Essay Sample on Moral Philosophy Unveiled: Exploring Aristotle, Singer, Williams, Kant, and Hay

Assignment 1: Aristotle

Aristotle wrote about the nicomachean ethics that are central to a life well-lived. He suggests that virtues are a trait or a tendency of a person to behave in a specific manner that is unique from the way other people respond. He gives an analogy of temperance and says that the evil of lack we will be inordinate and on the other hand, if we have an iniquity of surplus is no drinking.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

According to Aristotle, all the characters are malicious. Because of that, you will always realize that a righteous being will never tell how plentiful he has to drink. The system that was virtue and ethics that was proposed by Aristotle has helped many individuals to learn how to have some superior virtues and on the other hand, how they can be happy since happiness and good virtues are very different.

Aristotle was in a position to develop a very nice system of virtue and ethics that people study up to date. Aristotle looks at human beings as social and coherent creatures, which are always finding a way through which they can lead a better life.

According to Aristotle, the main concern of virtue is choice. Therefore, we need to understand choice so that we can understand what choice involves as well. Even before getting to that, the extent one needs to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary. The main reason as to why one has to get the distinction well is that most people tend to praise and blame what seems to be voluntary but not, involuntary.

As per Aristotle force, together with ignorance are the two things that render our actions involuntary. He says that we get to know what we are doing when we act involuntarily and more often, we bring what we are doing around ourselves. If we can take some examples and contrast between standing on a train and stepping on the foot of someone. On the first occasion if you are standing on the train, and the train lurches, and you step on someone's foot. You will realize that this act is involuntary and it is caused by force.

In the second case, one shuffles his or her feet to get comfortable, after that he or she puts the feet to someone’s feet without looking. You will realize that moving the feet down is voluntary, stepping on someone's foot is involuntary, but in this case, it is caused by ignorance.

The third scenario is where someone brings his or her feet deliberately and knowingly on top of someone’s foot. This act is voluntary. These scenarios explained by Aristotle, are just meant to make people understand what voluntary means and what involuntary means on the other hand. It also enables people to be able to underrate the distinction between ignorance as well as force.

Assignment 2

Singer

Singer suggests that the whole way we look at moral issues moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society. The form of argument he makes is that people hold all sorts of eccentric positions and it follows that they believe in situations according to their moral view.

He also insists on arguing the thesis from his moral position so that anyone who accepts certain assumptions will accept the conclusion. There is a need to apply morality to practical problems based on philosophical thinking. Singer suggests preventing what is bad and promoting what is good.

Williams

Williams develops the theory of criticizing utilitarianism using the principle of negative responsibility, which is that if one is responsible for anything, then they could also be the response to the things they allow or the ones they fail to prevent. The principle of impartiality decisions should be a result of objective criteria and not prejudice or bias. I agree with the principles because they are relatable in life. I disagree with the principles because they are generalized.

Williams gives the example of two individuals. Jim and George are two people faced with a situation in which they will need to make a decision. It is a tough decision that involves using a moral ethic and determining if an individual would rather be Jim or George. I would rather be George because I could get the job instead of Jim, who has to decide to kill someone so that others are let out.

Kant

By Kant's categorical imperative, there is the need to focus on a choice that is ethically right and, at the same time, universally accepted to be right despite the opposition. Through the imperative in any setting, the decision made despite the opposition as long as it sticks to the right path is regarded to be a proper and right decision.

It means that there is the essence of what is considered to be universally right and under ethical considerations. In his argument, Immanuel Kant emphasized that people should be in a position to make a moral decision despite the consequences that would befall.

To guide the human conscience, there is a need to follow universal truths. The truths help guide every decision that one makes hence determining the correctness of any matter. Therefore, the dictates the right for one person is considered to be a right for everybody. In an organizational setting, it was a successful means of approach to solve several issues, especially in the disciplinary sector.

Hay

Carol Hay describes Kant as a feminist training to be a philosopher. Kant’s moral philosophy states that the distinctive thing about human beings is their rational nature, which is their ability to set and pursue ends according to reason. That kind of rational nature is the one that makes people morally valuable and makes them deserve an important sort of respect.

Kantian philosophers focus on deception and coercion involved where there is impermissible use of another person. The relation of Kant to feminists is that it is possible to explain why women deserve respect the same way as men and why respect is incompatible with sexist oppression.

Aristotle

Aristotle maintains that, if people can live their life to the fullest as per their essential nature as rational beings, they will be happy despite the fact all the factors may not be constant. According to Aristotle, he believes that happiness is a question of habit as well as behavior and not luck. He goes on and say that people who live with these behaviors are in a good position to handle their misfortunes and they will always be happy.

Aristotle says that the happiness of a human being is leading a life that enables them to build their thinking according to their reason. He says that happiness is not a state but an activity and it is not like amusement or pleasure that can be enjoyed by animals as well. Happiness is profound as well as enduring, unlike goodness or virtue. However, he accepts that happiness can be determined by good or bad fortune. For instance, he says that happiness can be affected by material circumstances, the position of one in the society as well as the physical look of someone.