Name: Hanna Cris Amora Due Date: October 25, 2021

Year & Section: BSCE 2C

GEC 18: INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

Natural law is taken on faith, there’s no way to tell which of two conflicting idea about it is correct .
Utilitarianism provides a logical method for determining the best option, with the obvious objective of increasing
happiness or, at the very least, reducing unhappiness, which is a logically desirable outcome. The difficulty with this
question, in my opinion, is that Natural Law theory and Utilitarianism are not mutually incompatible, even though
they have not been used or believed by the same philosopher in the past. Utilitarianism is primarily a normative
ethical theory, whereas Natural Law theory is fundamentally a metaethical theory. The area of normative ethics
seeks to address issues about what we should do in various circumstances, or how we should live, conduct, compose
ourselves, act, and respond to a situation. The ideal way to act or behave in every given situation, according to
utilitarianism, is to act in such a manner that you maximize total happiness or pleasure. This broad utilitarian maxim
exists to address issues in normative ethics, such as whether we should contribute to charity or if lying is ever
acceptable. Moral truths are objective, moral qualities are natural, moral truths are apprehendable by reason, and
moral facts exist and are knowable irrespective of one's cultural institutions or government, according to Natural
Law theory. If my understanding of these two ideas is right, believing in natural law theory and utilitarianism at the
same time is not incompatible. Simply believe that moral facts are objective, universal, natural, and understandable
through reason, while also thinking that "the appropriate thing to do in every given circumstance is to maximize
overall happiness" is one such natural moral truth. Many famous natural law theorists in the past, such as Robert
Nozick and Murray Rothbard, advocated for stronger deontological normative ethical frameworks. This, I believe, is
why Natural Law and Utilitarianism are rarely connected with one another.

In the usage of the ring, there is an element of unfairness. Gyges' lower-class position in life was unjust
even before he discovered the miraculous ring. Even persons who are honest might commit unfair acts in order to
“equalize” underlying disparities by exploiting a bad situation. People do benefit unfairly from hierarchical
institutions, which undermines the level playing field that we seek in society. The Ring of Gyges tale highlights the
idea that when individuals are unseen, they are more prone to act unjustly, as this appears to be a sensible option.
Glaucon makes the point that no man would turn down the opportunity to fulfill his desires through tacit
misdemeanors, and that being unjust is "mightier, freer, and more masterful than justice". Only a fool, according to
Glaucon, would act properly when unseen; his acts would be viewed as illogical, because individuals only do the
right thing when they can no longer get away with doing wrong. Justice, according to Glaucon, is something like to
an agreement we reach. It only has value because it maintains a sense of order and security. We have judicial
systems in place because we wish to keep those out who would do injustice and break the laws. As a result, he
claims that justice is a sort of self-interested injustice in and of itself. Both Glaucon's and Adeimantus' arguments
imply that justice is desired in order to prevent injustice from occurring to you; hence, it appears that individuals act
justly for selfish motives. As a result, individuals act justly for self-interested motives, such as a good reputation.
Thus, the arguments of Glaucon and Adeimantus imply that no one behaves justly freely, and that justice is always
self-interested.

Our understanding of Protagoras is filtered through Plato, a necessarily distorted lens, these two arguments
are not mutually exclusive. Protagoras is talking about how we can never perceive 'truth' because it is filtered
through us, which is a necessarily distorted lens. Plato is discussing how everything is modeled after the ultimate
'good,' which, like the ultimate 'good,' cannot be perceived because it is channeled through us, a distorting lens. Plato
never got around to applying Protagoras' concept of relativism to real-life situations. Relativism is the belief in the
absence of a final, objective truth in philosophy, and Protagoras is the first acknowledged relativist in Western
civilization. Plato, of course, believed in an objective standard of truth that everyone must understand and accept in
order to live a happy, successful, and creative life. Protagoras' famous relativism, then, could have started as a
simple empirical observation about the human condition and not 'relativism' at all, in that he may never have
claimed that 'truth' or 'gods' do not exist, only that there is no way of objectively defining what those things are.
According to Protagoras, everyone will interpret the truth in their own way, which has been interpreted to mean that
if someone claims there is no God, there is no God for that person. While Plato claims that this is what Protagoras
thought and taught, only parts of Protagoras' work have remained, thus it is impossible to be positive. When I study
the ideas of great philosophers, I realize that they have dedicated their entire lives to these pursuits; therefore, I pick
and choose the best aspects of their beliefs to use as my own; it is not about which is best or more convincing, but
about what works well for me; many different points of view on many different subjects are available for your
consideration; your intuition will assist you in these matters.

Plato argues that a real philosopher, such as Socrates, would choose to return to the world of the senses, or
the jail, in order to free his fellow man, despite the fact that he would prefer to remain permanently in the world of
the forms, where he would suffer persecution and maybe death. The way this allegory links to the narrative of
Socrates is remarkable; in the story, Socrates may represent the man who decides to liberate people from the realm
of the senses. Socrates spent his life questioning everything, in the hopes of showing people how limited their
knowledge was and thereby assisting them in understanding the world around them. Socrates was put to death as a
result of this, as well as his anti-democracy beliefs. It's most likely Socrates who is depicted as the fugitive prisoner.
The purpose of the Allegory of the Cave is to show how blind we are to the genuine reality, the Realm of the Forms.
Because the inmates are so preoccupied with their appearances, they choose to ignore what the 'Socratic' prisoner
has to say. These looks are most likely analogous to things like money, houses, vehicles, celebrity, or following in
our lives, and they are most likely the result of programming and social conditioning. These worldly demands are
continuously changing in the physical reality, therefore having them can never genuinely help us reach pleasure. The
prospect of liberation is given to the inmates by the actuality of a little ray of light. Those who seek knowledge, on
the other hand, have this freedom. Light represents in-depth knowledge of the realities of life outside the cave in the
cave allegory. When a prisoner seeks a profound understanding of his current situation, he has a possibility of being
released.

PARAGRAPH 1 – QUESTION NO.1