Ethics Paper

Scholarly Paper

Scholarly Paper

The book, ‘A Short History of Ethics’ contains several short dialogues that are interpreted by Alasdair MacIntyre. The book is rich in information regarding ethics and the kind of things that control the life of individuals. The following is a summary of this book and the views of key personalities in ethics.

With regards to the book, “A Short History of Ethics” starts with talking about how the social life greatly changes the moral concept of human beings. On the other hand, to best identify how a given social life differs from another it becomes prudent for one to look at the disparities in moral concepts. This is according to the famous philosopher, MacIntyre. In addition, the author outlines the various important roles of moral concepts. These moral concepts define societies with regards to the acts, guidelines, and frameworks, which the same society should adhere to.

The source of each moral concept is from individuals and the society. These moral concepts may be different among societies or between individuals but the bottom line is that they have the same foundation, which is being aware of right and wrong things. In addition, chapter one further argues that the moral concepts in the society are always dynamic as they are prone to change from time to time and will eventually take on what is most valued by the community. On the other hand, the kind of concepts described in here involves that responsible for shaping past and future way of how people live. In examining such concepts, the author advocates focusing the diverse human social life aspect. Moreover, in a bid to acknowledge the social lives of various people the author recommends, they need to rely upon the moral concepts as well as the society in general. With regards to chapter one the author MacIntyre notes that the rights or wrong that have happened in the past are responsible for shaping the present-day morality in any given society. Despite the fact that morality concepts that exist in the present day may be prone to change from time to time, the main premise which either wrong or right will continue becoming evident (Skloot 2000). Comment by Dianne: Why do you bring in Skloot? Because he agrees with MacIntyre? If this is so, then write that here. IF you want to do a summary of authors working with the question of changing concepts of morality then make that explicit and tell the reader why you chose the authors that you have chosen.

The history of the concept of what a good is and its transition within a study of communication ethics is best done through a study of how philosophy contributes to this concept. MacIntyre holds that all those individuals that end up falling out of a given system automatically are considered to have fallen out of the order of morality. MacIntyre further describes this by arguing that any society that does not have the power of the state as the only moral force is doomed to collapse. If the power of the state is considered as that of a disciplinary force for revenge between two warring parties, revenge will then become the only force that is normally recognized as the legitimate power of the state. Consider cases where there is lack of state power. In considering a society that is Homeric, the functional roles that hierarchically dominant determine the qualities that are domineering. Examples of such dominant qualities are: cunning, skill and courage of different kind. In addition, this Homeric society greatly depends upon the male powers in defending people and the society in which these people live. It shows that male chauvinism takes good part and is very much evident in this kind of community setup. Comment by Dianne: I have tried to help you here – but you do not make sense bringing up MAcIntyre and not using any quotes from his book to support your thesis. I think your thesis in this sentence is that the legitimate power of a society (the ruling class, or government) is the moral force and defines what is moral and what is not – I am right?

The man is normally entrusted with the key roles in the society that ensure that people living there are well safeguarded and provided for all the needs that they may want. This leaves the female gender out of this special role in the community, as they are not considered in the Homeric Society. What this society expects of women is to be submissive to their husbands and perform household duties. Such duties may include providing for their families, being submissive to their husbands, and also taking care of their homes in the absence of their men. The best thing to note about the place of a woman in this society setup is that it does not delegate important roles to women. Duties like taking part in community development and decisions are not expected of women. Therefore, to some extent it can be said that the Homeric society does not give women a chance to express their leadership skills in the community. What makes up a good man according to this society is the social order that they follow or the important values that they possess. The most important to note about the Homeric society is the fact that it is one and the concepts of ethics are the ones responsible for endorsing it.

Looking at the Socrates and the Sophists, it becomes clear that the main agenda of the Sophists is to try and fulfill two tasks’ demands: the first task is related to living well and effectively in the society and the second task being giving meaning that is coherent to a vocabulary that is evaluative. MacIntyre attempts to discuss this by using an example of someone with the powers to address certain keystone issues in the society. The author holds that in society a leader needs to empower himself first before being empowered in addressing the fundamental issues affecting the society in general. This kind of person will thus be considered successful individual of the state since he has the potential and ability to impress both the courts of law and the assembly (Rand 2011). Comment by Dianne: Where is your quote to support your assertion that MacIntyre discusses this point?

According to Macintyre, in adapting to the urban environment, one needs to adhere to the rules and regulations in play. They should not only be aware of those laws but also be able to do as they demand and this was what the Sophists normally taught and came up with. These sophists held that even though each society had its moral concepts that could appear different from other communities, the bottom line remains that basic principles dominated and applied at all times. Sophists further held that the topic of morality would be taught in relation to what was considered moral in that particular community. This means that the teachings had to be in line with what was being done right in that community so as to provide a basis of what the teachings held. However, the Sophists were unable to distinguish between an individual standing outside a given social life and a man standing outside but ultimately controls the ability of questioning the conventions of a given social order. On the other hand, this inability greatly conflicts with the important Sophists’ teachings and only the moral concept at hand could possibly interpret these teachings. The most ironic part of the Sophists’ teachings is that they were unable to explain how an individual could possibly be out of a social order yet they were able to teach morality in various aspects (Stuart 2013).

In chapter four, the author holds that in any society one will always work to defend their pleasure and life. This is what a dialogue that was written by the Socrates advocated and recommended. The dialogue provided that human beings value life very much above all things. In addition, in life there are various aspects and attribute, most of which are good to man while others being undesirable. Man in all circumstances chooses those things that are good and appealing in life, which is why every individual in life desires pleasure and all the comforts, that life provides. This is the reason why man will do all it takes that he guarantees and protects the pleasures that he enjoys and above all the life that he is living.

The Gorgias set up a platform for a supreme God as well as persuasion. With regards to persuasion, the same relates to providing reasons for having a given belief and a back up of accounts in supporting the belief. On the other hand, persuasion involves producing an underground conviction in the minds of people as a result of subjecting them to pressure that is psychological. Such techniques are considered to be neutral with regards to morality. According to Plato, a behavior that is enforced by the law is responsible for enforcing moral concepts as well as foundation and order. Further, Plato holds that man’s existence would cease should his behavior become immoral. This shows how the society of Plato greatly values the need for morality. Those individuals that are considered amoral unfortunately found it had to cope in the system because of harsh forces on their behavior. The members of society would then be put to test so as to determine whether their actions are morally upright and to the expectation of the principles and concepts of morality. Therefore, persuasion was a paramount tool in determining whether individuals in the society followed the laid down regulations and rules and eventfully end up being morally upright individuals in the society (Nietzsche 2012).

According to Plato’s republic, justice cannot be defined as paying ones’ own debts and saying the truth. This is rejected because not only could it be right at times not return what has been borrowed or withhold the truth, but also because of insufficient actions meet up with the demands of Plato. The definition of justice as provided by the republic of Plato can be related to sword that is sharp in both sides. This is because in one case, justice is utilized as a tool to destroy life while in another instance a person is required to tell the truth always and do what befits his pals. This is the reason why Plato embarks in the task of clarifying further what justice really is both in the soul and state. According to the author, justice involves all members of the society working in unison in effort to work towards a common goal. On the other hand, Plato holds that before the incident of justice is achieved, the individual ought to understand that it does not only belong to a single individual but to the entire society. This means that’s a person needs to appreciate the fact that the justice received is meant to show the whole society that that cases of injustice can actually be brought to book and those found responsible face the appropriate punishment. On the other hand, Plato argues that the whole society should work hand-in-hand in ensuring that the necessary requirements for the definition of justice are provided. This will eventually see and ensure that all that pertains to justice is fully accomplished.

In chapter 16, Kierkegaard holds that the objectives of morality provide only for individual choices. This chapter argues that normally the Socrates is at the center of a symposium but with the rules and enforcements in place, there is no provision for their involvement. According to Aristophanes, man has always been an incomplete creature and this is the reason why he has been searching for a companion. On the other hand, the preferences for homosexual and heterosexual can be traced back a single individual that was divided into two at the beginning. Consequently, it makes each individual to go on separate ways in effort to fulfill their complete being. On the other hand, Plato holds that the role of law in the society is shaping the code of conduct among people of a given society. The top authority in the society is responsible for coming up with regulations and stipulations that are meant to regulate how people behave and promote morality. In cases whereby some individuals appear to behave in contrary to the laid laws and regulations, there should be also provisions for the kind of punishment such cases will receive. This will create order and a sense of direction in the direction (Kant 2005) .

In chapter seven, Aristotle’s ethics describes the kind of lifestyle that is prudent and appropriate for human happiness, appropriate constitution, and institutions that should be recommended for members of the society. The chapter looks at what happiness is human flourishing or thriving, doing, and living well. In addition, the author also speaks on the need to embrace virtue because it goes handy with happiness. With this regard, there are two forms of virtue: moral and intellectual virtue. The first one involves both the desiring and rational part of the soul while intellectual virtue concerns the rational part of the soul. Aristotle holds that any rational activity is meant to produce something good out of it. In addition, for us to keep seeking other things there has to be an end to what we seek. Since ethics is a branch of politics, it is considered as a good thing for an individual. Aristotle further notes that since the community will always be above an individual, anything that is considered good for an individual will equally be appropriate for the entire society. In addition, obtaining happiness is normally considered as a highest goal of good.

This is because happiness normally controls how we feel and think because it greatly influences the soul. Therefore, the function or duty of man is to exercise and posses the reasoning power in line with the principle of rationality. Man has got duties and responsibilities to fulfill and when he accomplishes all this he certainly feels happy. On the contrary, when the efforts to undertake various duties are hampered, an individual feels let down and thus not happy. Therefore, man tries in all manner of ways to ensure that all set objectives are accomplished and any obstacles eliminated so that in the end he can be happy. In conclusion, Aristotle holds that happiness is the end of life and not just a mere pleasure (Greene 2010).

In conclusion, it is clear of the contribution of key philosophers to the study and understanding of ethics. , Kierkegaard holds that the objectives of morality provide only for individual choices. This chapter argues that normally the Socrates is at the center of a symposium but with the rules and enforcements in place, there is no provision for their involvement. According to Aristophanes, man has always been an incomplete creature and this is the reason why he has been searching for a companion. On the other hand, the preferences for homosexual and heterosexual can be traced back a single individual that was divided into two at the beginning. Consequently, it makes each individual to go on separate ways in effort to fulfill their complete being. On the other hand, Plato holds that the role of law in the society is shaping the code of conduct among people of a given society.

According to Plato’s republic, justice cannot be defined as paying ones’ own debts and saying the truth. This is rejected because not only could it be right at times not return what has been borrowed or withhold the truth, but also because of insufficient actions meet up with the demands of Plato. The definition of justice as provided by the republic of Plato can be related to sword that is sharp in both sides. This is because in one case, justice is utilized as a tool to destroy life while in another instance a person is required to tell the truth always and do what befits his pals. This is the reason why Plato embarks in the task of clarifying further what justice really is both in the soul and state. According to the author, justice involves all members of the society working in unison in effort to work towards a common goal. On the other hand, Plato holds that before the incident of justice is achieved, the individual ought to understand that it does not only belong to a single individual but to the entire society.

.

.

References

Greene R. (2010). The 48 Laws of Power. New Jersey: The Prentice Hall

Kant I. (2005). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Nietzsche F. (2012). Beyond good and evil. Cambridge, CA: Macmillan University

Rand A. (2011). The virtue of selfishness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Stuart J. (2013). Utilitarianism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Skloot R. (2000). The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. Boston, MA: Routledge