One of the Graeco-Roman philosophies is stoicism
One of the founders of this school of thinking is Epictetus. The philosophy's primary focus was on providing both therapeutic and helpful guidance on issues related to dysfunctional wants and unreasonable emotions. According to Epictetus, while certain things are in our control and, therefore, beneficial to us, there are still those that are out of our control. In a similar vein, he contends that it is up to us to make judgements about what is good or evil, harmful, or helpful. So, our judgments or voluntarily held aversions are the source of our desires. On the contrast however, Epictetus argues that our bodies, property and professional statues are not our voluntary actions. Whatever is up to us is thus that which makes us free but whatever is not up to us is that which makes us slaves. Further, he says that suffering arises as a result of mankind confusing that which is free with slavery and vice versa. Also, the promise of philosophy is that of one treats his own as one's own and that's what is not theirs as not being theirs then it is necessary for people to avoid enmity, blame and criticism. He also argues that man cannot please two masters, and it is thus necessary to express ones displeasures by first evaluating the circumstances, ideas and Judgement before making a conclusion.
Stockdale applied a range of Epictetus thoughts especially when he was facing a very hard life in prison. One of such philosophies is ascribing to the idea that "life is a soldier service" and thus the need to ensure despite any challenges. He was also reminded that just like an army who fails to own up to his responsibilities within the army hurts it, so is a human being who chooses to give up. Stoicism thus taught him an art of endurance as opposed to the false hope that his release was coming soon.
Question 2
The Golden rule according to Maclver is that one ought to treat other people in the manner in which he or she would like to be treated in return. It is a rule that is geared towards promoting morality in the society. It also connotes whatever an individual wishes upon others, so do they wish upon themselves. For this reason, men are encouraged that in the process of doing good to others, they should never expect others to do the same. It is rather a moral obligation. This is why the rule is sometimes referred to as the golden rule of reciprocity. The rule is a culmination of the experiences of man which are thus aimed at the common good of the people. Further, it is evident that all the human beings possess feeling and emotions and thus we as human beings must be considerate to this feelings and emotions. It thus advocates for compassion, respect and kindness towards others. We can be able to feel pain through our feelings when hurt and that's exactly what other people feel too and for this reason, it is only prudent we treat them in special manner. The approach is advantageous because it is very easy to understand. The theory is not complicated and it is based on human feelings which every person can use to feel and think of what others go through when hurt too.
Whatley on the other hand rejects the perception of conceiving the golden rule as the foundation of morality but rather argues that human beings have conscience upon which they make their moral decisions.
He argues that conscience directs man on what is good or bad and is thus a sub faculty of the human brain. He thus concludes that just like the clock must be corrected in order to function properly, human beings must regulate their conduct by conscience and allow their conscience to be regulated by the instructions of God.
Question 3
Ruth Benedict argued the case for moral relativism. She argues that our moral beliefs arise from the practices enshrined in our local systems and our common beliefs. In short what she was stating is that the groups, communities or other gatherings that we associate with play a very great role in impacting on our beliefs about morality. She further goes on to say that the moral beliefs from one culture however cannot be deemed as being objectively true but rather an entry into a wide range of possible adjustments. The belief of one's culture when subjected to another culture thus leads to an adjustment of one's culture. Besides this however, whatever human beings deem as being either good or bad have an origin from culture and so is the normality or the abnormality of actions. The theory is deemed as being appealing owing to the fact that people love self-respect and they are willing to adjust their moral underpinnings owing to the differences between various cultures in the world. For this reasons, she argues that all the societies in the world have their own peculiar moral codes and all the codes belonging to the different cultures are equally good. She thus says that instead of judging the morality of other societies, we should be ready and willing to embrace tolerance.
On the contrary, Rachels gives a critique of moral relativism. She argues that the fact that different groups, societies and cultures bear different moral codes, there can never be any objective truth in morality. She in fact says that whatever is deemed good or bad or right and wrong is a matter of opinions, which opinions differ amongst all the societies. It will thus be quite absurd to refer to the morality of any society or culture as being objectively true.
Question 4
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle focusses on traits of character and moral virtues. According to Aristotle, there is no list of accepted virtues but rather whatever falls on the list has a basis from what is recognized as virtue. He defines virtue as the character traits that enable us to lead a good life in society. According to him, a good life is one that that adheres to reason. A character that hinders us from living a good life cannot thus be referred to as virtue but rather vice. Aristotle also states that whatever is of the soul is character. Since virtue is of the soul, it thus affects the character of a human being. He further adds that virtue can only be understood when men realize what practical wisdom is. This is an aspect of reason and all our passions must be susceptible to reason. At any time we feel like we are living with our passions in an irrational way we cannot certainly say that we are living well. Virtue according to Aristotle is that aspect of character that is majorly concerned with how we make our choices and this is based on the mean. The ethical theory by Aristotle is part of the aim for eudaimonia and thus teleological. This is where the human beings aim at a superior position.
Urmson and Mayo's arguments are in line with Aristotle virtues. The two argue that it is better for men to follow the virtue ethics as opposed to principle ethics because it is more complete. They argue that when principles are let to run the morality of beings, it becomes very complicated because it is incapable of dealing with the novel situations. They argue that virtue informs the society of how to live well as opposed to what to do and thus more flexible. This is the same position held by Aristotle. In brief therefore, they also advocate for the use of reason in governing matters of virtue as opposed to the use of rules governing the same. They use the example of saints and virtues where they argue that the two have one thing in common; that is, they are both mindful of virtue and their character. Through this they are deemed as examples of well-being by people in the society.
Question 5
The ethics of care theory is a feminist theory that advocates for compassion and and caring for others. So an act to be termed as being good or bad therefore it must be capable of satisfying he needs of the people. I t is thus much concerned about ensuring that there are healthy and meaningful relations in the society. The theory further advocates for fairness where it is argued that all like cases must be decided in a similar manner. Further, every person has a responsibility of ensuring that justice is done to others and an effort is done towards preventing harm on other human beings. It thus advocates for individuals making their own independent choices and being allowed to exercise their rights without any hindrance.
The response by Carol Gillian to Kohlberg is based on the fact that Kohlberg in coming up with his assumptions, overlooked the differences in the moral judgments of both the male and females. In carrying out his experiment, Kohlberg argued that women were morally underdeveloped and thus went ahead to conduct his sample with the use of only the male. He based his arguments on biological differences, psychosocial differences and educational and cultural differences. Carol Gillian however argues that morality is a personal opinion or choice and has nothing to do with gender. For this reason, the ethics of care being a feminist theory that is concerned about fairness for all resonates well with Gillian Criticism of Kohlberg's male dominated theory.
