Please respond to the discussion questions below. Each response should be 250-300 word count for a total of 500 word minimum.

Please respond to the discussion questions below. Each response should be 250-300 word count for a total of 500 word minimum.

Kelly Hicks-Lane 

Discussion Question #4

Top of Form

The primary connection between Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are evident when it comes to their different views on ethics. Plato’s view was profoundly influenced by Socrates view that knowledge in itself is a virtue (Frede, 2003). It means that if a person is aware of the good then automatically they will do the right thing. If this is the case, then it is possible for a person to be taught virtue through differentiating right and wrong and what is acceptable and that which is evil. Aristotle did not agree with Plato’s argument that went hand in hand with Socrates view. Aristotle argued that it is not enough for a person to be aware of what is right and wrong; an individual has to choose to do good and create a habit of doing good. Aristotle view of ethics seems more practical compared to Plato’s and Socrates theoretical views such as “those needs and wants Socrates calls appetites, and they are what we must control if we are to achieve the good life” (Rosenstand, 2018).

According to Plato and Socrates, living the good life means to be a virtuous person above other things considered good such as wealth and power. Plato defends his argument by stating that a virtuous person enjoys some sense of inner harmony compared to a wicked person. According to Plato, there is a relationship between happiness and virtue. Aristotle agrees with the concept brought forth by Socrates that living a good life needs a person to have good morals. However, for Aristotle, certain conditions are necessary to ensure an individual has a good life. They include virtue, health, friendship, health, prosperity, respect from others and the ability to utilize their human skills and capacities. Aristotle believes that to experience a good life one has to have both moral and intellectual virtues (Bostock, 2000). Some of these intellectual virtues include justice, courage, temperance, and wisdom. It is crucial to practice doing good to sustain a happy life frequently. The common fact between the philosophers is that external factors or assets such as wealth or power lead to a good life.

The difference between the philosophers is that Aristotle held the fact that in as much as the external factors do not lead to a good life, they make it easier to have a good life (Bostock, 2000). Aristotle emphasized the intellectual and moral virtue to lead a good life while Plato emphasized moral virtue to lead a happy life. Aristotle advances the view of his teacher, Plato. He agrees with Plato’s view that moral virtue is essential to living a happy life. He builds upon Plato’s view and emphasizes that intellectual virtue is also necessary. Aristotle emphasizes that it is not enough for a person to know what the right thing is, it is vital for a person to choose to do the right thing and further practice it. 

I agree with Aristotle perspective that there is purpose essential to human existence. When an individual fulfills their purpose by utilizing the abilities and their attaining their fullest potential, there is a sense of happiness. Human beings have the right to be happy, and it can only be accomplished by putting into action their capabilities. The teleological view involves the study of the purpose of things.  Leunissen (2010) shows Aristotle’s explanation that human beings have abilities and at their different capacities, they have a role to play. When human beings finally identify their purpose as explained in the teleological aspect and act on it, they live a fulfilling life.

Rosenstand, Nina. The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics. McGraw-Hill Education, 2018

Bostock, D. (2000). Aristotle's ethics.

Frede, D. (2003). Plato's ethics: An overview.

Leunissen, M. (2010). Explanation and teleology in Aristotle's science of nature. Cambridge University Press.

4Samantha McCarver 

Week 3 Discussion Question 1

Top of Form

Question 1:

Weigh in on the various definitions of equality (fundamental equality, social equality, equal treatment for equals, equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals): which of these accounts best expresses your own understanding of equality? Why? Bring this definition of equality to bear on Ronald Dworkin's conception of the best way, politically speaking, to respect and uphold human rights.

My own understanding of equality would lean more toward the ideals of fundamental equality. Being as fundamental equality is meant as the idea of equal worth of human beings to be understood as a constitutive principle of morality. The reason for this is I do believe that the equal treatment of all human beings should be a standard principle of morality. Whether that mean if you do something wrong, you receive punishment or you do something right, you receive praise/reward. I do not believe we should have the ability to pick and choose who we treat equally and who we do not. For instance, in new and media, we often hear about crimes that are committed by wealthy individuals who rarely face jail time because they have money to either bail themselves out of “pay off” people to ensure they do not end up spending time in jail/prison. However, someone who is less wealthy and unknown will spend time in jail for committing the same crime. I also believe it is wrong that we spend so much money on things like lottery tickets that eventually lead to a huge jackpot that only 1 or 2 people will win, while there are homeless people on the streets. I believe that money could be spent for much better things and some of us are so concerned with materialistic things, that we do not treat the poor or homeless like they are actual people. In the same breath, it seems as if we use the social statuses we have obtained as some sort of false identity and sense of entitlement. Those who make a large quantity of money tend to look down on those who are less fortunate as if they are not still a human being. If we hid the amounts people made, and the clothes they wore, or the fancy cars they drove, we would all be the same, we would all be human, and we would all still be worthy of being treated with dignity and respect, regardless of one’s background, bank account balance, religious preferences, skin color, sexual preferences, or street address.

When it comes to Dworkin’s concept, he believed that human beings are responsible for the life choices they make and that every person is also entitled to equal concern and respect in the design of the structure of society. He also believed that there may sometimes be an obligation to extensively interpret the law to the detriment of the defendant. However, I do not believe that this is equal treatment and by interpreting the law in a way that the defendant does not understand, I believe it to be morally unjust. We must consider if the defendant truly did not do what they are being accused of or on trial for, by over elaborating on the law instead of using simple terms or terms that the defendant can understand, they may find themselves in a less than desirable situation. This to me, would be unequal treatment and we should treat a defendant with dignity and respect until there is cold hard evidence of the crime they have committed. Too often do we see/hear stories of individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and spend so many of their years in prison, while being ridiculed by individuals and the media. Imagine thinking such negative thoughts and wishing such horrible things on someone who in the end was proven to be innocent all along. Would this not question our morality and character as people?

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form