Philosophy take home final Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Philosophy take home final - Essay Example According to the law of nature, every action has an opposite reaction and an evil action done by a person is returned back to him with all its power and strength. A pain caused to others brings unhappiness to them and the same feeling is directed back to the pain giver. According to Kant the people who are unethical and immoralist does not have the right to be happy. According to Kant, happiness is a state where there is enjoyment in life and there is continuous contentment and satisfaction in one’s own existence. According to him a person can qualify to be happy if he has followed the universal law of goodwill. 2.How are fatalism, hard determinism, and predestination different ? Some may use these terms synonymously; however there are important distinctions for the philosopher. What are they? Fatalism is a doctrine where all the actions and events are subjugated to fate. Whereas, hard determinism is the stronger version of determinism where one person believes ardently in fre e will and give importance to cause and effect. Here the random elements of Universe are disregarded. On the other hand, predestination is a theological theory which asserts that all actions and events are happening according to the will of the God. ... For a philosopher fate is something already determined by our past action, hard determinism is the quality of a person and predestination is the act of God. Hence these three concepts cannot be related philosophically. 3.Major differences exist between Aristotelian and Kantian ethics. Discuss the views on morality of both these philosophers and highlight those areas that are constitute the main points of disagreement. Do some of the problems with Kant's categorical imperative which Solomon mentions strengthen the arguments of the relativists ? Morality is proper behavior and action by a person and Aristotle and Kant both have different thought about morality. According to Aristotle, the people who do actions with an aim to achieve goodness can be termed as a moralistic person. He believes that money, honor, wealth or pleasure cannot bring happiness to human kind. It is the combination of all brings happiness. According to him proper genuine virtue and hunger for spreading goodness an d welfare among men is the real morality. On the other hand, Kant believes that morality of a person is based on rationality. According to Kant, a man has a reasoning ability and he understands his duty which is to do good human kind. Hence one acting upon his duty and universal law of goodness is a moral person. Some main points of disagreement of Aristotle and Kant is that the former believes an action which is good and desirable itself is moralistic and latter describes morality in a universal perspective as which is categorically imperative to a human. Moreover Aristotle explains that good action gives the feel of happiness and this is morality while Kant believes that good will is good because it by nature itself is good and hence is morale. Solomon’s statement does