These two philosophical theories are contrasted and compared in a paper consisting of five pages with contemporary examples employed and the conclusion ultimately supports utilitarianism. Three sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: RT13_SA121Ari.doc
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
utilitarianism, but both theories are explored. Several contemporary exmapels are provided. Bibliography lists 3 sources. SA121Ari.doc
In todays society different brands of morality are preached. For exmplse, in America today, conservatives suggest a doctrine that supports indivual freedoms but also uphold what
it sees as morlatiy. Much of this is tied to a Judeo-Chritisin tradition. The liberal side, on the other hand, sees morality as something completely diffent. Concerned just with this
life, and excluding religion, liberals see morality as tied to topics such as enviroent or idnivualism. Exampels may help to explain the
differnce a bit better. A liberal might think it is morally wrong to hunt animals. It seems to be intrinsic that a human would get a feeling that hurting an
animal is simply wrong. Yet, the opposite stance is that, according to the bible, man has dominion over animals, there is a food chain, and all animals eat one another
anyway. In each case, each claims there is a basic morality, and to some extent each claims an intrinsic morality. In seeking virtue
then, where does one go? Which way is correct? Going back to ancient times, Aristotle had a lot to say about virtue. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle talks about his
doctrine of the mean suggesting that virtue is a state of character that is concerned with choice (Baumlin, 1994). Indeed, choice is quite relevant in reaching the golden mean. To
live moderately one has to make a choice to give up excess or to work hard enough to live comfortably. Much has a relationship to doing the right thing and