YAYONG, MELODY FREJOLES

BSMA-II

REFLECTION 1: (ARISTOTLE and KANT)

COMMON

 Their moral goodness lies in the fact that they seek to achieve the virtuous
society on the basis of ethical actions of individuals based on the set of
ground laws, which are defined by the categorical imperatives in the
Kantian logic and the balance of emotions in the philosophy of Aristotle.
The two logics given by the philosophers are based on a set of
groundwork moral laws, where the achievement of the perfect society is
based on the fact that the response of an individual in a given set of
stimuli should adhere to the moral code of conduct in the society. Their
theories are both based on practical actions and decision making rather
than the theoretical philosophical view of the situation.
 They have different criteria/ideas on the views of ethics and morality, but
in result the same objectives which is for the good of everyone, by
following the path of morality and ethical behavior.
 Both basically seek to achieve a happy and sustainable society, which
according to them can only exist if the citizen of the society adheres to
ethical and moral decision mamaking.
 Both theories seek the achievement of individual pleasure in the actions.
The actions of the individuals may be seeing to achieve happiness but they
are considered good by the philosophers based on the fact that the actions
do not harm the society.
 And also, they, both believe that the rationality is a distinct quality of
human nature.

DIFFERENCES

 They differ on the definitions and actions of Good will

—The good will in the Kantian sense cannot be achieved by an individual
who has a Aristotelian weak will. Therefore, it can be said that the
willpower of the individual is seen as a guiding force and the justification
of their action in both the philosophies. The definition of will may be a bit
different in the two philosophies but the actions of the individual are
judged on the basis of will or the perceived output of their actions in the
philosophies.
  Aristotelian concepts of happiness is hypothetical imperatives while for
Kant Categorical imperative
—For Aristotle, all actions are believed to serve the end of happiness.
Kant does not share this position and alternatively argues for the
Categorical Imperative instead. According to Kant, there is only one
categorical imperative. Specifically, Kant refers to the imperative to act in
a way that you would want the motivating standard to be a universal law.
Kant explains that the principle of morality represented by the
categorical imperative corresponds with three particular qualities. 1),the
principle takes on a universal form. In this it does not vary between
context, but remains a fixed law outside of experience. 2), the maxims
within the moral law have an end that is an end in itself. This means that
the motivation for a moral act is the valued for itself. 3), under the
principle of morality, the maxims of all actions are consistent with what
Kant refers to as ‘the Kingdom of Ends’, which in Heaven, but for Plato is
only within this world.

 They differ on the positions regarding the role of others interests when
determining correct actions.

REACTION🤔🤔
—With that, it clearly seen that the two great philosophers having a disparity of
a great time span propounded the theories of moral goodness and virtuous ethics.
Despite this, the theories propounded by them seek to achieve a single objective
of making a virtuous and happy society. The important factors that these
theories take in view to justify the moral goodness are also the same. Moreover,
both the theories have a practical and action based approach of the philosophy,
which makes them all the more similar. The achievement of the ideal society in
the perspective of the two philosophers can only be done by ideal and perfect
decision-making based on a set of moral grounds. Therefore, it can be concluded
that both the theories may look different from an overview but actually seek to
achieve and the same objective, which is a happy and virtuous societal world.
REFLECTION 2: (PLATO and THOMAS)

COMMON
 They both agrees that moral principles are subject to change, but the real
area of contention is whether or not there are any moral principles that
remain unchanged irregardless of the situation.
 They both believed in education, reason, justice, and that Being has
always existed. Plato said that the Demiurge shaped the universe from the
Forms he saw in his mind. Aristotle denied the Forms; he was an
empiricist in many ways, a scientist.
 They both thought Socrates was a worthy predecessor, although Plato
devoted his mind to him pretty totally. Aristotle seemed to admire
Socrates’ search for definitions of concepts.

DIFFERENCES

 Aristotle sees natural right as variable while Aquinas tries to draw a hard
line in regards to natural law: there are some things that are never
acceptable and others that are subject to one’s circumstance.

 Their point of view of the politics

—for Aristotle a, society is like a slavery, he comes to that idea because he
was mostly influenced by the meritocratic ideas. While Aquinas, as
influence by Christianistic point of view, his politics is govern by the
golden rule, which to treat others as one wants himself to be treated, was
opposed to Slavery on principle.

 St. Thomas philosophy involved Christo- centric ideas while Plato's ideas
does not

 Their idea of Forms

—For Plato's account, forms were universals that existed separately from
their objects. Aquinas denied the platonics ideas, for him universal Forms
or the concept of some unchanging, immutable, immaterial object apart
 from sensible reality. Aquinas believed that form and matter together
formed objects in reality. But the form of Aquinas was an immanent form
that assigns an object to its class.
PLATO THOMAS

 For Aquinas man is a composite being, while for Plato's are not
—Aquinas contradict the platos ideas that man is a soul simply using a
body. For Aquinas, that these things are not possible by having soul alone.
It requires a body. According to Aquinas, man is a composite being; he is
composed of both body and soul. But instead of the Platonic view of man
being a soul in a body, Aquinas maintains that it is the body that is in the
soul, not the soul in the body.

REACTION🤔🤔

‍
♀️

What I'm gonna do now, which of which I most prefer with??🙉🙉!! Charottt..
Here it is, of the two most influential thinkers, Plato and St. Thomas. Yaahh!!
their theories are most interesting to read and I both agree with them, but one of
my most prefer is the idea of St. Thomas Aquinas since Aquinas are very devoted
of divinely matters —a christ centered man. I do believe most of him that man
cannot exist without God or a sense of spiritual being. For me without
spirituality man is nowhere or nothing in this world, even if I haven't seen yet the
God, but I can feel it. And the same think with Aquinas, how and why man exist
in this world? For me, man cannot exist alone if without an immortal power or
the creator and that is our God. For Aquinas beliefs, w are dependent created
beings, we do not come for ourselves, yet on the other hand, we have a true
autonomy so that we are not only something apparent — as certain platonics say
—but a reality desired by God as, such and possessing an inherent value. In
additions, human is a dynamic being who seeks himself, seeks to become himself,
and, in this regard, seeks to do actions that build him up, that make him truly
man; and here the moral law comes into it, Grace and reason itself, the will and
the passions enter too. And this is what man's live in accord with the holy spirit,
and thus becomes an image of likeness of God.

To elaborate, Man is nothing or no directions in his life or to make him a truly

man if without having spiritual sense of guidance and that's through prayers and
have faith with God, or to be connected With Him, the God. And also have a
sense of morality, to do good and avoid evil works which can harms other social
beings and specially within yourself.
REFLECTION 3: (BENTHAM and Mill)

COMMON

 They are Hedonists

—they both considered happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and
believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue.
 they both believe that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness
and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness—not just the
happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected
by it. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person
should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to
any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or
wrong independently of their consequences.

DIFFERENCES

BENTHAM THEORY DIFFERENCES Mill THEORY

Bentham's
 Focus only quantity  Focus both the
utilitarianism was
criticised for being a
of pleasure quantity and
philosophy "worthy
of only swine". This is
quality of pleasure
because he made no
distinction between
 the pleasures

👉 👈
experienced by beasts
and those experienced
by humans.
"Quantity of pleasure
being equal, pushpin
is as good as poetry".
Mill acknowledged
this, and to sidestep
the criticism, he
considered both
quantity and quality
pleasure. Mill
distinguished between
higher pleasures
(those that require
mental faculties that
only educated
humans could obtain)
and lower pleasures
(bodily pleasures that
both animals and
humans could
experience). For Mill,
higher pleasures are
more valuable than
lower pleasures,
because of their
intrinsic superiority.
Though Mill's theory
is more respecful of
human nature, it
makes pleasure even
more difficult to
calculate as we now
have to consider
unquantifiable quality
of pleasure, as well as
the quantity.
Bentham's theory
 Act of utilitarianism  Rule of
applied the principle
of utility to individual
utilitarianism
acts and situations
 👉
directly. This meant

👈
that some abhorrent
acts were permitted.
Ex. two torturers may
be justified in their
activity if their
pleasure outweighs
the harm done to the
victim. Mill developed
rule utilitarianism to
avoid this. Mill
suggested that the
principle of utlity
should be used to
determine moral rules
which govern utility.
(Ex. Do not kill people
as killing people tends
to lower net utility.
This seems like an
improvement, but
there are situations
where breaking the
rule increases utility,
where it may be
expedient to break
them, to put it Mill's
way. Not to do this is
to worship the rules
rather than the
principle of utility
itself. In order to
avoid rule worship
the theory collapses
into act utlitarianism,
as we have to make
exceptions to every
occasion of this sort.

REACTION🤔🤔
The utilitarians are very logical, especially on the determinations of what is right
and wrong. To these intrinsic thinkers, one of my most trigger part or interesting
part to their ideas to agree or support with, is that utilitarianist did not accept
the divine command theory or (following God's command is right) as utilitarians
says they do not find the commands attributed to God to be acceptable. For
example, consider the basic moral command, "Thou shalt not kill". It is easy for
a utilitarian to find cases where killing is justified: killing the terrorist who is
threatening to blow up an airplane packed with innocent people or even killing
an innocent person in order to save may other lives.

I agree on that ideas because when I saw, there are some of the command are
contradicting or contrary, such in the ten commandments, like "obey your
parents" for they know what is right or wrong for their child, consider this
scenario, " Mario (the father) command his only son," anak wa man taroy
masud-an pangawat sa nalang didto ug manok sa atong mga silingan," and the
son says" Pa diba sala nang mangawat naa na sa ten commandment and the
father replied "na unsaon na mana na it also stated there that you should obey
your father and mother". You see, it is contradicting in a sense, that is why I
strongly support the utilitarians ideas of what is really right and wrong, but not
all their ideas I would agree, such that for the utilitarian abortion is good. For
me in this case, half of it utilitarian is right and half of it they are wrong.
Consider this ideas, here in our country if there is a law that abortion is right or
applicably adopted, then most of the pregnant women's in our country would
rather to abort their child just for the another lustfullness thing if that so, for me
it is no longer right, for me only the abortions is thought right if the woman is in
difficult situations like the woman will be dead if we will not abort the child
because of the abnormalities or the fetus inside will poison the mother because
that child is already dead inside her womb, so if that would happen, then it is
right to go abort the baby/child.