Thinking about Hume, Kant, Mill and everybody
At this point in the semester, you should have a pretty thorough grasp of virtue ethics, medieval and modern variations on natural law theory, Kantian deontological ethics, and more. The final discussion forum assignment asks you to think through the principles of Hume, Kant and Mill in light of the earlier thinkers you have read. Is Hume's argument that morality is just sentiment persuasive to you? How do you think his view compares to that of Rousseau? Hobbes too says good and evil are matters of taste - how does he differ from Hume? Who seems, to you, to provide a better account of moral life?
Kant argues for a conception of morality based in duty; the only basis for finding an action morally worthy is that it is done from duty, i.e., from the right intention. How are we supposed to understand this? Does it seem to you to be a legitimate claim? Is Kant right that all actions rooted in a concern for one's own good lack moral worth? What would Aristotle or St. Thomas say to that? What would Hobbes say?
Consider Mill: both Aristotle and Mill identify happiness as the goal pursued by moral action. How do their understandings differ?
Finally, and perhaps most crucially: of all the philosophers that you have read at this point in semester, whose arguments do you find the most persuasive, and why?