Evaluating Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

In life, the evil does not always reveal itself in a grand way. Some evil stays in the thoughts and words of humans, and some evil is not discovered. A person behaves according to their own morals, which is decided by the world’s traditions and ethics.

In the paper “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”, Susan Wolf discusses her ideas on what is necessary for an individual to be responsible for their actions. She argues that in order for the person to be held morally responsible for their actions, they need to be morally sane. To consider one to be morally sane, this individual must have an ideology that is able for them to distinguish right from wrong. Hence, a morally sane person must be able to reason and have a sound mind. Furthermore, Wolf establishes the sane deep-self view by applying other philosopher’s ideas.

From the results of his study, Zimbardo explains the Lucifer Effect and how morally righteous people can do malicious things. The effect of both the one’s current

Virtue is not something that occurs by avoiding evil, it comes when you decide to conform to morality and to what is

“It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do.” ~ Moliere. The quote above will be used to help blame those for the death and shows how being irresponsible can have fatal consequences. William Shakespeare also known as the writer of the tragedy Romeo and Juliet, a beloved tail were to lovers cross-paths and anticipate that faith has brought them together has a not so satisfying ending.

Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. First, I begin with Swinburne’s views on the kinds of evils. According to him, there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure

For an extreme example, a terrorist thinks he is doing the right thing by setting off a bomb. Many situations in life can put into action inherent good, and many people will channel this good. Inherent good can be difficult to explain, but many examples can explain it in great detail. Nobody is born with the intention of being a bad person. Sometimes people believe that the evil people in the world have always been bad, but that is incorrect.

(48). She goes on to explain that other virtues can supersede benevolence, which provides proof that benevolence is not the ultimate end. “We find in our ordinary moral code many requirements and prohibitions inconsistent with the idea that benevolence is the whole of morality.” (48). If benevolence is not the overall end of morality, but instead the end of one virtue within morality, then it cannot be the basis for morality as a

The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.

We may not have complete control over our lives, but let us not fail to pay attention to our intuitions and our experiences of it. Many aspects go into deciding whether one is morally good or bad and ultimately can be traced back to

Lucy Bichakhchyan Introduction to Philosophy Second Short Written Assignment GALEN STRAWSON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Galen Strawson is a British philosopher, who is famous for his philosophical works on free will, panpsychism, causality, determinism etc. This paper is about his article “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility”. The title of the article already gives away the stand that Strawson has considering Moral Responsibility..

(Young Goodman Brown 1). Everyone held up on a faith’s and innocence’s pedestal have also fallen into the trap of temptation. Everyone falls into the sin and temptation placed before them. There is not a single truly perfect person in the world, but people do not always initially realize this. Humanity will consciously resist all evil coming their way, while the subconscious craves it.

Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.

In his book Nicomanchean Ethics Aristotle explains and differentiates voluntary and involuntary actions and expatiate on all the factor that contribute in deciding on the nature of our actions. The purpose of this differentiation is essential for the study of virtue ethics and more importantly for the study of jurisprudence “to the assigning of both of honors and of punishments” onto individuals. Aristotle firstly describes factors that causes actions to be involuntary or voluntary, such as ignorance, compulsion and choice. The understanding of such factors and their relation to our actions are also important to understand the principles explained by Aristotle. Voluntary actions is defined by Aristotle as actions that have their principle

Debate surrounding the question of citizenship, and the ensuing ideals about what makes a good life, has existed for as long as citizenship itself – providing many contrasting views and interpretations about the peak of human flourishing. Aristotle himself recognizes this fact, stating that “…there is often dispute about the citizen…since not everyone agrees that the same person is a citizen” (Politics 65). This is indicative, then, of the fact that there will be many different interpretations of human existence and its purpose; due to the fact that there is not even agreement on citizenry and what the ideas of it reflect for human life. The juxtaposition of two such views, those of Aristotle and Locke, allow thinkers to evaluate not only two