Curzer's Argument Analysis

Improved Essays
from that era actually worked. There are many theorists that contradict the traditional family from the 1950s and give more support to Curzer’s claim.
One of the philosophers that creates a conflict to the traditional family and helps Curzer’s argument is John Stuart Mill. Mill’s moral theory states that morality is about the consequences of our actions and not about character like Aristotle says, or arguments or intentions. Mill says that morality is about producing as much happiness as you can and always choose pleasure over pain. Mill defines happiness as pleasure and no pain. Mill says that pleasure and pain are still guiding moral concern, but, a different concern. The traditional family is unjust and causes much pain to the victim which
…show more content…
Hobbes’ principle of equality says that no human being is so powerful as to be immature from the danger of being in the way of what other human beings want. Hobbes believes the people are selfish and dangerous to each other. Hobbes also says that even though it is to believe that everyone is equal, we think we are superior to others. Curzer believes that traditional husbands believed they were superior to their wives in some ways and that they did not have anything to lose against them. Hobbes states that nature has made men equal in faculties of the body and mind but there is always a person that thinks is better than others. this might be because they most of the time prove that they are better than others but other people might be better than them. In the traditional family, men think that they can do housewife work and think that they do not need a woman because everything they do is easy. In the traditional family of the 1950s, the housework was very low rated and sometimes it was not even considered as a real job. Curzer thought this was unjust because like Hobbes says there are certain things that you can be good at but there are other things that other people are better at it than you. Aristotle’s goal is happiness and Hobbes’ goal is to have a simple and pure life. Hobbes created three natural law that every human should follow if they want to have a simple and pure life. Happiness is not always good if there is no good intension behind

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Mill believes that pleasure is something that can bring good things to people and thereby bringing good things…

    • 191 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Morality is a system of moral conduct, or conformity to ideals of \correct human conduct. In the novel Anthem by Ayn Rand, one system of morality was so distorted that Equality creates his own system of morals. Throughout Anthem, Equality, the narrator, goes through a series of events that led him to change his view of morality. At the end of Anthem, the collectivist society’s view of morality remains the same while Equality’s view of morality is changed to ideals of right human conduct.…

    • 1137 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    JOHN LOCKE 1. What does Locke mean when he refers to the laws of nature? Describe what rights and liberties man would have living in a state of nature. Be sure to include specific examples from the reading. (2 pts.)…

    • 1724 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill defines utilitarianism as “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness,” (484) He then begins to explain that happiness is the absence of pain, and pain is the absence of pleasure. He refers to utilitarianism as the Greatest Happiness Principle. Many people that disagreed with Mill’s definition of utilitarianism insulted his work by stating it as a “doctrine worthy only of swine,” (Mill 485). Mill responds to this attack by stating “...for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other,” (Mill 485). Mill responds to this insult by comparing human…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes acknowledges the importance of having understanding of such things as the voluntary motions produced by imagination. These endeavors move us toward desires with the added skill of knowing how to read others, stemming from the ability to know oneself or read oneself. This proves beneficial when it comes down to attaining the main desire of many men, which is financial or security related. Hobbes equates strength with wealth. Aristotle argues wealth is too superficial to be what we seek, claiming wealth is not the good we seek, the good we divine to be.…

    • 190 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is a paper comparing the Aristotle and Hobbes understandings of human nature. Aristotle states that man is a “political animal”, and that it is thus natural for man to live in a polis. Hobbes disagrees with this understanding of man a political animal, as he claims that man is actually a greedy being that is driven by power. Thus he feels that the natural state of man is a state of war. Although the two disagree initially about the man’s natural state, Aristotle comes to agree with Hobbes’ view since they agree that without a common sense of justice that individuals have no reason to live together.…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Proven above, we know this is very different than Kant. It is evident that Kant’s ideas solely focused on the intention, but opposite, Mill is more concerned about the outcome. Mill emphasizes the consequences of an action and how the consequence of an action is the justification of morality. If an outcome brings you happiness or the least amount of pain then we are achieving the goal of morality, for Mill. Although many argue that utility does not take play in justice, Mill disagrees.…

    • 1441 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Anarchism: What It Really Stands For, Emma Goldman states: “Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature”. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two of the most influential modern philosophers, presumed to speak authoritatively on human nature. They presumed so much so, that each of the philosophers dedicated the bulk of a novel to discussing their interpretation of human nature. In fact, Goldman herself speaks quite extensively on her interpretation of human nature. Hobbes, Locke, and Goldman fit together nicely on the philosophy of human nature spectrum.…

    • 1170 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    There are also many conflicting situations that people face since their judgments of pleasure are different. This disprove Mill’s argument that pleasure’s quality is one of the main part of moral actions. His logic of high quality pleasure is hard to prove since everyone’s happiness is different. A result might have different meanings to varied people, so it is hard to find the sum of happiness. Morality is balanced to people’s true happiness, but not based on the sum of…

    • 1239 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes, on the other hand, thinks that people only care about power and appetite. We want certain things and we want to get power to get those things. Hobbes’ view is that there is no such thing as responsibility. Moreover, we look at the state of nature. Locke stated that the state of nature is the state of no government; law that obliges everyone and reason.…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    No morality exists. Everyone lives in constant fear. Because of this fear, no one is really free. However, in the state of nature everyone has the right to everything because there is no limit to natural rights. His theory that common security should be favored and that a bit of individual liberty should be sacrificed by each person to achieve it is an inaccurate policy. Hobbes believes the contract is a mutual transferring of rights.…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This is based on the Utilitarian principle that one should act towards the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This promotes happiness and pleasure while condemning anything that causes pain. Mill believes that the purpose for any person’s actions is to experience pleasure or to avoid pain. Though this ultimate telos for happiness may seem like a good system, there are flaws that do not coincide with human nature. One issue with this theory is that it does not take into consideration that different people have different preferences and ideas of what is pleasurable.…

    • 1510 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Thomas Hobbes is a well renowned philosopher, specifically in the world of political philosophy. His work the Leviathan opened up revolutionary ideas that were beyond his time. Hobbes wrote the “Leviathan” during the English Civil War, a war caused by religion and violently ending with the beheading of the king. Hobbes watched this madness unfold, leading him to extend a “helping hand” over to England authority, by publicizing a solution for all to read. His work introduced a radical topic by the name of “Social Contract,” which proposed that a person’s morals and/or political obligations are dependent on an agreement to form or coexist in a society.…

    • 1364 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Thus, actions are deemed right or wrong based on the balance of pleasing and painful consequences that result. In Mill’s words, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill makes an important distinction between higher intellectual pleasures of the mind, and lower sensual pleasures of the body. Mental pleasures are qualitatively superior to bodily ones, and thus have more importance when assessing the consequences of our…

    • 1259 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hobbes wants the society to work together meaning giving some rights up in exchange for protection. “This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals” (Thomas Hobbes). For example, if two people want something they both can’t enjoy or use then they quickly become enemies. Hobbes view, “A law of nature is a command or general rule, discovered by reason, which forbids a man to do anything that is destructive of his life or takes away his means for preserving his life, and forbids him to omit anything by which he thinks his life can best be preserved” (Leviathan, Chapter 14). Those who debate this subject often mistake right and law to be the same yet they ought to be distinguished.…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays