Escape for a moment from writing a thesis that is full of rules. From writing techniques to how to quote everything as arranged as possible. Moreover, only a few of the many sentences can use their own opinion. Even though he has studied for more than four years, he has not yet obtained the freedom of expression. It restricts creative freedom. Strata-1 is only assigned to present the theory, he said.
Fatigue in the limitations of opinion might be better stated in a writing. Writing in own blog that does not require rules, only its principles that should not be violated. Because he examines moral reasoning in his thesis, recently the literature that has been devoured is not far from the discussion of morals. So on this occasion, I am interested in discussing morals.
If we trace the history, this discussion of morals is as old as science. Science departs from the discussion of philosophy which is recorded as being born in Greece in the era around 500 BC. From the era of Socrates, the discussion of morals has been studied in depth even though it has not been recorded comprehensively. Moral philosophy, briefly discusses what is good and what is not good.
Throughout history, perhaps no moral philosophy has been easier to understand and so widespread than hedonism. Yes, hedonism is a flow in moral philosophy. Moral philosophy answers philosophical questions in the form of "what is the best thing for humans?", Adherents of hedonism answer "pleasure". Hedone is Greek means pleasure. Hedonism was discovered by Kyrene, a student of Socrates. In the early days of hedonism, the pleasure was seen only outwardly. So, as long as the things that are done are fun, it is good according to this viewpoint.
Another philosopher, Epicurus, criticized this view. He agreed that the best thing for humans is a pleasure. However, for Epicurus, there was a pleasure beyond outward pleasure. He argues, desire should be limited to give birth to greater pleasure. According to Epicurus, there are three kinds of desires, namely unnecessary natural desires (such as food), unnecessary natural desires (such as good food), and vain desires (such as wealth). Only the first desire has to be satisfied. Therefore he advocated a simple way of life. For him, unnecessary or even vain desires disturb the peace of mind. Yes, similar to the opinion of Gautama Buddha.
Furthermore, the famous philosopher Aristoteles stated that the best thing for humans is happiness. For Aristoteles, happiness is the ultimate goal of mankind. In our understanding, happiness is relative. Some think that pleasure is happiness, some think that abundant wealth is happiness and there are many other opinions about happiness. But, according to Aristoteles, it was wrong. Wealth, for example, is mostly obtained to achieve other goals. So, not the end goal. Aristoteles thought that the final goal is when humans carry out their functions properly. The goal of football players is to play football well, the goal of music players is to do music well and so on.
The question then is what is the ultimate universal human goal? The characteristic of man that distinguishes him from animals is his reason or ratio. So, for Aristoteles, the ultimate goal (happiness) of humans is to carry out their rational activities properly. This means that humans must run it with virtue. According to Aristoteles, there are two virtues, namely intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Aristoteles discussed this matter of virtue at length, especially regarding moral virtues. Aristoteles thought that morals are in line with reason, so people who have a good level of ratio are moral and vice versa. Too complicated to discuss here. Aristoteles flow of moral philosophy is known as Eudemonism.
Furthermore, there is a flow of Utilitarianism which was coined by the philosopher David Hume in England during the renaissance era. This flow was intended as an ethical basis for reforming English law. This flow is not much different from classical hedonism, it's just that Utilitarianists think that the moralism of action must be determined by considering its usefulness to achieve human happiness. So, in this flow, whether or not an action is ethical is based on fulfilling the happiness of many people. Not only emphasized on individuals like hedonism. John Stuart Mill, a great British philosopher, stated that one's happiness should not cause unhappiness for others. Happiness that causes suffering to others is not ethical or moral.
Yes, utilitarianism is not as colourful as it is written. It's just that my limitations and the complexity of utilitarianism will make readers bored if discussed here. So far, moral philosophy has been oriented towards the goals of action. Meanwhile, the deontology school emphasizes whether an act is ethical or not. Deon in Greek means what to do.
Immanuel Kant, a philosopher whose position is very high created this flow of moral philosophy. He assumed all good things in the real sense were only goodwill. Health, wealth, or intelligence is good if it is used by evil wills to become very immoral. The question that arises then is what makes goodwill? For Kant, the will is good when it acts out of an internal obligation.
If the action was done for another motive how sublime and praiseworthy it was, for Kant it could not be called good. For example, if we do good because we like to do it, give to beggars because we feel sorry, return books because we feel bad for those who have them or even we study because we want to graduate, these things cannot be called good deeds. Immanuel Kant's thoughts are difficult to digest, but Kant was one of the most influential philosophers.
My initial intention was not to lecture on moral philosophy, but because my fingers were so fluent in writing that I forgot my original purpose. Maybe my real goal will be conveyed in a later article. Want to be deleted, but unfortunately this much. As a result, posting whoever knows can meet the readers' interest in discussing moral philosophy. Of course, this article contains a lot of mistakes, because it is very welcome and I am grateful if anyone wants to correct the mistakes in this paper.
