What are Aristotle's arguments for legislating morality?
150402
I hope this sheds some light on the subject:\n\nhttp://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/014555.html
543340
PRO: Sets a behavioral standard for society, in which all people are treated equal.\nCON: morality can be subjective, and what might be good for one culture may not necessarily carry the same weight with another (look at the US compared to Saudi Arabia)
724047
Chances are, the answer could be something like:\n\nBecause he proves that no matter where he is he holds himself to a high moral standard, and he expects others to do the same.\n\nListing what chapter/the circumstances of the chapter would've been a smart way to ask.
987222
I don't hunt, but I love your question Aristotle.
1158936
Aristotle\n\n\n: Αριστοτέλης, Aristotélēs) (384 BC – March 7, 322 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote books on many subjects, including physics, poetry, zoology, logic, rhetoric, government, and biology. Aristotle, along with Plato and Socrates, is generally considered one of the most influential of ancient Greek philosophers. They transformed Presocratic Greek philosophy into the foundations of Western philosophy as we know it. The writings of Plato and Aristotle founded two of the most important schools of Ancient philosophy.\n\nhttp://www.ancientlibrary.com/medicine/0051.html
296947
Morality is basically a set of rules, or a code of conduct that enables civilized people to live together in a society.\nIt has nothing to do with a 'higher power' but primitive people would be unlikely to accept rules and regulations dictated by just another person, so god was invented to keep a journal of who's doing what to whom.
624345
Morals and Dogma is online - all 861 pages:\nhttp://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm
134524
Truth and honour, freedom and courtesy\n\nDo you have the book?  It says RIGHT THERE in line 46!\n\nDo your own homework!
417753
This argument is called "reductio ad absurdum" in philosophy school, if I've got my Latin right.  Reduce to absurdity.  The idea being, if you want to test a principle (which presumably was your point, right?), you find where the extremes are, and use them to gage whether or not the principle can fit all cases.  So, for example, people use Hitler as a sort of icon for "bad guy."  And "rape" as a sort of icon for "bad act."\n\nAnd they are right to do so.  Having been there and suffered that, at the hands of a gang of 5, at the age of 13, and survived not only that but the humiliation of sitting in front of a grand jury and telling them what happened (at the age of 13, mind!), I can say that it is not unreasonable for a woman to think death is not so bad in comparison.\n\nThink about it, guys.  To have the one most precious thing she can give to someone she loves very dearly stolen from her and degraded and debased to less than an animal; and not just in philosophical or emotional, but intimately physical.  Sticking a knife in her chest would not be worse, under some circumstances.  And then to remember that as the first experience you ever had of something that can be pure magic when it is good?\n\nYou know how long it took me to find the magic?  Isn't that something that Steve should get sainthood for, at the very least?\n\nNo, a woman is not punished by God when she is raped; she is punished by brutality in a man.  She is blessed if she ever finds a man who can teach her about the good part, and be worthy of the devotion she will shower on him in gratitude.\n\nTHAT is God's Will!!!
314101
W. D. Ross\nWilliam David Ross (1877-1940) was a persistent critic of utilitarian views.\nOne of his main objections to the theory was that utilitarians fail to take\nproper account of the many different values at work in human life and that\nthis leads to a distorted account of moral relationships.\nOther people are not just possible benefactors of my actions, as utilitarian\ntheory seems to treat them. Instead, they “may also stand to me in the\nrelation of promisee to promiser, creditor to debtor, or wife to husband, of\nchild to parent, of fellow countryman to fellow countryman, and the like”\n(The Right and the Good, 1930, 3).\nRoss provides a list of fundamental prima facie duties that, he thinks, helps\nto clarify the various duties and moral relationships involved in everyday\nmoral thinking:\nRoss’s List of Prima Facie Duties\n1. Duties resting previous actions of our own. These include:\n(a) duties of fidelity arising from explicit or implicit promises;\n(b) duties of reparation, resting on previous wrongful acts of ours and\nrequiring that we compensate, as best we can, the victims of our wrongful\nconduct.\n2. Duties resting on the services of others; duties of gratitude that require\nthat we return favour for favour.\n3. Duties involving the fair distribution of goods; duties of justice that\nrequire fair sharing of goods to be distributed.\n4. Duties to improve the condition of others; duties of beneficence\n5. Duties to improve our own condition; duties of self-improvement.\n6. Duties not to injure others; duties of non-maleficence\nII\nWhy these seven duties?\nWell, Ross does not claim that the list is exhaustive, but he does think that it\nis simply self-evident that all the duties included in his list are, in fact ,\nfundamental duties.\nAnd if someone disagrees (say, about the duty of self-improvement or the\nduty of gratitude)?\nRoss: ”I can only ask them to reflect again, in the hope that they will\nultimately agree that they know.” If you persist in your disagreement, why\nyou must be morally blind.
467817
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
606386
Hume’s argument:\nEvil exists (Premise 1) \nGod knows it does (Since he knows all) \nHe could prevent it (He can do anything) \nA good being would prevent evil \nIf he could \nSo God cannot be good \nBut if God exists he is good\n\nIt convinces me utterly, along with other aspects of the world and of logic.  I don't mean that god should necessarily prevent every single instance of evil, but thousands of children getting slaughtered (even by god himself as in the OT), misscarriages, stillbirths, anacephalice births, etc... just don't cut it.  Xians either need to accept that he can't possibly have all 3 qualities:\nomniscient\nomnipotent\nomnibenevolent\nor he can't exist at all.  But the trifecta just makes no sense whatsoever.
1006147
Hope this helps.  :)\n\nPhilosophical Humanism in The Tenth Century: Miskawayh's Concep... \nThe paper concludes with the relevance of Miskawayh's critique of Aristotle's concept of justice, which has shaped modern conceptions of human rights. ...\n\nhttp://h05.cgpublisher.com/proposals/494/manage_workspace \nCliffsNotes::Aristotle's Ethics:Book Summary and Study Guide \nAristotle. Previous Page. Table of Contents, About the Author ... The Aristotelian concept of corrective justice is illustrated by the following diagram: ...\n\nhttp://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-21,pageNum-55.html \nAristotle@Everything2.com \nAristotle's description of revolutions and his concept of justice leads him to prescribe equality among the citizens as the ideal form of a state, ...\n\nhttp://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Aristotle
722936
Universities disliked the influence of the Emperors \n\nPlato postulated that universities/schools should be operated by the state (influence of the state) \n\nwhereas Aristotle, his pupil, postulated that  schools/universities should be provided / paid \nby the state.
362780
morals  character and health
1096673
Morally? No-God permit this with the people. Until he changes things to a new way people were allowed to judge of earthy things just not the heart. it was a protection to the people.
274217
Morally not necessarily\n\nRealistically yes