of morality. The overlying question that we must keep in mind is how objective is ethics? After taking into consideration the ideas of relativism, subjectivism, and religion in ethics, I have come to the conclusion that although ethics should be objective, it is in most cases not objective at all. These two circumstances are morally unacceptable under any condition and anyplace in the world. Ethical egoism states "that we have no duty except to do what is best for ourselves'. Her arguments are well formulated and I came to the conclusion that Midgely was a non-hedonist, placing not only happiness as the ultimate good, but also there are many other components which make up the highest good. If we take religion for example, there are hundreds of different types of religion, and just as many different gods that people may choose to worship. Hobbes points out the harshness of a "state of nature", which he describes as a "constant state of war, of one with all". (Rachels 145) the problem with this is, many people including myself do not believe that the natural state of man is a warring state. After I took all of these problems into consideration, I found the social contract theory to not make much sense, but then again, if Hobbes had his way, we would all be living in a 21st century police state.
Common topics in this essay:
According Rachels,
James Rachels,
Jesus Christ,
Natural Law,
Webster's Dictionary,
Jerry Falwell,
Nichomachean Ethics,
Egoism Egoism,
Hedonism Aristotle,
Stuart Mills,
social contract,
psychological egoism,
ethical egoism,
social contract theory,
contract theory,
happiness pleasure,
james rachels,
human nature,
intrinsic value,
egoism ethical egoism,
jerry falwell,
question mind,
psychological egoism ethical,
|
Acceptance Essays
