There is a raft of divergent views or schools of thought that have been advanced by various philosophers that relate to ethics. This paper seeks to compare and contrast these differing views held by some of the renowned thinkers such as Richard Rorty, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas. At the tail end, this paper will outline which of the arguments posited by the philosophers mentioned above were the most persuasive.
Comparing Rorty’s Perception to Other Philosophers
Richard Rorty is among the philosophers who argue against relativism, a school of thought that states that any belief is as good as any other. Rorty puts forward an alternative view of relativism that seeks to limit the self-contradiction that the ideology contains. He does so by advancing the notion of “anti-foundationalism” or “pragmatism” that is premised on the fact that one cannot say with certainty that a particular ideology is better than the other. I find Rorty’s argument persuasive since whether a given view is good or bad is not absolute but largely depends on a specific context. In light of the foregoing, there is a likelihood that the perception people held a week, a month or a few years back, might change.
Rorty’s view of pragmatism resonates with that of Rousseau. Rousseau is said to have been the forerunner of this ideology in the 18th Century. Rousseau did not have the luxury of attending systematic education and therefore he was open-minded. This trait helped him ascribe to views held by thinkers such as John Locke. One of the views Rousseau adopted from Locke was one that believed that ideas were not inborn and came as a result of pondering over various concepts. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant’s philosophical account contributed immensely to the development of pragmatism in the contemporary world. Rorty’s notion of pragmatism hares some assumptions about the critical nature of Kant's ideology. Kant developed three fundamental questions as part of his critiques of the philosophical accounts that existed at the time. These three questions were later advanced by some neo-pragmatic philosophers such as Rorty and Hilary Putnam.
It should be noted that Hobbes’ perception that “good and evil are really just matters of taste” differs from Rorty’s ideology. Hobbes was cognizant of the fact that an individual would have a specific taste that influenced their ethical beliefs. Rorty, on the other hand, believed that these tastes were likely to change over time. Between Hobbes and Rorty, I believe that the former provides a better account of moral life since if an individual believes that a particular act is immoral, this perception will hardly change just because of the passage of time or presence of a different context.
Conception of Morality
Kant’s conception of morality can be said to be premised on the acts that the society obliges an individual to do or refrain from doing. This school of thought has some shortcomings since not everything done with the right intention can be construed as being morally worthy. Aristotle would not have concurred with Kantian’s view because morality was an individual choice that was realized through practice as opposed to being instructed or reasoning. St. Thomas would also not concur with Kant's ideology since morality according to him consists of actions that eventually bring humans closer to God. Hobbes also holds a divergent conception of morality that what is to be considered moral largely depends on the context people find themselves in.
Aristotle and Mill’s Perception of Happiness
Aristotle believes that morality is intertwined with the functions and purpose human beings have on earth. Therefore, in order for human beings to be happy we need to embrace our rational elements so that we become better than other living creatures. Mill on the flip side had a different understanding of morality, one that believes that moral actions ideally are supposed to lead to happiness.
Conclusion
In light of the arguments that have been outlined by all the philosophers in the text above, I find that Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy is the most persuasive. This is because he neatly outlined how he arrived at the various inferences as a result of the critical questions he laid down in his critiques. Other than the fact that his perception of morality had some shortcomings, his general conception of ethics was well throughout.
