Difference between Ancient thinkers and modern thinkers in their undnderstanding of morality

Recently, we have looked at the teachings of different influential philosophers on the nature of morality. In doing so, we have encountered some profound disagreements: Aristotle presented the virtues as the perfection of human nature; Aquinas presented moral action as a matter of rationally considering the objects of the natural inclinations; both Aquinas and Aristotle presented reason as occupying an authoritative position. In the modern era, Hobbes argued for a natural law teaching in which reason identified means rather than judged ends; and Rousseau argued that the principles of morality descend from two pre-rational sentiments, and presented both reason itself and civilization as being sources of corruption and immorality rather than virtue. Hume, too, argued that morality is rooted in sentiment, though on different grounds than Rousseau, and Kant argued that rather than emotion the only thing that matters is the good will which is itself determined by reason. John Stuart Mill argues that the moral action is the one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain, and identifies this as happiness (a view with which Aristotle would obviously disagree). Broadly speaking, we can divide these thinkers as follows: Ancient/medieval: Aristotle and Aquinas Early Modern: Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume Later Modern: Kant and Mill Write an essay explaining how the ancient/medieval thinkers (Aristotle and Aquinas) differ from either the early modern or later modern thinkers in their understanding of morality (do not write on all of the thinkers we have studied thus far!). You will want to explain: what each thinker considers to be relevant to the making of moral judgments how decisions are made, and how moral action is related to the human good as conceived of by each thinker. In doing so, be sure to emphasize the way the different thinkers within each period are alike and different as well – do not treat them as monolithic (Kant and Mill obviously have profound disagreements!). Be sure to provide specific references to the texts we have read in order to justify your claims (footnotes – not endnotes – containing page numbers in the textbook are fine; in the case of Aquinas, refer to the Question number, which is identified at the start of each passage, and in the case of Rousseau, just refer to the page numbers I have provided in the text). Please note: this is not a research paper and it is not meant to be a research paper. Your claims need to be based on the texts we have read and discussed in class, and doing outside research is unlikely to help you. Lastly, this is not a paper designed to elicit your opinion from you (that’s what the discussion boards are meant to do): this assignment is intended to measure how well you have understood the thinkers we have read and discussed in class. Requirements: Your paper should meet the following requirements: 4-6 pages long (you can write more if you are so inclined, though I would encourage you to edit judiciously). If you write less, you will be penalized. In a 12-point, Times New Roman font. It should be double-spaced. Please note: spelling, grammar, usage and an appropriate tone for academic discussion all count – minor lapses will not be penalized, however, severe and continual lapses that interfere with readability will cause your grade to suffer. You do not need a title page; just your name and your College email address is enough. It must be uploaded in .doc, .docx, or .pdf format. If I have to ask you to resubmit it because you did not use the proper formatting, you will lose points. Lastly, and very importantly: the only words not written by you should be direct quotations from the thinkers you are discussing. Do not cut and paste from internet sources. Do not paraphrase from internet sources. Plagiarism is a serious offense, and carries with is very serious penalties; additionally, not everything you read on the internet – especially when it comes to philosophy – is true or accurate.