Arguments by Aristotle depict morality as an inexact science. Morality is viewed as an uncertain controlled behavior whose ways of reasoning do not comply with the set standards of Science. He puts into action reasoning methods that are not in line with his philosophical rules of science. Morality is also seen as inexact science as it portrays characteristics that make them obstinate to scientific research. Aristotle also argues that the whole reality of morality only reserves the most part and hence exists no scientific based knowledge of things that reserve only for the bigger part. He argues that morality is a practically controlled behavior and the reason for such a controlled behavior is putting into action and not pragmatism. He also contends that the principal objective of a mental conception certainly is an action (Henry & Nielsen, 2015).
Morality is viewed as a proper science according to Locke. He also defines morality as wholly being a business to humankind. This is because it is the obligation of human beings to find out and fix our good. Locke views morality as the science in which we people use our powers to perform and act in line with a way we realize what fits us and suits our needs best. He also views morality as being a proper science as he describes morality to be the act of finding out the governing rules and the measures by the human beings. Morality being directly connected to human understanding and hence researches on how the known proper science is practiced to human kind. He also views morality as a real science in consideration with the means and ways by which set rules to govern people is practiced (Pierris,2006).
Hume views morality as a natural science. He derives morality from emotions occurring naturally and not from reason. Hume believes that a human being does what is right because that is what typically makes them happy and feel safe. According to Humes he firmly believes that existence of morality is based on the natural tendency for the human to feel pleasure and avoid pain, it is not caused by reason. He goes ahead to argue that morality is a natural science as a persons recommendation on an issue or the posed judgments over an action are based on a humans moral sense and not reason. In consideration of science, he seconds that it is our human feelings that provide an essential guide for our moral conduct; such as we try to do right so as to avoid pain caused by evil deeds De (Pierris,2006).
I agree with Lockes argument on morality as a proper science. This is because it is logic that morality is rooted in humanity business. Human beings will only do what fits them, what prevents human from pain. It is also true that it is our fundamental duty to find out what is good and fix our right. Compared to basing our good on reasons. Human action is guide measured by our set rules, thus seconding Locke when he argues that Morality is a proper science because it is the act of finding out the governing standards and the measures by us human. Based on virtue Aristotle views that both cognitive and affective states are very necessary. Affective states including ones desires, emotions, and feelings. Cognitive states including ones belief on a situation and knowledge.
References
Henry, D., & Nielsen, K. M. (2015). Bridging the Gap Between Aristotle's Science and Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
De Pierris, G. (2006). Hume and Locke on scientific methodology: The Newtonian Legacy. Hume Studies, 32(2), 277-329.
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
