The wall-papers, flooring, ceiling, and colors blend into predominant furniture which is the main emphasis in neoclassical style. The furniture is usually Mahogany and wedge with heavy grains accentuated with either paler pallet or stainless steel embellishments. Furniture is characterized by restraint symmetrical designs with motifs utilized for decoration. A strong color is used in moderation to catch the eye instantly. Color like magenta, blues, greens, and yellows are used to just cheer up one corner. Lavish use of gold leaf and silver leaf are entrants into this style. Wooden paneling's, imported wallpapers and modern art paintings give additional opportunities to use color. Wallpapers with muted tones, simple repetitive patterns without any major color contrasts are used. Shades of cream, grays, sage greens, soft pink, muted rose, blues, mustard and ocher golds were popular. White became the hep most color apart from the veneered finishes. Flooring is kept UN-tone to either imported marble or wooden flooring.
This article examines the differences and similarities between ancient ethics and modern morality by analysing and comparing their main defining features in order to show that the two ethical approaches are less distinct than one might suppose. The first part of the article outlines the main ethical approaches in Ancient Greek ethics by focusing on the Cynics, the Cyrenaics, Aristotle's virtue ethics, the Epicureans, and the Stoics. This part also briefly outlines the two leading modern ethical approaches, that is, Kantianism and utilitarianism, in more general terms in order to provide a sufficient background. The second part provides a detailed table with the main defining features of the conflicting stereotypes of ancient ethics and modern morality. Three main issues – the good life versus the good action, the use of the term “moral ought,” and whether a virtuous person can act in a non-virtuous way – are described in more detail in the third part of the article in order to show that the differences have more in common than the stereotypes may initially suggest. The fourth part deals with the idea of the moral duty in ancient ethics.
Rethink what modern means is a what people mind to new era life. It is commonly supposed that there is a vital difference between ancient ethics and modern morality. For example, there appears to be a vital difference between virtue ethics and the modern moralities of deontological ethics (Kantianism) and consequentialism (utilitarianism). At second glance, however, one acknowledges that both ethical approaches have more in common than their stereotypes may suggest. Oversimplification, fallacious interpretations, as well as a broad variation within a particular ethical theory make it in general harder to determine the real differences and similarities between ancient ethics and modern morality. But why should we bother about ancient ethics at all? What is the utility of comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the particular approaches? The general answer is that a proper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of virtue ethics and modern moral theories can be used to overcome current ethical problems and to initiate fruitful developments in ethical reasoning and decision-making.
Any content, trademark/s, or other material that might be found on the Snokey website that is not Snokey’s property remains the copyright of its respective owner/s.www.tinydt.net
In no way does Snokey claim ownership or responsibility for such items, and you should seek legal consent for any use of such materials from its owner.