Emotionales vs. Rationales We all have our own way of understanding ethics. Socrates and Confucious also had their own way of looking at ethics. Socrates thought that rational knowledge was the decisive factor of human life, which was "acquired through a faculty of reasoning". On the other hand, Confucious thought that kinship love was the decisive factor of human life without leaving out the importance of knowledge and thinking out. They both are very alike but also have their differences with very good reasonings to support their understanding of the decisive factor of human life, although they might lean toward one thing in the end to actually define the deciding factor of human life. My understanding of ethics is somewhat different from Socrates and Confucious. I think that there are many decisive factors of the human life and we cannot be one sided when thinking. I believe we cannot be one sided because there are advantages and disadvantages in both emotional and rational thinking. When using either of these it really depends on the situation you are in. For example, Confucious "sets an ethical standard of …show more content…
If a man uses this type of knowledge he is the most noble of all and live like gods. Although, he knows that the gods have gifted us with senses and best bodies, the soul must be above the body because sensual passion is "even more dangerous than the scorpion, which makes rational knowledge the most divine of all human things. According to him if we were more emotional than rational then we would have less self-control and have less power, if we were more rational then we would be powerful and not ruled by "bodily pleasures". An example of showing that Socrates believed in rational knowledge a lot was that he believed whenever someone did something that a person would benefit off, that person should show gratitude and give the same benefits as