Plato Theories, Socrates, human psyche
According to Socrates, the two horses, one whose appearance is noble while the other is of opposite stock, and the charioteer each representing dissimilar soul's parts have a tripartite nature for the human psyche. The metaphor represents an innate conflict between the three different parts. The good horse is upright', has a lofty neck and an aquiline nose. He loves honor with modesty and temperance; a follower of true opinion; requires no touch of the whip but is under the guidance of admonition. Its whiteness represents the positive part or moral impulse of the human soul. This is the spirit that is responsible for our anger and indignation. Where there is a just soul, the spirit acts as the benchmark for reasoning. This ensures that the appetite adheres to the reasoning command.
The other bad horse' is crooked with a thick neck, dark-colored; a mate of insolence and pride and hardly yields to the whip. It represents the irrational passions of the human soul. Appetite is the benchmark for all our desires and pleasures. Unlike the black horse, the white horse can be verbally commanded by the charioteer. Therefore, it agrees with the charioteer and seeks the truth and other virtues. The metaphor is useful on the assumption that that the white horse is a sense of honor and the dependable as well as dutiful figure is in line with the aspiration and self-knowledge within the soul. Socrates argues out that the interest in them results in the bleakness of the soul. The noble goals of the charioteer are diminished by the superficial desire of the black horse. Its indifference to the divine causes the chariot to deviate meaning that the soul fails in having enough exposure to the true principles. Understanding the metaphor is also helpful in discerning the moral obligations guided by the set principles in the society. Making a distinction between what is required and what the soul desires is an important step towards differentiating the virtues from the vice.
[...] It can also vary with external factors According to the Aristotelian approach to ethics, political and othe r social institutions are supposed to be organized so that they contribute t o the moral development of human beings. What are the implications for this view for economic institutions (e.g., firms)? What are the implications for government regulation of market activities? Do you think these implications make the Aristotelian approach to ethics more or less plausible? Aristotle had a lot to say about the ethics of exchange. One of the aspects of his approach is the insistence on the purposiveness that defines the business activities. [...]
[...] Do you think that any one of the approaches is either bett er or worse than the others? Why? Michael Sander offers a discussion over the competing views of justice. The first takes welfare as a criterion of justice. What is regarded as just often leads to the best consequence. Another approach views freedom and the rights to be a fundamental to justice. The essential thing, in relation to this view, is giving every person what is rightfully due. However, this course might not yield the best results at other times. The third approach stresses on virtue. [...]
[...] If only torture would induce the terrorist to give more hidden information, is it then morally permissible to continue? The rights-based approach, evidently, does not support the decision. As such, no approach is superior to the other. In fact, every situation or contemporary debate has to be argued out in line with what is acceptable as just in the society. Every situation should be argued on the basis of the ideas of ethics and political philosophy due to the competing views of justice According to Benthamite utilitarianism, what is morally good? [...]
[...] To which approach a re you most attracted? Why? Aristotle claims that by nature, man is blind to morality. He suggests that man is an amoral creature because he is born without knowledge hence he can never possess morality naturally. He also points out another point on human nature concerning hedonistic nature meaning that man seeks to pursue pleasure and shun pain. He asserts that the human nature is highly impulsive. The unconscious drive is selfish, blind and irrational to the world beyond. [...]
[...] How well do they work? Benthamite utilitarianism has been defined by scholars as a theory that argues that an action or decision is regarded as morally right if it meets the standards of utility. Generally, Utilitarianism will perform something only if it results to less pain and more pleasure for the affected individuals. It has links with consequentialism but it incorporates eudaimonism and hedonism. Most of the aspects of utilitarianism are attractive but one short coming is that the only viable factor is the outcome after making a decision. [...]
using our reader.