Abstract This paper examines St. Augustine's doctrine on evil. St. Augustine believed that God made a perfect world, but that God's creatures turned away from God of their own free will, through different types of falls, and that is how evil originated in the world. It shows how Augustine's approach to a solution to the problem of evil has three main parts: The author explains how Augustine assumes that evil is a privation and cannot be properly said to exist at all, he argues that the apparent imperfection of any part of creation disappears in light of the perfection of the whole and he argues that moral evil, together with that suffering which is created as punishment for sin, originates in the free nature of the will of all creatures. According to Augustine, God has allowed evil to exist in the world because it does not conflict with His goodness. He did not create evil but is also not a victim of it. He simply allows it to exist.
From the Paper "In Augustine's study of the problem of evil, he argues that there are a variety of things that are good. Without this variety, he says, there can be a greater good ness of things as a whole than there would be if this variety did not exist. Augustine also argues that evil is not completely real in itself. Instead, it is dependent on something more real, like disease, which is a form of evil. He points out that disease can only exist in a body, which is a form of good. Therefore, Augustine says, God, who is the source of everything that exists, is not in contest with a positive being or a counterpart that is evil."
Abstract This paper first outlines Baruch Spinoza's argument in Part 1 of the "Ethics" for "substance monism" - the position that there exists only one substance. It then explains how Spinoza's position differs from that of Gottfried Leibniz in the "Discourse on Metaphysics". The paper concludes with the assertion that Leibniz's account for the nature and number of substances is superior since accepting Spinoza's conclusions leads to a number of logically troublesome consequences.
From the Paper "Leibniz's account for the nature and number of substances differs significantly from Spinoza's. For Spinoza, there is only one substance in the world: God. Leibniz essentially agrees that there is only one true substance. However, to Leibniz this substance is the monad, comparable to a soul or spirit, which "is nothing but a simple substance that enters into composites" (Monadology, p. 484). For Leibniz, God exists external to the world of monads, and might be best thought of as a type of "supersubstance" or "supermonad." It was God who set the world in motion; therefore, substances depend on God for their existence. Since Leibniz's God possesses the will to create or destroy substances "in accordance with the principle of the best" (M., p. 487), God is the only necessary being. All other monads, then, depend on Him for their existence, and as such, are non-eternal contingent beings. Spinoza's pantheism forces the conclusion that all substance is eternal; if it were not eternal, then it would have to be created, which would then violate his definition of substance as something "that the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it has to be formed" (E., p. 416)."
Abstract This paper examines how Nietzsche ultimately argues that Kantian reason in justifying the categorical imperative is enslaving. It explains that not only is the logic of the categorical imperative enslaving, but also it is ultimately cruel because it restricts the freedom of individuals and holds back the good from prospering. The categorical imperative argues that there is an inherent value to morality and that doing one's moral duty is an imperative.
From the Paper "Kant further argues that actions can only be called moral if they are undertaken only for their own sake without regard to their ends and without regard to the specific of the situation. One must be willing to will his actions as a universal law in order for them to be considered moral. Nietzsche soundly denies this concept, arguing that morals don?t have intrinsic value but derive their meaning from a historical event. Morals are contextual, and, even worse, a degradation and perversion of the natural order. Nietzsche discusses the manner in which morality developed to enslave the stronger among humanity, and how this historical "slave revolt in morality" has served to cruelly enslave man. Nietzsche believes that "bad conscience" has served to enslave humanity and pervades all of culture, rendering it cruel, harmful, and unnatural. In science, Nietzsche momentarily locates the possibility of an antidote to the morality of ?good and evil,? but due to the significance it places on truth, Nietzsche ultimately dismisses it, too. Only by transcending conventional Judeo-Christian morality can the cruelty of the culture of the categorical imperative ultimately be overcome."
Abstract This paper looks at Renee Descartes' approach to the question, is mind the same thing as body and if yes, how and if no, why not? It summarizes the arguments Descartes presented in support of his views and offers opposing opinions to each of Descartes' arguments.
From the Paper "The discussion over the relationship between mind and body that has been intriguing philosophers for a long time is divided into two broad categories: dualism and monism. According to dualism mind and body are two separate substances. There are several types of dualist views including parallelism, epiphenomenalism, occassionalism and interactionism. John Locke and Rene Descartes are among those who laid the foundation of this idea. Whereas Locke and Descartes believed in Dualism, there were other famous philosophers and thinkers who supported monism. Monism refers to the theory that mind and body are inseparable and thus one is influenced by the other."
Abstract This essay discusses how Locke and Rousseau had two very different conceptions of human freedom. Rousseau's vision entailed a society where the individual's will was subordinate to the "general will." Locke, meanwhile, believed that freedom was impossible if individual freedom was not at the root of society.
Abstract This paper examines the principles of utilitarianism, a deontological theory that assesses morality by looking ahead to the end result and the consequences that it will cause in terms if the happiness generated. It outlines some of the criticisms levelled at utilitarianism as a theory- such as those of ignoring personal factors, being too complex to undertake,and not allowing for any concrete intrimnsic moral values.
From the Paper "It is also not possible for an individual to be able to fully envisage all of the possible consequences an action might lead to. The decision made may therefore not be fully informed and could have disastrous unforeseeable results. As a deontological theory then, it becomes redundant. The act of calculation itself becomes too complicated to be able to employ in everyday life. People are not able to contemplate any result that could arise from any action they consider in terms of the happiness benefit. This hugely undermines the practicality of such a theory, as it would unrecognisably transform a persons life."
Tags: consequentialism, ethics, mills, morality, philosophy, rawls, theory, williams
Abstract This paper examines how in the book, "Phaedo", Plato argues that the human being is spiritual and offers a series of arguments that illustrate that human beings are not just material beings, but have a spiritual component in the form of an immortal soul. It looks at how one of the arguments in this work is known as the "recollection argument." The argument is described, then followed with a critical analysis that questions its validity. In conclusion, a new position on the argument is analyzed, which offers a suitable alternative to Plato's theory and illustrates that the "recollection argument" is not valid evidence that there is a soul that exists before birth.
From the Paper "Another problem is that Plato does not provide evidence for the idea of recollection as a whole. For example, Plato says that recollection is recalling something that has been previously known. However, not everything an individual experiences is based on recollection. A person who sees a hat for the first time, may not recall anything based on viewing the hat. Instead, they acquire knowledge from the experience of seeing a hat. Therefore, experiencing something is a means of acquiring knowledge. The problem in Plato's argument is that he does not make a case for why developing values cannot be based on experience. For example, he asserts that individuals are born with a sense of 'absolute beauty' which is used to determine the level of beauty of a scene or an individual."
Abstract This paper summarizes and interprets the dialogue in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". The paper explains the symbolism of the allegory and interprets Plato's message about ignorance and the human ability to achieve knowledge, the travails of a philosopher, invisible truths, and how we should educate people.
From the Paper "The allegory of the cave can be summed up in one single sentence. It symbolizes the place of perceptions in the pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, in a preamble to the actual relating of the allegory, Plato is involved in a discussion as to who can be considered a true philosopher. The discussion meanders around attempting to answer the following enigmas: Just because someone subscribes to a specific philosophy, does that make him or her a philosopher? Does a person who indulges in a certain muse that is premised on a philosophy"directly or indirectly related to it"become a philosopher? Plato goes through pains explaining that a philosopher was (or should be) cut in a different mould. A philosopher, Plato avers, should be able to see beyond what is merely obvious or superficial. A philosopher should see the inner beauty of things and understand, abstractedly, the natural causes of this beauty. In other words, the philosopher should be perceptive."
Abstract This paper presents an examination of the foundation of life as developed by two famous philosophers. John Locke and Renee Descartes both believed they had come up with an understandable and scientific philosophy about the foundation of life. The writer of this paper compares and contrasts those beliefs.
From the Paper "Throughout history, mankind has tried to develop a philosophy that will explain the existence of life. There have been abstract ideas, concrete ideas, spiritual ideas and others to try and explain the foundation of life in a way that can be understood in future generations. Two of the most scientifically respected men in history worked to develop theories about the foundation of life that could be understood in a scientific manner. John Locke and Renee Descartes are well known for their theories about life. The theories have several similarities as well as several differences. The men made history with their theories about the foundations of life, though Descartes theory seems to be the easiest to understand."
Abstract This paper examines how act utilitarianism is a direct moral theory and how the morally right action is the one that maximises happiness. In comparison, it looks at how rule utilitarianism, while concerned with actions, is a more indirect theory in which the morally right action is not the one that necessarily maximises happiness in every situation. It considers whether John Mill is an act or rule utilitarian, using Mill's idea of customary morality and evaluates which version of utilitarianism is more plausible.
From the Paper "Rule utilitarianism is not then very plausible as a form of utilitarianism, but it does at least offer answers to some of the problems with act utilitarianism. If one is to maximise happiness then in theory one has to calculate the welfare values associated with every potential action. This is obviously not realistic as one would have to spend a good deal of one's live calculating such values, which itself would surely not lead to happiness being maximised as these calculations themselves can not be described as particularly pleasurable. Indeed would someone really stand on the shore contemplating the consequences of saving a drowning man for more than a split second before acting?"
Abstract This paper discusses 'faulty analogy', 'slippery slope argument,' and 'red herring' and shows how these logical fallacies have had a detrimental effect on critical thinking and decision making. The paper also points out that critical thinking and decisions in the area of ethics seem to be particularly vulnerable to logical fallacies.
From the Paper "Faulty analogies, such as the example cited above, are common since it is easy to become impressed by a connection or two and then see an analogy where there really isn"t one (O"Rourke, 2001, Ch.7, para 22). Surprisingly, even organizations often make business decisions based on faulty analogies. Take, for example, the mistakes made by Disney Parks and Resorts in France. Based on the successful replication of its U.S. theme parks in Japan, Disney assumed that the same business model would work in Paris as well. Euro Disney, however, proved to be a very different story in terms of operations. While there were some similarities in customer preferences, the differences proved to be far stronger. For instance, one of the biggest differences, which proved to be a costly error for Disney, was that Europeans treated theme parks as places for day excursions."
Abstract Kant and Aristotle both view duty as something that comes, not just from what is lawful or what is expected, but from the inside. Morality has nothing to do with what is expected, but from the character-the inner strength and disposition. However, that is where the similarities end. This paper discusses the differences between Kant and Aristotle in their views of morality, duty and choices.
From the Paper "According to Kant, duty leaves little room for choices. Freedom means actually having a choice, but duty is what you need to do. Duty is reasons-choice is freedom, and when you can choose what to do, morality and ethics take a back seat. What is considered moral to some people may not be empowering to all people, and when someone says, "This is moral-this is what you have a duty to do. Therefore it is the law", not everyone may agree and will become disempowered when they are required to do the duty. Morality is nothing more than self-delusion and exaggerated conceit. (Timmermann, 10) What one person considers "saintly", may just be "normal" to someone else, and therefore not a moral or ethical duty."
This essay examines Locke's social contract between people and sovereign and how Locke embraces the people's right of revolution, and assigns the sovereign reciprocal responsibilities to his subjects that Hobbes does not do.
2,160 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 3 sources, 2000, $ 67.95
Abstract To substantiate the social contract as a valid justification for the political order, I will primarily examine Locke's social contract between people and sovereign, rather than Hobbes's social contract among the people, because Locke's theory is generally superior and more contemporarily relevant. I will first examine the pre-political state of persons, which is the state of nature, and demonstrate that rational individuals are compelled to enter society by agreeing to the social contract. Secondly, I will discuss the principal advantage of the social contract, which is that the government is legitimized by the consent of the people. Thirdly, I will discuss the principal advantage peculiar to Locke's formulation of the social contract, which is that the sovereign is held accountable for his actions. To more thoroughly examine the validity of the social contract in justifying a political order, I will discuss a possible objection to the use of the social contract, namely, that the social contract cannot oblige any but those who originally formed such a contract.
From the Paper "After the English Civil War, justifying political authority became a particularly pressing concern. After all, the nation fought a bloody war to determine whether its supreme authority would be King Charles I, who claimed rule by divine right, or the Parliament. Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan was published in 1651, shortly after the Rump Parliament voted to execute the often-intractable Charles I in 1649. The chaos of the Civil War, regicide, and the establishment of Cromwell's Protectorate surely led Hobbes to favor a sovereign with absolute power. In contrast, Locke's Second Treatise on Government, published in 1690, was greeted by a starkly different English political culture. The 1688 Glorious Revolution, a bloodless coup in which the last Catholic monarch, James II, was finally deposed, allowed for the acceptance of the English Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights finally guaranteed the supremacy of Parliament and the political and civil rights of the people. Granted the historical fact of the Glorious Revolution, Locke embraces the people's right of revolution, and assigns the sovereign reciprocal responsibilities to his subjects that Hobbes does not do. Although Hobbes and Locke ultimately design markedly different states, each justifies the political order with a social contract. The social contract does, indeed, provide a convincing justification for the political order."
Tags: government, hobbes, john, leviathan, locke, on, second, thomas, treatise
Abstract This paper proves that free will is a mere illusion by using the views of different known philosophers, such as William James, and by challenging and defending the various objections that apply to it. It also compares determinism to indeterminism.
From the Paper "At the risk or resorting to clich"s, it is generally accepted that beauty means different things to different people. How did Socrates know that the attendees of the banquet would judge him based primarily on physical appearance" Perhaps he believed similar people with similar beliefs, such as pederasty, share similar views of beauty and love. Socrates is acknowledging the fact that the pederasts judge and value physical beauty above other forms. Apollodorus is not unprepared to tell us this story, if it is what he must do; but why is he prepared to tell it? What have we to learn from this? Each is free to take from The Symposium what they choose, to filter out the verbose eulogies and determine the true nature of eros for ones self. However, Socrates and Diotima's fascinating interpretation on the evolution of the perception of beauty is arguably the most compelling and revealing concept that should be extracted from this reading."
