Topics For Consideration
According to Socrates, the moral person wins out over the immoral person even though the immoral person takes advantage of the moral person in matters of money and business. This claim is incredibly true. It is true due to the fact that a moral person doesn’t find his/her happiness in matters of money and business. However, the moral person finds his/her happiness in the relationships they build over their lifespan. If you chase material possessions and never experience the true value of giving. Moral people discover true happiness through the spirit of giving. Chasing material possessions in belief that it will bring you happiness is untrue.
Socrates once said “The soul is like the city”. In my view this simile is …show more content…
Pleasure is the amount of happiness an item has. This means that quality over quantity. Egoism is a reality, we make our decisions based on what we truly desire.
Utilitarianism cannot be justified because it doesn’t support justice. Utilitarianism simply means “greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people”. It is unfair and wrong to take from a person who has earned what they have, just to give it to others to make them content. For example, it is wrong to take a lonely man’s organs just to keep others alive. We all have the opportunity to live and succeed, we are entitled to things, it is immoral to take items that belong to other people. This is why I do not support Utilitarianism.
Kant thinks that the only morally right actions are those whose maxim can be univerlazxted. Right actions are recognized as good by all people, that is not the case with bad action. A group may say that polygamy is moral, while another would say it is not immoral. When the maxim over something is thought of as good to every thinking being, it is …show more content…
Kantianism would view it inmortal due to the fact that we wouldn 't want to be robbed, this means it is wrong to rob others.
Utilitarianism would say to keep lying, it keeps everyone out of harm 's way. Kantianism would say it is immoral because the woman would certainly want her children to obey her own death wishes.
Utilitarianism would want execution, the payout would make the people happy due to their detest of the person. Kantianism would not want the person to be executed because no person wishes execution.
Kant states that it is always wrong to use another person for one’s own purpose. I disagree, the concept of employment is a key factor. In most employment positions we have a superior, someone to tell us what to do. Metaphorically let’s imagine I work for a paper company, in the corporate branch. I have a superior, who also has a superior. In the long run, we are all working to benefit people who are profiting off of the
According to Socrates, the moral person wins out over the immoral person even though the immoral person takes advantage of the moral person in matters of money and business. This claim is incredibly true. It is true due to the fact that a moral person doesn’t find his/her happiness in matters of money and business. However, the moral person finds his/her happiness in the relationships they build over their lifespan. If you chase material possessions and never experience the true value of giving. Moral people discover true happiness through the spirit of giving. Chasing material possessions in belief that it will bring you happiness is untrue.
Socrates once said “The soul is like the city”. In my view this simile is …show more content…
Pleasure is the amount of happiness an item has. This means that quality over quantity. Egoism is a reality, we make our decisions based on what we truly desire.
Utilitarianism cannot be justified because it doesn’t support justice. Utilitarianism simply means “greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people”. It is unfair and wrong to take from a person who has earned what they have, just to give it to others to make them content. For example, it is wrong to take a lonely man’s organs just to keep others alive. We all have the opportunity to live and succeed, we are entitled to things, it is immoral to take items that belong to other people. This is why I do not support Utilitarianism.
Kant thinks that the only morally right actions are those whose maxim can be univerlazxted. Right actions are recognized as good by all people, that is not the case with bad action. A group may say that polygamy is moral, while another would say it is not immoral. When the maxim over something is thought of as good to every thinking being, it is …show more content…
Kantianism would view it inmortal due to the fact that we wouldn 't want to be robbed, this means it is wrong to rob others.
Utilitarianism would say to keep lying, it keeps everyone out of harm 's way. Kantianism would say it is immoral because the woman would certainly want her children to obey her own death wishes.
Utilitarianism would want execution, the payout would make the people happy due to their detest of the person. Kantianism would not want the person to be executed because no person wishes execution.
Kant states that it is always wrong to use another person for one’s own purpose. I disagree, the concept of employment is a key factor. In most employment positions we have a superior, someone to tell us what to do. Metaphorically let’s imagine I work for a paper company, in the corporate branch. I have a superior, who also has a superior. In the long run, we are all working to benefit people who are profiting off of the