Crazy writers

Free Essay Samples > Essays > Philosophy > Philosophical Theories > The Relationship Between Convention and Nature: Implications for Morality

The Relationship Between Convention and Nature: Implications for Morality

1. What are convention and nature?

The concepts of convention and nature are both central to philosophical discussions of morality. The former refers to those aspects of reality that are created by humans, while the latter refers to those aspects of reality that exist independently of humans. There is a significant debate over the relationship between these two concepts, with some philosophers arguing that they are independent of each other, and others arguing that one is reducible to the other.

2. What is the relationship between convention and nature according to the sophists?

The sophists were a group of philosophers who lived in ancient Greece and who were known for their skepticism about the existence of objective moral truths. They argued that morality is nothing more than a set of conventions that have been created by humans and that there is no such thing as objective right or wrong. This view implies that the relationship between convention and nature is one where convention is completely subordinate to nature.

3. What is the Platonic view of the relationship between convention and nature?

Plato was a student of Socrates and one of the most important philosophers in history. He disagreed with the sophists on the issue of morality, arguing that there are objective moral truths that exist independently of human conventions. However, he also believed that there is a close relationship between convention and nature, arguing that conventions are based on natural (or divine) laws. This view implies that convention is not completely independent of nature, but nor is it reducible to it.

4. What does Socrates think about the relationship between convention and nature?

Socrates was Plato’s teacher, and like Plato, he believed in the existence of objective moral truths. However, unlike Plato, Socrates thought that these truths were not based on any kind of natural law, but instead were simply a matter of convention. This implies that Socrates saw convention as being independent of nature, at least insofar as morality is concerned.

5. How might the distinction between convention and nature be relevant to morality?

The distinction between convention and nature is relevant to morality in several ways. Firstly, it may be used to argue for the objectivity or subjectivity of morality: if morality is based on conventions, then it may be said to be subjective (as the sophists would argue); if morality is based on natural laws, then it may be said to be objective (as Plato would argue). Secondly, the distinction may be used to explain why certain things are considered morally right or wrong: if something is considered morally right because it is in accordance with convention, then this may be seen as an arbitrary decision; if something is considered morally right because it is in accordance with nature, then this may be seen as a more objective decision.
In conclusion, the distinction between convention and nature is a important one that has implications for our understanding of morality.

FAQ

"Convention" refers to the generally accepted way of doing things, while "nature" refers to the inherent characteristics of something.

People tend to follow conventions because they provide a sense of order and stability, and can help to make complex social interactions more manageable.

Some examples of conventions that we follow in our everyday lives include things like greeting people with a handshake or smile, standing in line when we queue up for something, and using please and thank you when requesting or receiving something from someone else.

There are several benefits to following conventions, such as making communication simpler and more efficient, reducing conflict by establishing expectations for behavior, and promoting cooperation by providing a common set of rules to follow.

On the other hand, there are also some advantages to going against convention, such as standing out from the crowd, being seen as more individualistic or unique, and potentially sparking change if enough people adopt a new convention.

In conclusion, I think that both following conventions and being true to yourself/your own nature are important depending on the situation. There are times when it makes sense to conform to societal norms in order to get along or communicate effectively with others, but there are also times when it is more important to be authentic and true to yourself even if it means going against the grain.