Ethics is one of the most major and important topics discussed in philosophy. All philosophers have their own ideas and theories on this subject along with every person as an individual. Ethics deals with questions concerning how people should act, and the search for a definition of right behaviors and wrong behaviors. There are three branches in the philosophy of ethics: Meta-Ethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics. Meta- Ethics attempts to answer the fundamental philosophical questions about the nature of ethical theories. Cognitivism would be an idea under this branch of ethics. It is the idea that moral judgments can be true or false. Normative Ethics is the study of what makes actions right or wrong, good or bad? With this philosophy,
…show more content…
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher in the 15th and 16th century and was best known for his political thoughts and views. His main focus was on the issue of social and political order and whether human beings can live together in peace and evade the danger and fear of civil conflict. His solutions to these concerns were simple: We should give our obedience to a sovereign, which is a person or group empowered to decide every social and political issue. If we don’t do this then we will be in a "state of nature" that is most like a civil war, where chaos, fear, and insecurity is inevitable. Hobbes would much rather use the ‘Social Contract’ method: a group of people to agree and make laws and then finding someone with the same ideas to rule and enforce them. He believes that humans need to be ruled to bring order and that the only person who is equal would be the sovereign who is ruling over everyone. As well-known as Hobbes political ideas are, I however disagree with them. I don’t believe that people have to be ruled over in order for there to be order. I view everyone as equal and that social statuses don’t matter. To bring order, the government has to be equal and fair to everyone. On the contrary, no government is perfect. There will always be chaos, seeing that you can’t make everyone happy since we all have different views. I agree with John Locks political ideas for starting a government. Three branches of …show more content…
Aquinas is widely known for his ‘synthesis of the two aforementioned traditions’ and his five proofs for God’s existence. For his arguments on ethics, he believes that there is a connection between the righteous man and God by explaining how the righteous act is carried out in the name of god. He believes that we can never accomplish complete or full happiness in this lifetime. For him, full happiness is achieved through the supernatural union with God. This ending can be found far beyond what we can attain and because of this we only need virtues and for God to alter our nature to achieve this ‘ending’. I strongly disagree with these beliefs that only with God we can attain true happiness. Perhaps this is because I myself do not know if God exists or not but for me, I have gained happiness in my life already and that was without God. Another idea of Aquinas I disagree with is the acts of doing something right is carried out only in the name of God. I do good things because it’s what I believe and feel to be right, not because some ‘God’ told me it was the right thing to do. I try to do good things for my own happiness and for the sake and compassion for
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher in the 15th and 16th century and was best known for his political thoughts and views. His main focus was on the issue of social and political order and whether human beings can live together in peace and evade the danger and fear of civil conflict. His solutions to these concerns were simple: We should give our obedience to a sovereign, which is a person or group empowered to decide every social and political issue. If we don’t do this then we will be in a "state of nature" that is most like a civil war, where chaos, fear, and insecurity is inevitable. Hobbes would much rather use the ‘Social Contract’ method: a group of people to agree and make laws and then finding someone with the same ideas to rule and enforce them. He believes that humans need to be ruled to bring order and that the only person who is equal would be the sovereign who is ruling over everyone. As well-known as Hobbes political ideas are, I however disagree with them. I don’t believe that people have to be ruled over in order for there to be order. I view everyone as equal and that social statuses don’t matter. To bring order, the government has to be equal and fair to everyone. On the contrary, no government is perfect. There will always be chaos, seeing that you can’t make everyone happy since we all have different views. I agree with John Locks political ideas for starting a government. Three branches of …show more content…
Aquinas is widely known for his ‘synthesis of the two aforementioned traditions’ and his five proofs for God’s existence. For his arguments on ethics, he believes that there is a connection between the righteous man and God by explaining how the righteous act is carried out in the name of god. He believes that we can never accomplish complete or full happiness in this lifetime. For him, full happiness is achieved through the supernatural union with God. This ending can be found far beyond what we can attain and because of this we only need virtues and for God to alter our nature to achieve this ‘ending’. I strongly disagree with these beliefs that only with God we can attain true happiness. Perhaps this is because I myself do not know if God exists or not but for me, I have gained happiness in my life already and that was without God. Another idea of Aquinas I disagree with is the acts of doing something right is carried out only in the name of God. I do good things because it’s what I believe and feel to be right, not because some ‘God’ told me it was the right thing to do. I try to do good things for my own happiness and for the sake and compassion for