Morality Essay, Research Paper

This essay will compare and contrast the moral doctrines of three people: St Augustine, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle. Everybody has their ain construct of what good is. Most people agree on certain things such as the morality of slaying, stealing, etc. , nevertheless, as our constructs are looked at with greater item, why we do good, how we do good, and fundamentally what good bases for, varies. I believe that the kernel of morality is the assortment of readings / apprehensions. How these constructs vary is a different narrative than the constructs themselves. In order to compare the moral doctrines of three different people, you must take several things into consideration: 1 ) environing / country the individual lives in, 2 ) how the individual was raised, and 3 ) grade of objectiveness of the individual & # 8217 ; s perceptual experience. For the first consideration, the political / societal system that a individual lives in may impact their positions of society, and what their definition of good is. With the 2nd consideration, how the individual was raised in some ways can find their perceptual experience and consumption of cognition sing moral and ethical issues. However, some people are non ever so predetermined by agencies of upbringing as others. Last, with the 3rd consideration, figure & # 8217 ; s one and two are combined in order to factor the grade of independency a individual has from seeing the truth of morality. This independency is different within all of us, as our sentiments are different from each other. I will now depict what three philosophers thought was the truth, intent, or kernel of morality. St. Augustine lived from 354 to 430 CE. He lived in North Africa in the metropolis of Hippo ( already you can see how the first consideration mentioned earlier might impact Augustines perceptual experience ) . Before going Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine lived a licentious life. This old stage in his life can be said to hold had a big affect on his ulterior doctrines of morality, good, and virtuousness ( although for some of his positions, he could be held as a dissembler ) . Harmonizing to Augustine, in order to accomplish flawlessness of the psyche, one must hold virtuousness in 2 their lives. He defines virtuousness as a perfect love of God, and that there are four signifiers of love: Temperance & # 8211 ; & # 8220 ; love maintaining itself full & A ; incorrupt for God & # 8221 ; Fortitude & # 8211 ; & # 8220 ; love bearing everything readily for the interest of God & # 8221 ; Justice & # 8211 ; & # 8220 ; love functioning God merely and hence governing good all else, as capable to adult male & # 8221 ; Prudence & # 8211 ; & # 8220 ; love doing a right differentiation between what helps it towards God, and what might impede it & # 8221 ; For moderation and fortitude, they are both directed at the single & # 8217 ; s love towards God. For justness, & # 8220 ; adult male must function God whom he loves, the highest good, the highest wisdom, and the highest peace & # 8221 ; . As for prudence, it & # 8220 ; belongs to spot between what is to be desired and what is to be shunned & # 8221 ; . Another manner Augustine incorporated love into his doctrine was the love of God by loving oneself and 1s neighbour. Harmonizing to Augustine, it is impossible for one who loves God, to non love oneself ; & # 8220 ; he entirely has a proper love for himself who aims diligently at the attainment of the main and true good ; this is nil else but God & # 8221 ; . He besides believes that loving oneself and 1s neighbour does good partially to the adult male & # 8217 ; s organic structure and partially to his psyche. Basically, loving God yourself and your neighbor, helps you to go more virtuous, and every bit good helps your head and organic structure ; psychologically assisting yourself by seting religion in God. Following this, I come to Aristotle. Aristotle lived from 384 to 322 BCE, and lived for a part of his life in Athens. The nucleus of Aristotles history of moral virtuousness is his philosophy of the mean. Harmonizing to this philosophy, moral virtuousnesss are desire-regulating character traits which are at a mean between more utmost character traits. Besides, he believes that morality requires a criterion which will non merely modulate the insufficiencies of absolute justness but be besides an thought of moral 3 advancement. In other words, this construct can be looked at as puting the basis for a faith like Christianity & # 8211 ; holding a moral criterion whi

ch regulates the insufficiencies of absolute justness by following Gods law’ . Since absolute justness is abstract in nature, in the existent universe, it must be supplemented with equity, which corrects and modifies Torahs of justness where it falls short.

Like Augustine, Aristotle believes that the genuinely good individual is at the same clip a individual of perfect penetration, and a individual of perfect penetration is besides absolutely good. Insight, harmonizing to Augustine would be understanding or cognition of God. Aristotle goes farther to state that our thought of the ultimate and moral action is developed through accustomed experience, and this bit by bit frames itself out of peculiar perceptual experiences & # 8211 ; which can be compared to my three considerations said earlier ( accustomed experience & # 8211 ; the country you live, and peculiar perceptual experiences & # 8211 ; grade of objectiveness ) . When it comes to the intent or will of morality, Aristotle references two factors: ground stimulated to move by desire, or desire guided and controlled by understanding. These two factors harmonizing to Aristotle, so actuate the wilful moral action. Moral failing of the will so consequences in person making incorrect, cognizing it is right, and yet follows his desire against his ground. So fundamentally 1s ground is what motivates a wilful action, and 1s desire motivates an action of moral failing. This impression is non different from Augustine & # 8217 ; s position that in order to love God, one must love oneself & # 8211 ; in order to love God, you must be strong with your ego ; have a strong will. Besides like Augustine, Aristotle believes that pleasance is found in the consciousness of free self-generated action ; God can non be conceived as rehearsing the ordinary moral virtuousnesss and must therefore happen his felicity in contemplation. Therefore God is pure good, while adult male can endeavor to be that good, he can non avoid his consciousness of free self-generated action. 4 Last, I bring myself to Immanuel Kant. Kant lived from 1724 to 1804. He lived in Konigsberg, East Prussia ( now Russia ) . Kant & # 8217 ; s doctrine of morality outlined in Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative & # 8217 ; , as a method for finding the morality of actions. There are two trials for Kant to find the morality of actions: 1 ) make a general truth and see whether it could be cosmopolitan jurisprudence for all rational existences, and 2 ) determine whether rational existences would will it to be cosmopolitan jurisprudence. Basically Kant believed that ground dictated to itself the moral jurisprudence. Immanuel kants positions on morality are slightly different than Aristotle and Augustine, chiefly because Kant considered himself to be a radical mind. He believed that he brought into doctrine a new method, which he called unfavorable judgment. The morality in Kant & # 8217 ; s state of affairs is rigorous in its application of moral behavior. Because of this, there is no hesitation in single instances to find whether an action is moral or non. An action is moral in itself non because of its effects but because any rational being volitions it to be a cosmopolitan jurisprudence and it does non belie itself. Utilitarianism harmonizing to Kant, states that an action is moral if it increases the entire felicity of society. This could be compared to Aristotle, who believes that morality requires a criterion which will modulate the insufficiencies of absolute justness, but decidedly non Augustine who purely believes in Gods jurisprudence, non peoples jurisprudence. For Kant, nevertheless, morality is based on effects. Kant rejects utilitarianism because it produces immediate satisfaction and allows adult male exclusions to common sense moral codifications ; the replies it gives are unfulfilling and unrealistic. 5 Kant & # 8217 ; s solution, I believe, is much better than utilitarianism, or any of the other moral doctrines stated in this essay. Kant & # 8217 ; s resonates my moral esthesias to see that actions are moral or immoral regardless of their immediate effects. I am willing to accept that sometimes the moral action is harder to execute, but I am unwilling to accept that morality rests within the particulars of a state of affairs and the possible effects. Therefore, once more, I consider Kant & # 8217 ; s trial and position of morality to be what I believe the strongest.