Name: VENGIE R.

MAGDULA

Year & Section: BSME 2B

Subject: INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

Natural law is embraced on trust because there is no means of knowing which of two opposing viewpoints
is correct. Utilitarianism offers a rational approach to finding the optimal alternative, with the evident goal of
increasing happiness or, at the very least, minimizing unhappiness, which is a logically desirable conclusion. The
problem with this question, in my opinion, is that Natural Law theory and Utilitarianism are not mutually
contradictory, despite the fact that they were not previously utilized or believed by the same philosopher. Natural
Law theory is mainly a meta-ethical theory, whereas utilitarianism is largely a normative ethical theory. The field of
normative ethics aims to answer questions concerning what we should do in different situations, as well as how we
should live, conduct, compose oneself, act, and respond to a situation. According to utilitarianism, the best way to
act or behave in any given situation is to act in such a way that you maximize total happiness or pleasure. This wide
utilitarian maxim exists to address normative ethical questions such as whether we should donate to charity or
whether lying is ever acceptable. Natural Law theory states that Moral truths are objective, moral attributes are
natural, moral truths are understandable by reason, and moral facts exist and can be learned regardless of one's
cultural background.If my understanding of these two concepts is correct, natural law theory and utilitarianism are
not mutually exclusive. Simply believe that moral facts are objective, universal, natural, and understandable
through reason, and that one such natural moral truth is that "the appropriate thing to do in every given case is to
maximize overall pleasure." Many notable natural law theorists, such as Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard, have
argued for stronger deontological normative ethical frameworks in the past. With this, I believe that this explains
why Natural Law and Utilitarianism are rarely associated.

There is an element of unfairness in the way the ring is used. Even before he discovered the miracle ring,
Gyges' lowly station in life was unjust. Even honest people may engage in unethical behavior in order to "equalize"
underlying inequalities by taking advantage of a terrible situation. Hierarchical systems do benefit people unfairly,
undermining the level playing field that we seek in society. The Ring of Gyges story emphasizes the idea that when
people are invisible, they are more likely to act unjustly since it appears to be a reasonable option. Glaucon argues
that no man would refuse the chance to realize his wants by covert deeds, and that being unjust is "mightier, freer,
and more masterful than justice." Only a fool, according to Glaucon, would act appropriately when unobserved; his
actions would be seen as nonsensical, because people only do the right thing when they can no longer get away with
wrongdoing. According to Glaucon, justice is similar to an agreement we reach. It is only valuable because it
preserves a sense of security and order. We have judicial mechanisms in place to keep people who would commit
injustice and break the law out. As a result, he maintains that justice is in and of itself a form of self-interested
injustice. Both Glaucon's and Adeimantus' arguments imply that justice is wanted in order to avoid you from
experiencing injustice; thus, it appears that people act justly for selfish reasons. As a result, people act justly for self-
interested reasons like maintaining a good reputation. Thus, Glaucon and Adeimantus' arguments indicate that no
one acts justly without self-interest, and that justice is always self-interested.

Although our view of Protagoras is skewed by Plato's perspective, these two propositions are not mutually
exclusive. Protagoras is referring to the fact that we can never comprehend 'reality' since it is filtered through
ourselves, which is a warped lens by definition. Everything is designed after the ultimate 'good,' which, like the
ultimate 'good,' cannot be experienced since it is channeled through us, a distorting lens. Plato never got around to
applying Protagoras' relativism notion to real-world events. In philosophy, relativism is the view that there is no
final, objective truth, and Protagoras is the earliest known relativist in Western civilisation. Of course, Plato
believed in an objective standard of truth that everyone must comprehend and embrace in order to have a happy,
successful, and creative life. Protagoras' famed relativism, then, could have begun as a basic empirical observation
about the human state, rather than'relativism,' in that he may never have asserted that 'truth' or 'gods' do not
exist, simply that there is no method of objectively defining what those things are. Everyone will interpret the truth
in their own manner, according to Protagoras, which has been understood to suggest that if someone claims there
is no God, there is no God for them. While Plato asserts that this is what Protagoras believed and taught, only
fragments of Protagoras' work have survived, making certainty impossible. When I study the ideas of great
philosophers, I realize that they have devoted their entire lives to these pursuits; as a result, 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; there are many different points of view on many different subjects available for your
consideration; your intuition will assist you in these matters.

Plato claims that a true philosopher, such as Socrates, would opt to return to the world of the senses, or
to a prison, in order to free his fellow man, despite preferring to remain permanently in the world of the forms,
where he would face persecution and possibly death. This allegory is unique in how it connects to Socrates' story;
in the fable, Socrates may represent a man who decides to free people from the domain of the senses. Socrates
spent his life debating everything in the hopes of demonstrating how limited people's knowledge was and thereby
assisting them in comprehending the world around them. As a result of this, as well as his anti-democracy
sentiments, Socrates was put to death. Socrates is most likely shown as the escaping prisoner. The Allegory of the
Cave's objective is to demonstrate how oblivious we are to true reality, the Realm of the Forms. The inmates chose
to overlook what the 'Socratic' prisoner has to say because they are focused with their appearances. These looks
are most likely related to things in our lives such as money, houses, vehicles, notoriety, or following, and they are
the result of programming and social conditioning. Because the physical reality of these worldly wants is constantly
changing, having them will never truly help us achieve happiness. The reality of a small ray of light provides the
convicts with the hope of liberation. On the other side, those who seek knowledge have this freedom. In the cave
metaphor, light represents in-depth understanding of the facts of life outside the cave. A prisoner has a chance of
being released if he seeks a thorough grasp of his current predicament.