Research Paper on Philosophy

Introduction

Basing on the Greek interpretation of the word philosophy, one would directly interpret it as the love of knowledge because philo stands for loving and sophia for knowledge or wisdom in Greek. However, there is more to it than just that. Philosophy is merely the effort of answering questions that are and maybe will remain beyond the reach of science using empirical evidence and reasoning. Anecdotal evidence is the evidence offered from the views of philosophers basing on experiences and observations that are principally open to any normally functioning person. Philosophy is built on the situations where applying direct experiments no longer seem possible to answer a question. Philosophers carefully make use of all evidence they can come up with to bear upon such type of questions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Mill, Kant, and Hume, philosophical ethics does not necessarily need to view moral life within a theology but instead can be able to develop a form and understanding of it. Observably, many people would think that outside of religion, morality must sacrifice all claims on human life and instead become a way of merely declaring individual preferences and desires such that inclinations take the place of the concepts of right and wrong (Essays, UK 1). However, philosophy shows that this does not need to be the primary outcome.

Philosophy is an independent aspect of the theological one and from the beginning; its starting point was always neutral concerning religion. It only relies on reason and empirical evidence and does not therefore base on religious foundations. However much a philosopher is religious they will never first consider their theological assumptions about a situation but will suspend it for later and instead use empirical evidence and reason to try and come up with possible answers, (Adkins 217). Four main branches guard philosophy, theology is however not one of them. The first one is logic which is the effort to codify the rules of rational thoughts. Philosophers are logicians, and they exclusively look at structures of arguments that conserve the truth or those that allow for the best extraction of knowledge from evidence. Secondly is epistemology which is the study of knowledge. To be a philosopher you first have to be an epistemologist because philosophy is mostly based on knowledge. Metaphysics is the third principle which defines the study of nature. In philosophy, there is always the need to question all kinds of things that exist and what their nature is, (Panza 110). Lastly is the term used for different studies that are based on the nature of different types of values, axiology. In these studies is social and political philosophy, aesthetics and ethics which is the primary subject of this paper.

Kant, Mill and Hume each have different approaches towards philosophical ethics and morality. They use different methodologies and frameworks. However, they all have one thing in common; they share the inner thought that morality is all about a neutral point of view. Hume, Mill and Kant recognize morality as universal. They, however, differ in their opinion of the universality of moral philosophy. Mill's utilitarianism argues that human beings are driven by a desire to be happy while Kant's principle of metaphysics of morality suggests that our moral force has to be made by an obligation, (Driver 213). There is a significant difference between these two in the way they grade ethics. Kant advocates that a person can still be selfish and be morally upright but Mill disputes this by saying one cannot be ethically upright if he or she is selfish. This is because his philosophical ethical theory needs people to extend happiness to others even if it means denying oneself of the personal enjoyment of life. According to Mill, such a person is an honorable one. Kant does not agree; he says that there is a discrepancy between ethics and desires and that when the consideration of human rights is brought in the picture, it interferes with the estimations of aggregate value. Everything that exists, according to Kant, has dignity or price and therefore everything that has worth can always be effortlessly substituted by another one of the same worth (Essays, UK 1). However, nothing else can ever take the place of that one with dignity.

Present-day ethical philosophy also keeps on to be subjugated by the differences involving Kant and David Hume. Additionally comparing Kant and Hume will provide a further opportunity to clarify and asses three modern eras' most dominant advances to the fundamental tribulations of ethical philosophy. There might be many points at which the two philosopher's ethics oppose to each other, however, their are necessary relations, (Guyer 128). As seen above Kant views duty and obligation as the fundamentals of morality. He believes that the moral lives of human beings are inattentive with the question of how to be morally upright over the course of our lives Hume does not, however, agree with that. According to him, we dominate our moral concerns with the question of the kind of intentions that are honorable and answer it by observing and looking at other people's responses, (Pojman et al., 209). People that consent character traits and motives that are of use or immediately agreeable when viewing things in a right manner.

These philosophers hold deep thoughts on morality with each having their views based on their different grounds. While Mill's utilitarian grounds represents an elaborate system revolving around people's happiness, Kant's philosophy is one of giving morality a good versus the wrong angle. He hypothesizes that human nature and using reason should be the determinants of morality and not human desires. Mill, on the other hand, argues that one has to behave in a way that will ensure happiness to those around him (Buckingham 111). In truth, he offers a more upgraded version of ethical philosophy that has a more practical and elaborate angle.

Human interaction is based on morality and with its absence; people will not be able to distinguish right from wrong. Both Hume and Kant hold the belief that philosophy should look underneath the facade of morals and put forth a presumption of its foundation. Kant, Mill, and Hume also agree when it comes to the basis of morality. They recognize that religion is not the foundation of morality. It is true for them that there is no need to rest virtue and moral value upon a basis that goes beyond human life. The other two, however, disagree with Kant on the issue that facts about the world that are mind independent cannot offer that foundation, (Essays, UK. 2). Mill and Hume somehow locate the foundation of morality principally in human's expressive reactions to the behavior of their fellow human nature. Kant, by disparity, identifies the basis of morals in the coherent view that humans share with all possible predetermined sane creatures.

The philosophical perceptive about what is right and wrong makes humans develop perceptions about right and wrong at the most theoretical and general level. Others have these intuitions in some particular and real cases because part of thinking about leading an ethical life involves trying to come up with a logical theory from the many intuitions we have. We do this by shaping our general intuitions and systematizing our specific intuitions, (Tramel et al., 2009). To some philosophers, this kind of back and forth negotiation is what ethics is all about. To them, ethics is a human project that can at most result in a collective agreement among humans about what they should and should not do. On this relation, when every person agrees with one thing and that thing is consistent then the ethics project is as well as completed, (Timmons 23). Nonetheless, other philosophers think that consistency is not enough even if every human in the universe accepts it. Any ethical theory to them has to have an external validation because they are worried that maybe everyone could be mistaken by agreeing on one common thing. It is just like getting every person to believe that the earth is oval or round does not necessarily make it so. Ethics have to look for a foundation that would require the consent of any sane and thoroughly well-versed being conceivable, be it human or not. This foundation could be sought in an understanding of the human nature, reason or even the godly commands. All such candidates conversely have to undergo a rational assessment themselves.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be very challenging for one to question, develop and live an ethical life from a strictly philosophical perspective because of different perceptions, interpretations and understanding of philosophy, morality, and ethics. Kant, Mill and Hume and other philosophers both have come up with their theories and perspectives to try and explain how people can lead morally upright and ethical lives from a philosophical point of view. There are certain things about the philosophy that they agree on but mostly differ on most aspects, and each one of them holds on to their different versions of what they believe to be the best rational explanation. There has been, and there will continue to be different interpretations and perspectives, but it all comes down to an individual and how they perceive everything. Our knowledge of the human nature and the rational world will help us reach our conclusions.

Works Cited

Adkins,Brent. "philosophy." Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy, 2017.

Buckingham, Will. "The Philosophy Book." 2011,

Driver, Julia. "Ethics: The Fundamentals." 2013,

Guyer, Paul. "Knowledge, Reason, and Taste: Kant's Response to Hume." 2008,

Panza, Christopher. "Ethics for Dummies." 2010,

Pojman et al., et al. "Moral Philosophy: A Reader." 2009,

UKEssays. "Ethics From Immanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill." 2013,