Morality Philosophers: Medieval Philosophers vs. Later Modern Philosophers Name Professor Course Date Morality Philosophers: Medieval Philosophers vs. Later Modern Philosophers Moral philosophers played a very critical role in the shaping of morals and ethical standards. Although medieval and later modern philosophers lived during different eras these groups of philosophers tended to have a common understanding of morality that formed the basis of the acceptable human behavior. Through moral philosophy philosophers like Aristotle Aquinas Kant and John Stuart Mill discovered how rules were justified and the possible moral consequences of various behaviors and moral beliefs. It is however important to acknowledge that while these philosophers had a significant contribution to moral philosophy they lived during different eras and their theories were based on different schools of thought. Medieval morality philosophers differed significantly from modern philosophers as their understanding of morality was not only influenced by the various transformations of human to acknowledge that while there have been numerous theories put forward by various moral philosophers across these periods they all agree that the human guiding principle is the ability to determine what is right and wrong. The philosophers point out that human beings can make the correct moral decision that justifies their actions. The difference in their understanding and interpretation of what entails acting in a virtuous manner is what brings a dispute. Living during different periods can be a factor as to why every philosopher has a different understanding of morality but their theories are based on different schools of thought. Furthermore moral behavior and ethical standards are shaped by how people act to obtain virtues bearing in mind; people react differently to situations. Reference Top of Form Scalet Steven and John Arthur. 2016. Morality and moral controversies: readings in moral social and political philosophy. search.ebscohost.com Bottom of Form [...]
Recently, we have looked at the teachings of different influential philosophers on the nature of morality. In doing so, we have encountered some profound disagreements: Aristotle presented the virtues as the perfection of human nature; Aquinas presented moral action as a matter of rationally considering the objects of the natural inclinations; both Aquinas and Aristotle presented reason as occupying an authoritative position. In the modern era, Hobbes argued for a natural law teaching in which reason identified means rather than judged ends; and Rousseau argued that the principles of morality descend from two pre-rational sentiments, and presented both reason itself and civilization as being sources of corruption and immorality rather than virtue. Hume, too, argued that morality is rooted in sentiment, though on different grounds than Rousseau, and Kant argued that rather than emotion the only thing that matters is the good will which is itself determined by reason. John Stuart Mill argues that the moral action is the one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain, and identifies this as happiness (a view with which Aristotle would obviously disagree). Broadly speaking, we can divide these thinkers as follows: Ancient/medieval: Aristotle and Aquinas Early Modern: Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume Later Modern: Kant and Mill Write an essay explaining how the ancient/medieval thinkers (Aristotle and Aquinas) differ from either the early modern or later modern thinkers in their understanding of morality (do not write on all of the thinkers we have studied thus far!). You will want to explain: what each thinker considers to be relevant to the making of moral judgments how decisions are made, and how moral action is related to the human good as conceived of by each thinker. In doing so, be sure to emphasize the way the different thinkers within each period are alike and different as well – do not treat them as monolithic (Kant and Mill obviously have profound disagreements!). Be sure to provide specific references to the texts we have read in order to justify your claims (footnotes - not endnotes - containing page numbers in the textbook are fine; in the case of Aquinas, refer to the Question number, which is identified at the start of each passage, and in the case of Rousseau, just refer to the page numbers I have provided in the text). Please note: this is not a research paper and it is not meant to be a research paper. Your claims need to be based on the texts we have read and discussed in class, and doing outside research is unlikely to help you. Lastly, this is not a paper designed to elicit your opinion from you (that's what the discussion boards are meant to do): this assignment is intended to measure how well you have understood the thinkers we have read and discussed in class. Requirements: Your paper should meet the following requirements: 4-6 pages long (you can write more if you are so inclined, though I would encourage you to edit judiciously). If you write less, you will be penalized. In a 12-point, Times New Roman font. It should be double-spaced. Please note: spelling, grammar, usage and an appropriate tone for academic discussion all count – minor lapses will not be penalized, however, severe and continual lapses that interfere with readability will cause your grade to suffer. You do not need a title page; just your name and your College email address is enough. It must be uploaded in .doc, .docx, or .pdf format. If I have to ask you to resubmit it because you did not use the proper formatting, you will lose points. Lastly, and very importantly: the only words not written by you should be direct quotations from the thinkers you are discussing. Do not cut and paste from internet sources. Do not paraphrase from internet sources. Plagiarism is a serious offense, and carries with is very serious penalties; additionally, not everything you read on the internet - especially when it comes to philosophy - is true or accurate.