From Aristotle to Augustine, Essay Example

Introduction

Even though Augustine would not have considered of himself a social theorist, the record of his views on some subjects all have an impact on the progress of the Western world. The subjects include the character of human society, fairness, the nature and responsibility of the nation, the relationship connecting church and state, fair and unfair war as well as tranquility.

Aristotle and Plato might have been close in their perceptions (in reality, as most understand, Aristotle was an apprentice of Plato), both had fundamentally different thoughts.  For Plato to get close to reality, he was to be acquainted with that which exceeded individual particular effects. Thus, to be familiar with what a beautiful work of art is, one can recognize the general shape of beauty itself so as to get what one finds in anything and a distinct form.  Aristotle, on the converse, believed that the principal was the individual item. The other is what he named a primary matter, and our understanding of universals resulted from our appreciation of what was general between things[1].

Plato’s Social Ethical Perspectives

What distinguishes Plato’s view on ethics from, for instance, is that the ideas of other philosophical teachers are the faith that this inherent good become. It is not merely a good for all, but is a model that surpasses human character. It is the reason for Plato saying that any notion of fairness, which is a shape like any other conceptual idea, is the foundation of an analysis of culture and politics in Athens. The primary significant break with the universal sense mind-set about morals in Plato is the thought that ethics is neither because of the ordinary world nor to heavenly involvement. Fairness does not result by possibility or obligation, but comes from the very readiness to use reason to break fundamentally from the natural world. It also comes from the way of life that believes nature will create fairness[2]. One of the types of innate ethics that Plato disapproved is the thoughts that concerned teachers claim that ‘having strength iswhat that is right’.

If it is our responsibility to create a fair world then the foremost thing that everyone must accomplish is glance at the available prototypes. It is a model that everyone previously had in his or her customs and the general public and witness if they gauge up to the perfect conception of fairness that is to state the thought of an inherent goodness. As for Plato, the fair city takes respite upon fair spirits, and a fair spirit is the one through which the realistic part instructs the illogical part[3]. In the majority of the rules, which people live with, it is more often than not the illogical component that has the decisive power. It is for this motive that Plato also trusts that it is only the truthfully rational person that is capable of being just. It is a person who chooses the positive because it is true in itself, as opposed to selfish motives. They can select the good because fairness limits them. If I become familiar with what fairness is then, there is no single person that shall be able to convince me that fairness is something else. The philosopher Plato believes that the thought of fairness, no matter how the views of people might vary, does not alter in itself. Therefore, I would be governed by logic rather than aspiration or sentiment to what is correct.

Aristotle Social Ethical Perspectives

For Aristotle, the subject is not very much concerned with ‘I am completely liberated or completely strong-minded’. The subject relates to the realistic question of the extent to which I am in charge of everything that I accomplish, and therefore the extent to which I become culpable for the results of my deeds. Aristotle reaction to this realistic issue is that I become far less in charge of these outcomes, and also the source of my deeds as I may like to believe. It once more is among the main distinguishing thought between the vision of Plato and Aristotle in relation to our moral ways of living. The Platonic model is rather sacrificial; that is to mean, self-discipline and self-reliance. It would merely be probable if my existence were subject to the changing nature of the thought of the Goodness that could be general. Therefore, it is unaffected by any outside situation[4]. Therefore, I would constantly will the positive whatever state of affairs I was in whether advantageous to me or deleterious.

Aristotle, conversely, stresses that my moral deliberations and options are forever subject to the specific situation that I find myself. It is where the correct course of accomplishment cannot be predicted or premeditated[5]. Therefore, the captain of a ship can never be sure that the subsequent time that the storm will hit a boat such that a single correct thing to do again would be to toss the freight overboard. If a person’s actions were controlled by regulations, then everyone could by no means have to decide about our deeds, for it could forever be obvious and clear what the right action would connote. Everyone would merely have to study these regulations in beforehand to be certain that none could make the wrong and immoral choice.

Augustine Social Ethics

The Augustinian idea of fairness incorporates what by his time was an entrenched definition of fairness of offering every person his debt. On the other hand, Augustine bases his use of the definition in characteristically Christian idealistic dedications. Fairness is affection shown in working for God only, and thus governing everything else properly.For that reason, fairness becomes the vital difference between perfect political nations and incomplete political nations (the class of each political nation found anywhere in the world).  For instance, the Roman kingdom might not have been identical with the town of God exactly because it lacked the proper fairness as explained before, and because anyplace there lacks fairness there lacks social goodness. Rome probably could not be a complete society or a perfect nation. The question is what unlawful group of thugs but insignificant monarch is?” No worldly nation can assert to have original fairness, but merely various relational justices through which one nation is fairer as compared to other nations[6]. Similarly, the legality of any worldly political government can be known merely in relative conditions: The monarch and the bandit have uniformly rightful spaces if they are evenly fair.

Buddha Ethical Perspectives

Conversation between Buddhism and Christianity has been a productive position of a dialogue between two religions. A further significant spot of entrance seems like Western psychology, particularly psychoanalysis[7]. There exists, nevertheless, one more important manner in which the Western world has been associating with Buddhism. It does not merely assimilate it but controls it. In the past, the religions linked to Abraham (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) wielded a powerful predictive element. Its purpose is to encourage common fairness, a subject that has hardly been essential in the expansion of the religion Buddhism[8]. The Asian form of Buddhism has concentrated on personal freedom by converting the self-indulgence and illusion in everyone. The perspective of religions closely associated with Abraham on shared fairness has affected the olden times of the Western world by promoting freedom that confronts and improves domineering communal organizations. It begs the question whether this common fear for freedom propose attraction between the two ways of life. An outcome of this universal point of view is social engagement of Buddhism, something that has turned out to be an essential custom for an increasing population of Buddhists throughout the world.

Conclusion

Plato’s social perspectives can contribute to social ethics but not Aristotle’s perspectives. As for Plato moral ideals, controlled by the thought of goodness, are unchangeable and everlasting, while Aristotle says that our principles occur from our solid society. I do not think I would be moral for Aristotle if I merely considered the things my people do, regardless of the extent of vulnerability or acceptance a culture might have. The proper foundation of my moral deeds is forever despite the fact that I am perpetually subject to unpredictable events and challenges. The perspectives of Augustine can be used to create social ethic. Augustine supports the scholarly connection of Christianity and philosophy in governance. As a Christian, he considers it a personal responsibility to protect his own from people who lack knowledge.  Finally, Buddhism can also be used to create social ethic as its practices transcends across other religions.

Bibliography

Höffe, Otfried, ed. Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”. Brill, 2010.

Furley, David, ed. From Aristotle to Augustine: Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. 2. Routledge, 2012.

King, Sallie B. Being benevolence: The social ethics of engaged Buddhism. University of Hawaiì Press, 2005.

[1]Otfried, Höffe,  ed.Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”. Brill, 2010. Pg. 5

[2]ss  David, Furley, ed. From Aristotle to Augustine: Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. 2. Routledge, 2012. Pg. 118

[3] Ibid., 119.

[4]David, Furley,  From Aristotle to Augustine, 118

[5]Otfried, Höffe, Nicomachean Ethics, 21.

[6]David, Furley, Ed. From Aristotle to Augustine: Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. 2.

[7]  Sallie B. King, Being benevolence: The social ethics of engaged Buddhism. The University of Hawaiì Press, 2005. Pg. 4

[8] Ibid., 52.