Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Moral intent, according to Abelard, explains that morality is a state of the mind and has defects that compel a person to undertake certain activities. Abelard holds that moral defects lead people to do things, which may not be moral (Moore and Bruder 274). Furthermore, Abelard argues that moral intent is not sin; however, sin occurs when God fails to execute what is moral or renounce what is evil among individuals. Conversely, Heloise believes that individuals should not blame the action, but they should blame partakers of certain actions. In the argument, Heloise asserts that affection held by partakers determines morality, but not actions.
Aristotle holds that virtue ethics comprises actions that define human nature, but it does not comprise a set of predefined rules. Essentially, human nature is dependent on the virtues and character traits of individuals (Moore and Bruder 266). Therefore, Aristotle believes that character traits and virtues of people dictate their actions and define the aspect of virtue ethics. According to Aristotle, virtue ethics is an outcome of human nature, which depends on the traits and virtues of an individual.
In the argument that St. Augustine presents, evil comprise the act of forces that has the power to create, apart from God, who is the Supreme Being. St. Augustine argues that the forces of darkness orchestrate evil. Moore and Bruder state that St. Augustine contests the existence of evil as a problem because he believes that God is the one, who created everything in the universe (270). Since God is the only creator, St. Augustine holds that other creative forces that prevail as evil forces are not real.
Plato compares the soul of a human being to a well-structured state. In his comparison, Plato states the soul has raw appetite, intellect, and drives, while the state consists of artisans, soldiers, and the ruling class. According to Moore and Bruder, each of the elements in both the soul and the state play unique roles and occupy different levels (310). At the top is the intellectual part of the human soul, which equates the ruling element of a state.
Likewise, in the middle of the human soul are the drives, which consist of anger and ambition. Plato states that the drives are equivalent to the auxiliaries in a state, who are soldiers and police officers. The lowest position, according to Plato, comprises of artisans in a state, while in the human soul incorporates the raw appetites.
In his concept of utilitarianism, Bentham likens pleasure to happiness, for he believes that an action is good when it has the ability to generate happiness and joy to the recipients. According to Bentham, if an action has the ability to generate high levels of happiness and joy as opposed to other acts, then that action is correct and moral (Moore and Bruder 285). In the argument, Bentham explains that in the quest to undertake actions that propagate happiness as an outcome, individuals must ensure that the outcome affects those around them.
In Mills justification of utilitarianism, the agents involved in an activity should exercise impartiality and strict disinterest, especially on matters that would affect their happiness. Moreover, Mill elucidates that pleasure and happiness fall under inferior and superior clusters. Moore and Bruder (286) argue that the actions that generate high levels of happiness are superior, while those actions that lead to low levels of happiness are inferior.
David Hume asserts that individuals should undertake those activities, which are just and moral. In his assertion, Hume explains that as actions have repercussions, bad actions lead to destructive feelings, while good actions lead to constructive feelings. Therefore, in sentimentalism view of Hume, feelings are outcomes of actions that individuals undertake in the society and the impact that the actions have on them and others (Moore and Bruder 414). To substantiate his argument, Hume states that although the world has imperfections, people must always strive to perform those actions that are near perfect.
According to Kant, moral activities are in line with his notion of the categorical imperative. In the notion of the categorical imperative, Kant alludes that individuals need to act in a manner that reflects the universal laws (Moore and Bruder 283). Therefore, people need to avoid engaging in bad activities, which are not in line with the universal laws.
In Nietzsches classification of moralities, master moralities glorify what is right and focus on the benefits of the recipients, who experience the actions. According to Nietzsche, master moralities overlook the issues of humility and meekness, but they justify wrongs, according to the definitions of the law (Moore and Bruder 366). Nietzsche explains that these values advocate for weakness and render the recipients slaves of the actions that others perform.
Hobbes explains that the state of nature is a state characterized by poverty, short life cycles, and nasty experiences. These characteristics relate to the factors that dictate the state of nature. In the argument, Hobbes states that selfishness, war, chaos, and distrust dictate the state of nature. Moore and Bruder assert that although Locke is not as pessimistic as Hobbes for he believes that individuals can harm one another if the state of nature prevails (320). Therefore, he champions for the establishment of the civil rule and control.
Rousseau argues that people live naturally and interact freely without any interference from any civil organization or state. Conversely, when the civilization emerged, the natural person entered into civilized world and lived within boundaries and control of the state, which has civil powers (Moore and Bruder 323). Rousseau argues that the civil person is the furnished individual, who understands the control and supervision of the state.
According to Locke theory, distribution of property and wealth depends on the level of aggressiveness and industriousness of a person. Moore and Bruder assert that if an individual is less industrious or active, the size of the wealth that he or she acquires is less than that of someone, who is aggressive and hardworking (322). The theory of Locke concerning property tries to justify unequal distribution of wealth in the world. In the assertions of Marx, labor is equivalent to the value and reflects the worth of an individual. In the argument, Marx explains that laborers work and specialize in certain activities, and thus, become alienated.
Plato refers philosopher kings as leaders, who rule their respective states in a classy and organized manner. Plato highlights that the kings apply aristocracy of high class and ideals. According to Moore and Bruder, Plato elucidates that philosopher kings improve their bloodline by ensuring that their guardians and aides have collective property that includes their wives and children (310). Therefore, Plato explains that royalties employ philosophical leadership to advance and retain their leadership qualities and intelligence in their bloodline.
The veil of ignorance is a concept that Rawls uses to explain the significance of creating principles that do not disadvantage or demonstrate any kind of bias among people in various classes and statuses. Rawls states that for people to establish good principles, they need to hide behind a veil, which he refers to as the veil of ignorance, and use it in judging others (Moore and Bruder 366). Essentially, by using the veil in judging others, all individuals will be at the same level and receive equal justice that is free from biases. Placement of individuals at the same levels eliminates biases, which interfere with the administration of justice.
Robert Nozick uses the concept of the night watchman to explain the significance of the concept in the protection of human rights and the attainment of social justice. Nozick describes the night watchman state as a protector of social rights. In the concept, Nozick promotes justice for all, irrespective of their status and personality. The concept stipulates that the distribution of assets should occur in an impartial manner (Moore and Bruder 370). The concept demonstrates the essence of social justice to all by highlighting the fact that everyone has the right to acquire and own wealth.
Capabilities approach to social justice, according to Martha Nussbaum, implies the ability of a state to provide key factors that facilitate human dignity. Nussbaum states that freedom of movement, expression, and provision of good health care are some of the factors that are crucial for the attainment of human dignity (Moore and Bruder 377). Additionally, the capabilities approach advocates for mutual advantage as an important element of social justice. It is important to note that capabilities approach as presented by Nussbaum highlights the vitality of independence, equality, and freedom in social justice.
Works Cited
Moore, Brooke, and Kenneth Bruder. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. California: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.