0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Did john Locke believe people were good or evil?
John Locke believed that people were born as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, and that their character was shaped by their experiences and environment. He did not believe that people were inherently good or evil, but rather that they had the capacity to act in ways that aligned with reason and natural law.
How does Socrates define morality?
Socrates defines morality as the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge, leading to the discovery of what is truly good and just. He believes that virtues such as wisdom, courage, and justice are essential components of living a moral life. He argues that an individual who understands what is good will naturally act in accordance with moral principles.
What is evil according to Socrates?
Socrates believed that evil arises from ignorance. He thought that people do wrong because they lack knowledge of what is good and virtuous, so to act in a harmful way is to act against one's own best interest. Socrates believed that knowledge of the good would lead to moral behavior.
What are the essential elements of human acts and their meanings?
The essential elements of human acts are the object (what), the intention (why), and the circumstances (how, where, when). The object refers to the action itself, the intention is the purpose or motive behind the action, and the circumstances are the conditions surrounding the action. These elements help determine the morality and meaning of a human act.
What does Socrates mean when he claims that virtue is knowledge?
Socrates believed that having knowledge of what is good and right will naturally lead a person to act virtuously. He argued that if a person truly understands what is morally right, they will always choose to act in accordance with that knowledge. Therefore, to be virtuous is to have knowledge of what is morally good.
Is there good consequences for evil acts?
Not at all.It is impossible. if it is true that a n evil act has good consequence there is no evil act exists.An evil act will always consequence a bad and evil end.
Can evil people act good and can good people act evil?
yes i know one
What are the basis of morality of human acts?
The basis of morality in a human action is well defined and prescribed in all religions and their scriptures. A person who is religious or believes in religion shall not commit an immoral act
Constituents of human acts?
The constituents of human acts include intention (the purpose or motive behind the action), knowledge (awareness of what is being done), and consent (the voluntary decision to engage in the action). These elements help determine the morality and responsibility of the human act.
Do morality and ethics have the same meaning?
No. Morality is the consciousness of good and evil practices within the parameters of your environment. Bear in mind that good can be evil and evil can be good - dependent on variation of cultures, places and environments. For example, in Western Culture, it is considered an immoral act for a married man to have sex with another woman other than his wife. (Adultery) But in some other cultures, men can have multiple wives. Morality therefore deals with the spiritual perceptions with regards to the behaviors. Ethics are a set of rules that govern a profession or institution. For example, if you are a psychologist, it would be unethical to have a sexual relationship with one of your clients. The same is true for a teacher, therapist, counselor, doctor, etc. Morality is an accepted code of conduct that one would find in a religion or culture. Ethics on the other hand are how that standard of morality is practiced such as what one would see in company or corporation that uses a Standard of Ethics Policy Manual.
Why should the knowledge of good and evil be forbidden?
The knowledge of good and evil should not be forbidden. Understanding the difference between good and evil allows individuals to make moral choices and act in a way that aligns with their values. It promotes personal growth, empathy, and ethical decision-making.
What is the ultimate norm of morality in human acts?
There are four main elements or factors which are determinative of the morality of action. They are, as called by traditional moral philosophy, the intention, the nature and object of the act itself, the circumstances, and the foreseeable consequences.
Utilitarians evaluate the morality of an act by examining the?
consequences of the act.
Is it justifiable to perform an evil act to achieve good consequences?
Ethical theories differ on this question. Some argue that the consequences of an action determine its morality, while others believe that certain acts are inherently wrong regardless of the outcome. It is important to carefully consider the ethical implications and potential unintended consequences before engaging in any action.
How can a human act be reduced into an act of man?
Your question does not make sense. The closest relationship to your question would be 'How can a man reduce a human act?' I base my answer on the latter: Man (also involving women) is given the morality to know right from wrong. Here are some examples as how man can reduce a human act: * A person that is entrusted with children, but will verbally or physically demean a child. * A man that is given power that should be put to good use, but uses this power against their own kind. * A man that has a religious belief and kills his own kind and feels that he/she can be forgiven and then kill again. * A doctor that has taken the Code of Ethics, but does not follow through with the Code of Ethics and is not behind his patients for the best health care they deserve. * Cloning of organs - man has been given the gift of knowledge and when it comes to science may have to weigh the good with the evil. Cloning of organs can save many lives, but, not so far into the distant future powerful individuals can and will take this knowledge and use it for evil such as possibly cloning evil dictators, etc. * A man of power whether in government that is suppose to lead the people of that country down a righteous road often turns to greed, power with secrets kept from the people. This is a choice of morality in that individual! The power and greed generally over rules most situations such as this. These are but a few instances. There are many more examples out in the world. A human act should be kind, giving and truthful and man can run with each individual choice between good and evil.
What are the three determinants of morality by St. Thomas Aquinas?
DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY/SOURCES OF MORALITYMorality - consists in the conformity and non-conformity of an act with the normHOW DOES AN ACT RELATE TO THE NORM?HOW DO WE KNOW THAT A GIVEN ACT IS MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE OR NOT?Human Acts relate to the norm under the following aspects:a) In Itself = as a deedb) In its Motivec) In its circumstancesThe 2 principal elements of the act, the object and the intention of the agent must be ordained to the last end. The circumstances though accidental to the action, must also be ordained to the last end, since they could also be important.These 3 aspects are called Determinants of Morality|- determine how an act is rendered good or bad on the basis of its relation with the norm- the ordination of human acts to God depends on them, in accordance with the condition of created beings- If these 3 principles or aspects are good, the action is good, because it leads to God and makes the agent better.Ø "BONUM EX INTEGRA CAUSA, MALUM EX QUOCUMQUE DEFECTU"- It means that, a thing is good if it has the fullness of its parts and it is bad when it is deficient in any of its integral parts- In moral parlance: human act is good when it is good in itself, in its motive, or purpose and circumstances. Defect coming from any of those aspects renders an act morally objectionable. In other words, like human anatomy, an act must have the perfection of its parts- Thus, a thing to be good must be entirely good, vitiated by any defectI. ACT IN ITSELF/OBJECT- To consider an act in itself is to regard its nature- ACT = not simply a mental or bodily activity requiring an expenditure of energy= it is physical tendency towards a definite result- we are dealing here with the human act performed, the deed done- RESULT=a) end of the act (finis operis)b) end of the agent (finis operantis) = motive of the doer- In physical sense = some actions are bad because they produce such evils as pain, hunger, illness or death- In moral sense = actions are bad because they disturb the harmony within the acting person` = they are unfit to the natural and spiritual tendencies of the human soul= Moral evils also produce physical harm and damage of oneself and others = they are moral evils because what they destroy is the innate goodness, the Image of God in our human nature= Thus, moral evils are those that go against the natural lawØ INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVILINTRINSIC - implies a quality inherent in a thing- Thus, an intrinsic evil act is an act which is evil in itselfEXTRINSIC - implies a quality which is superficially added to a thing(Example, a coat of paint covering surface of the wall without modifying the essentiality of the wood constituting the wall)- extrinsic evil - an act which in itself is not evil but is made evil nonetheless on account of something else- extrinsic evil act - that which, although good or indifferent in itself, is however prohibited by the lawINTRINSIC EVIL ACT = certain actions are in themselves objectively good and certain others are objectively evil. Men have always regarded certain acts as good in themselves because as a matter of fact, they are good= by its nature, that is, by its functional purpose is wrongful= natural law = tendency of man to actualize his potentials as a rational creature, that is, to be a person|- an act which prevents man from realizing his true worth as a person is intrinsically evil- ex. Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, lies, slavery = they contradict the demands of reason for justice, truth an decency= these actions are evil, not only because they cause unjust harm and suffering to others but above all, they dehumanize their perpetrators, reducing them to the level of beasts/ animals/irrationalØ TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF PERSON WE OUGHT TO BE ON THE BASIS OF OUR NATURAL AND RATIONAL TENDENCIES = we can identify with relative accuracy those actions that are to be avoided as intrinsically harmful- The Decalogue of Moses and many human laws - identify some actions like blasphemy, stealing, untruthfulness, murder and adulteryØ In the tradition and culture of all people - there are those actions which are regarded with horror and great repugnance = this means that it the consciousness of men certain actions are to be avoided as extremely dangerous poisons; actions that cause misery and physical afflictions to manII. MOTIVE OF THE ACT/ INTENTION OF THE AGENT- it is the purpose which the doer wishes to achieve by such action- it gives direction and motivation to an act = without a motive, an act is meaningless, and accident- it comes FIRST in the mind as intention and occurs LAST in the action as its culmination or fulfillmentWHAT IS A GOOD MOTIVE?= one which is consistent with the dignity of the human person= one which is in accordance with the truth, justice, prudence andtemperanceBAD MOTIVE = one which grows from selfishness - such motive provokes action detrimental to others- Excessive indulgence of the self - a form of personal injustice to oneself, nursing the greed that destroys othersAction springing from the self seeking its goal = such desire must be moderated by prudence and fairnessOld Testament = a good man is called a just man|- he acts rightly out of respect for himselfAnd out of his concern for othersØ THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS- to the doer = an act is a means of achieving an aim or purposeEx. we study = to acquire knowledge, to pass the course, to receive a degree, to qualify for a jobWrong = to attempt at a good purpose by evil meansExamples:- Student may not cheat in an exam in order to graduate- Employee may not fake his documents in order to be promoted in job- Public official may not accept bribe in order to finance a health centerThe axiom "The End does not justify the Means"- means that the worthiness of purpose does not make an evil act good(nothing is more pernicious than for a hoodlum to believe that he is justified in robbing the rich because he wants to share the loot with the poor = Robin Hood)Ø INSIGHTS ON THE EFFECTS OF THE MOTIVE ON THE ACTION(Paul Glenn)a) An evil act which is done on account of an evil motive is grievously wrong (an objectively evil act performed for an evil purpose takes on a new malice from the evil end. If it has several evil ends, it takes on new malice from each)b) A good action done on account of an evil motive becomes evil itself (An act which is objectively good but done for an evil end is entirely evil. If the evil end is the whole motive of the act, an act is gravely evil if the evil end is gravely evil, and an act is only partially evil if the evil is neither gravely evil nor the whole motive of the act)c) A good action done on account of a good purpose acquires an additional merit (an objectively good act performed for a good purpose takes on a new goodness from the good end if it has several good ends)d) An indifferent act may either become good or bad depending on the motivee) An objectively evil act can never become good by reason of a good endIII. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACTAn ACT = an event = it happens in a definite time and place= accompanied by certain elements which contribute to the nature and accountability of such actIn Law = we speak of mitigating or aggravating factors affecting a criminal actMorality = takes into account the circumstancessurrounding an act|- who- what- where- with whom- why- how- wherev WHO- refers primarily to the doer of the act = who is the agent?- at times, it also refers to the receiver of the act = to whom is the action done?- this circumstance includes the age, status, relation, family background, educational attainment, health and socio-economic situation of the person or persons involved in an actObservations:a) The moron, the insane, the senile, and the children below the age of reason are considered incapable of voluntary acts and therefore are exempted from moral accountability.- But actions against these persons are normally regarded most cruel due to their helplessness in defending themselvesb) Persons with higher educational attainment are presumed to know "better" than those with little education. Accordingly, their liability is higher. Indeed, "to whom much is given, much is expected."c) Persons vested with authority have higher accountability than those who merely follow their order or command. This is the meaning of "command responsibility"which makes a superior or official accountable for the actuation of those under their authority.d) The relationship between people involved in actmay modify the nature of such act.- In this sense, adultery is different from fornication, and parricide from homicidev WHAT- refers to the act itself and to the quality and quantity of the results of such act.- what is the extent of the act? Was the injury inflicted serious or slight? Was the amount stolen large or small?v WHERE- refers to the circumstance of place where the act is committed- where was the act committed?v WITH WHOM- refers to the companion or accomplices in an act performed. This includes the number and statusof the persons involved. The more people involved in the commission of an act, the greater and more serious is the crimev WHY- refers to the motive or intention of the doerv HOW- refers to the manner how the act is made possible- under what condition? Was the action performed by the agent done in good or bad faith?- How an act is performed contributes to the malice of an actv WHEN- refers to the time of the act- when was the act committed?Ø Observations:1) Circumstances may either increase or decrease the wrongfulness of an evil act2) Circumstances also may either increase or decrease the merits of a good act3) Some circumstances may alter the nature of an actEthical Principles:1) An indifferent act becomes good or evil by reason by reason of its circumstance2) A good act may become evil by reason of circumstance3) A good or evil act may become better or worse by reason of the circumstance and may even take on new goodness or malice from its circumstance4) An evil act can never be made good by circumstance5) A circumstance which is gravely evil destroys the entire goodness of an objectively good act6) A circumstance which is evil but not gravely so does not entirely destroys the goodness of an objectively good act.CONCLUSION:Distinction between good act and evil act = it is not an illusion of the mind= There are good actions and there are evil actions and their realities do not come from out mind= Evil is not man's invention = rather, it means that man uses his freedom to do wrong- only man can do something morally wrong = because only man has the power to choose between what is good and what is wrongØ To be an authentic person is to be a responsible person. He knows how to use his freedom only as an instrument to do good
Why is the theme evil in he book dawn by elie Wiesel?
In the book "Dawn" by Elie Wiesel, the theme of evil is prevalent as it portrays the internal conflict within the protagonist Elisha, who struggles with his feelings of revenge and the violent act he is about to commit. The novel also explores the broader context of war and the dehumanizing effects it has on individuals. Ultimately, the theme of evil serves to challenge readers to reflect on the complexities of morality and human behavior in the face of extreme circumstances.
