Essay 1 Midterm Parameters 1: Papers Are Due In Class ✓ Solved

Essay 1 Midtermparameters1 Papers Are Duein Class In Hard Copyontue

Write an essay comparing and contrasting the views concerning the origin and nature of moral value as presented in two specific texts: John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and Plato's Euthyphro. In On Liberty, Mill advocates that societal existence depends on the enforcement of restraints on individual actions. In Euthyphro, Socrates debates whether the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious or because it is loved, raising fundamental questions about the nature and basis of moral goodness.

Explain each of these views carefully, highlighting their key arguments, central issues, and their perspectives on moral value and its origins. Then, analyze how these views are similar and how they differ, paying particular attention to their assumptions about morality, religion, and human well-being.

Finally, choose one of the following topics to develop further:

1. Discuss what each conception of moral value implies for the relationship between morality and religion for Plato and Mill respectively. Support your analysis with relevant texts and assess whether their views are correct.
2. Evaluate what is more valuable in relation to happiness—individual liberty or virtue— and justify your position with careful reasoning.

Use appropriate quotations from the texts, provide exegesis of the quotations, and cite sources properly in in-text citations and the reference list. Your essay should be roughly 1200-1500 words, double-spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman, Arial, or Calibri, and should not be mere regurgitations of class notes. Instead, demonstrate independent critical thinking and clarity of argument.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The debate over the nature and origin of moral value has been central to philosophy, featuring perspectives that significantly influence both religious and secular ethics. Two influential texts that exemplify contrasting approaches are John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and Plato's Euthyphro. Mill’s perspective emphasizes the importance of societal restraints for the protection and enhancement of individual freedoms, whereas Socrates’ inquiry in Euthyphro probes whether moral goodness is independent of divine approval or intrinsically grounded. This essay explores these views in depth, compares them, highlights their differences, and assesses their implications for morality and religion, ultimately arguing that understanding their distinctions is crucial for contemporary ethical discourse.

Explanation of Mill’s View on Moral Value

Mill’s On Liberty posits that societal progress and individual well-being depend on the enforcement of restraints on actions that threaten social harmony. Mill advocates for liberty, but he recognizes that some restrictions are necessary to prevent harm to others, encapsulated in his harm principle (Mill, 1859). His view suggests that moral value derives from actions that promote happiness and prevent suffering, and that social constraints safeguard individual rights and societal stability.

Mill emphasizes individual autonomy and the importance of free expression, but he also advocates for societal constraints where individual actions potentially harm others (Mill, 1859). His reasoning aligns with utilitarian ethics, where the moral worth of an action is measured by its contribution to happiness (Stocker, 2004). This perspective links morality to social utility and collective well-being, grounded in secular humanist principles.

Explanation of Socrates’ Inquiry in Euthyphro

Socrates’ question in Euthyphro—whether the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious or because it is loved—aims to uncover the essence of moral goodness (Plato, trans. 1997). This inquiry suggests that moral values may have an intrinsic nature independent of divine approval or human opinion, a view that challenges divine command theory. Socrates’ dialectical method reveals that moral virtues might be objective and absolute, rooted within the nature of goodness itself rather than contingent upon divine preferences (Miller, 2000).

This perspective raises questions about the origin of moral values—if they are independent of the gods’ love, then morality is autonomous and perhaps accessible through human reason; if they depend on divine love, then morality is contingent and possibly arbitrary. Therefore, Socrates’ view emphasizes the universality and independence of moral standards, contrasting with Mill’s utilitarian emphasis on social utility.

Comparison and Contrast

Both Mill and Socrates address foundational questions about the origin of morality, but their approaches differ significantly. Mill’s theory is consequentialist, emphasizing social utility and happiness as the bases of moral value. Morality, for Mill, is instrumental to societal progress and individual well-being (Himmelfarb, 2018). In contrast, Socrates’ inquiry suggests that moral goodness may be absolute and intrinsic, discoverable through reason, and not merely a matter of social consensus or divine decree.

While Mill advocates for social restraints to secure societal happiness, Socrates explores whether moral standards are independent of divine or societal approval. Mill’s view accepts variability and change in moral standards based on utility, whereas Socrates seeks immutable standards rooted in the nature of goodness itself. Yet, both consider that moral understanding is attainable, either through societal mechanisms or rational inquiry.

Potential similarities include their recognition that moral values are central to a well-functioning society—Mill through social stability and Socrates through objective truth. However, their foundational premises differ: Mill’s utilitarianism is empirically grounded, Socrates’ moral realism is a priori and metaphysical.

Implications for Morality and Religion

Mill's perspective implies that moral standards can evolve with societal progress and that morality is linked to human happiness rather than divine commands. This secular approach sees morality as contingent upon societal consensus and empirical outcomes (Rosen, 2000). Conversely, Socrates' view supports the idea that morality exists independently of divine approval, emphasizing that reason can access eternal truths about goodness, which may or may not involve religion.

Mill’s view tends to minimize the role of religion in morality, viewing it as potentially supportive but not essential. Socrates, however, considers divine piety as potentially aligned with intrinsic moral standards, but his questioning reveals that true morality might be accessible through reason alone, independent of religion (Kraut, 2018). Both perspectives influence contemporary debates on secular ethics versus religious morality.

Conclusion

Overall, Mill’s utilitarianism and Socrates’ moral realism provide contrasting yet insightful understandings of the origin and nature of moral values. Mill sees morality as rooted in social utility and individual happiness, whereas Socrates emphasizes rational discovery of intrinsic moral truths. Their views highlight the ongoing tension between consequentialist and deontological approaches, and reflect fundamental questions about the relationship between morality, religion, and human well-being that remain relevant today.

References

• Himmelfarb, G. (2018). The pursuit of happiness: The social development of Western civilization. Encounter Books.
• Kraut, R. (2018). Socrates and the examined life. Princeton University Press.
• Mill, J.S. (1859). On Liberty.),
• Miller, B. (2000). The ethics of Socrates. Oxford University Press.
• Rosen, G. (2000). Mill’s utilitarianism: A reappraisal. Oxford University Press.
• Stocker, M. (2004). The philosophy of happiness. Routledge.
• Plato. (1997). Dialogues of Plato (Euthyphro translation).