Ethics Test 1 - Aristotle, Aquinas, Socrates, Hobbes

According to Aquinas, even the natural agent must...

have some 'similitude' of the end to be achieved, otherwise it could not attain it.

The people who are devoted to satisfying their desires are not happy in Aristotle's sense because...

they are not making use of their most excellent ability, theoretical reasoning.

Aquinas' main goal as a scholar was...

to make Aristotelian philosophy compatible with Christian theology

Thomas Aquinas

(Roman Catholic Church) Italian theologian and Doctor of the Church who is remembered for his attempt to reconcile faith and reason in a comprehensive theology

1) What are the various "precepts" of the natural law, in Aquinas' view, and how does he argue for them? 2) What arguments does Aquinas present for the view that there is a natural law for all human beings?

1) Aquinas asserts that all particular virtuous acts in which human beings engage are governed by natural law. He presents several objections to this view: a) Natural law is directed at the common good, while some virtuous acts are private. b) Sins are believed to be opposed to virtuous acts. But, if virtuous acts are controlled by natural law, then sins are against nature—which is odd since many people believe that our bodily nature drives us to sin. c) d) That which is in accordance with nature is common to all, but acts of virtue are not common to all—since what is virtuous for one being may be vicious for another. e) Aquinas responds that all the above are mistaken. He does so by making a distinction between the nature of an act as virtuous and the way in which virtue is expressed in various ways depending on the nature of the agent & the context in which the agent functions. Hence, natural law governs the virtuous nature which all virtuous acts must possess, but this virtuous character may be expressed in different ways, given different agents & circumstances—consider the example of parental love for children. f) Hence, in response to the above objections, Aquinas says: i) Basically, there is no such thing as a private virtue—since all virtuous acts (such as temperance in drinking) contribute to the public good ii) Aquinas distinguishes between the nature which is proper to human beings & that element of human nature which is common to all animals. Sometimes our animal nature conflicts with our human nature (when our animal appetites get the best of us). However, Aquinas would argue there is no conflict with nature here, since our "nature" is determined by our human aspect, not our animal aspect. 2) Compared to Aristotle: a) Both agree that circumstances & the nature of the agent must be taken into consideration when deliberating about a possible course of action. b) Aquinas would view the virtuous act as obeying divine command, but Aristotle would insist it is simply achieving excellence. So, Aquinas would assert we are motivated to be virtuous by our fear of divine wrath, while Aristotle would insist that we want to be virtuous in order to become excellent, & we avoid vice because it is simply unworthy conduct. c) Further, Aquinas would insist that everyone is free to be virtuous or not, while Aristotle believes that—once character takes a set—we cannot behave differently than we have been trained 3) One natural law for all human beings a) Claims that the basic principles of practical reason are the same for all (since they pertain to human nature and the function of reason, which are the same for all human beings). However, the conclusions of this reason applied to particular cases and circumstances are neither the same nor equally well-known. b) Because of the above, natural law may appear to vary, because it will have different applications in different conditions and because sometimes people will misapply it.

a) What reasons does Aquinas give for claiming that all things are directed at God? b) How does Aquinas' claim that the ultimate happiness of human beings compare with Aristotle's view of the ultimate happiness for human beings?

1) Aquinas' reasons for claiming that the end of all things is God. a) Since all things tend to the highest good, they should all seek the highest good, which is God. Recall that this follows from his earlier argument that all things seek the good. From this premise, Aquinas assumes everything will seek the highest good. b) Because God is the highest cause of all, He is the end of all; that He is the end not existing for the sake of something else. Rather, all things exist for Him. Aquinas is making several leaps here. Basically he is presuming that the Creator will make things only for His own sake. Hence, all created things are for the sake of the Creator. c) God's good is the most inclusive, and therefore contains all the particular goods within it. Recall that Aristotle also assumed that the most inclusive good is the most excellent. (This is from his claim that politics is more excellent than ethics.) d) God's end is his own goodness; he must therefore have created all things to achieve this. As with Aristotle, Aquinas assumes that the ultimate goal of the Creator is to enhance His own goodness. (Recall that the unmoved mover is the most excellent and is able to retain this status by engaging in activity that is excellent and by focusing on that which is most excellent—namely, itself.) In this way Aristotle arranges all existing things into different levels of excellence. Aquinas does the same thing.) 2) Aquinas' view of ultimate happiness for human beings compared with Aristotle's conception. a) Aquinas' discussion obviously owes much to Aristotle; both see ultimate happiness as an exercise of a trained faculty unique to human beings and something which is the end or goal of all we do. b) Aquinas agrees that the end must be final, self-sufficient and the end of all that we do. But, as we shall see, Aquinas puts his own twist on this view. He will claim, as we shall see, that the only way for human beings to achieve these things is during life after death. c) Along with Aristotle, Aquinas rules out wealth, power, goods of the body, sensual goods and those of moral virtue. d) Ultimate happiness must consist in exercise of the intellect, but differs in believing this must be contemplation of God. For Aristotle, it is the contemplation of what exists. This shift in focus makes a huge difference for Aquinas' perspective as we shall see. Aristotle/s focus was always on understanding the world around him. He sought this understanding in a variety of ways. Aquinas, on the other hand, was focused mainly on God, but Aquinas' way of achieving this is to understand the world around him.

a) How, according to Aristotle, can we decide what is good and find the highest good? b) It seems strange for Aristotle to bring politics into a discussion of ethics. Why does he do this?

1) Aristotle's view of the good a) Aristotle believes that the good of things is revealed by discovering the end or goal which they endeavor to achieve. (Note: An important assumption Aristotle makes is that all things do have a purpose and that this purpose can be discovered by determining what they strive to achieve. He also assumed that each type of thing has a purpose which is unique to that type, so that we can discover a purpose for each, and, when we do so, we will know something very important about its nature. It is in this way that Aristotle is a 'teleologist'; one who believes that the good of things is decided by the ends they achieve.) b) However, we have many goals, and we then have the problem of determining that which is the highest and best. Aristotle's solution is that most things are not sought for themselves but for the sake of something else (i.e., they are 'extrinsically' good). The highest good will be that sought for its own sake, that for which all else is properly a means (i.e., it is 'intrinsically' good). c) Aristotle's initial answer to this question comes easily. He says all agree that happiness is the highest good, always sought for its own sake. The problem is to decide what happiness (i.e., eudaemonia—the good life) is. The task of the Nichomachean Ethics is to discover this. 2) Politics and the good a) It may seem strange to encounter a mention of politics in a work on ethics and even stranger to read that politics is claimed to be higher and more important than ethics. To make sense of all of this, it is necessary to understand something of Aristotle's mindset and also that of the culture in which he lived. These perspectives are quite different from our own—and are illuminating as a result. b) Aristotle presumes that humans are social beings. This implies, first, that we are fitted by our nature to live together and, second, that we can only live the life of a human being—and achieve the excellences of human beings—through our lives with others. c) The above may seem ordinary enough, but, when combined with other features of Aristotle's perspective, produce significant changes. Neither Aristotle nor the Greeks of that era in general would have distinguished government from other areas of human activity in the way that we in the U.S. do. Politics, religion, education, the arts family and personal relations are all facets of a single whole—and politics is the activity that governs the whole. (The Greeks and Aristotle thought of human society as an integrated organism—rather than as the conglomerate, which is our view today. Note the significance of the lack of the conception that it would be possible to change either one's religion or one's citizenship in that era. These possibilities only become conceivable with the advent of the Roman Empire and of Christianity.) However, a whole, if it is not to lapse into chaos, can have only one governing center—the state. Hence, the state has responsibility for all aspects of the society—including that of the lives of the citizens. The good that is its concern, therefore, includes the particular goods of individual citizens, and is, more important—in the view of Aristotle and the Classical Greeks. d) The above is buttressed by another feature of Aristotle's view—that people do not have it in their own power to make themselves good. Their goodness, or excellence, or lack of them, is largely the result of their upbringing and early experiences, over which they have little control. While this is, in part, a matter of family responsibility, the family is one of the building blocks of the state and may, legitimately, be directed and overseen by it. e) A final aspect is that Aristotle believed we can only exhibit the excellences which are characteristically human in a social setting, governed by a state. Hence, virtues (or excellences) such as justice, liberality, etc. can only be exhibited in this context.

a) Frankena opens with an example of moral thinking, that of Socrates. What are the 3 moral arguments that Socrates makes? b) Are you convinced by Socrates' arguments? What things do you have to consider to decide

1) Each of Socrates' arguments begins with a simple & commonsensical statement. But all arrive at the same conclusion: He is always obligated to obey the commands of the state. (Notice once again that Frankena and Socrates and his friends all agree that the state's command in this case is unjust. Nonetheless, Socrates is convinced he is obligated to obey even unjust commands of the state. Consider the vast difference from Martin Luther King. King refused to obey the commands of the city of Birmingham in order protest against laws he considered to be unjust. What allows this vast difference of opinion?) a) Socrates' first statement: We should not harm others. That seems simple and plausible. However, it is not obvious this has any connection to the conclusion Socrates wants us to accept: We should obey the state's commands. In consequence, we need a second premise: Disobeying the state's commands harms the state. Socrates now has a well formed argument, that is, if the premises are true, we have excellent reason to accept the conclusion. So, the obvious question is: Are the premises true? We may say the 1st premise is generally true, but there are exceptions in the case of criminals and other evil-doers. So, it is not inevitably true. The 2nd premise is also of concern. Many students have violated the state of Alabama's command to travel no more than 70 miles per hour on I-85. That is a clear violation of the state's command. But, does that harm the state? There is no obvious way in which it does. Sure, some actions, like not paying taxes, do harm the state, but many others do not. b) The 2nd premise also seems entirely plausible and reasonable: We should keep our promises. But, again, there is no clear connection between keeping promises and obeying the commands of the state. Hence, once again, another premise is required if the argument is to be successful. In Socrates' case, the premise is that he has indeed promised to obey the state. However, he has in mind a special sort of promise. He says he has voluntarily lived in Athens for his entire adult life and could have left if he so desired. But, he didn't. He stayed. For Socrates, that implies that he has promised to obey the state since he could have left anytime he wished, but he didn't. Taken together, these premises make a sound argument. So, we should move to the stage of asking whether the premises are true. Once again, it is not obvious that we should keep any and all promises. Suppose you have promised to meet a friend of yours for lunch at a place on South College Street. But, on the way, you notice a small child struggling in the pond in front of the art museum. Would you think, "Well, I have a promise to keep," or would you believe you should stop to assist the child? I suspect that many would agree that breaking your promise is your duty in this case. But, what about the 2nd premise? While considering this question, you can ask whether you ever promised to obey the laws of Alabama or Lee County, or the city of Auburn. My hunch is that none of you have made any such promise. Nonetheless, each of those governments believes you are committed to obeying its laws on grounds that you are residing here. So, that is something like Socrates' claim. c) The 3rd premise is also plausible and reasonable: You should obey your parents. But, again, there must be some tie between obeying your parents and obeying the commands of the state. Another premise is required: The state is like a parent to you. With this premise, the argument is well formed. But are the premises true? As before, it is not obvious that you should obey each and every command of your parents. If your mother tells you to go to your room and kill yourself, I suspect you would not find it necessary to obey that particular command. But, that is what Socrates believes the state has commanded him to do. The next premise is also difficult. I suspect many would be reluctant to believe the state is like a parent to them, particularly in the United States. Recall that the Declaration of Independence contains the claim that citizens will agree to be governed by a state only if it carries out important services for them. If it fails to do so, they can withdraw their consent to be governed by that particular state and seek another. But, in Socrates' day the situation was different. Socrates (and Aristotle) did believe the state is like a parent since it provides physical security, an education, and (in Socrates' day) religion. Hence, the claim is more plausible for Socrates than for us. Nonetheless, he 1st premise above remains a problem. 2) You have opportunity to formulate you response to the 2nd question above on your own.

a) How, according to Aristotle, is virtuous character formed? b) What qualities must an act possess in order to be virtuous, according to Aristotle?

1) Formation of virtuous character a) It is important to note that Aristotle distinguishes moral from intellectual virtues—and will argue later that the intellectual virtues are higher in value. Intellectual virtues involve use of theoretical reason. Moral virtues concern the proper use of emotions, appetites, actions and attitudes. It is also the case that virtues are neither for nor against nature. That means we come into the world with the ability to be either virtuous or vicious. The difference between virtue and vice results from our early experience. Consider going to your grandmother's house at age 3 and receiving cookies. Your mother likely then said, "Say thank you." Why is that? Likely it is because your mother wanted you to become a particular sort of person. And now, if you visit your grandmother and fail to be courteous but remember your lack of courtesy later on, you will feel ashamed. In this case, your shame is evidence that you have a particular sort of character. b) Virtues of both types come from experience (though something innate is required to display each type—in the sense that an individual must possess certain abilities to be able to display each kind of virtue. For example, an individual must be able to use language to either be honest or be a liar.): intellectual virtue comes from training (perhaps by paying tuition to Aristotle and listening to his lecture as in, say, the Nicomachean Ethics—remember: Nicomachus was Aristotle's kid.) & moral virtue comes from habit—by which Aristotle means the repeated performance of that which is to become habitual. c) However, Aristotle assumes that character eventually jells (when maturity is reached) and cannot be reshaped after that point. Hence, training from an early age is crucial. Note that Aristotle presumes that the state must play a role in this since it provides security and oversees education. As it happens, contemporary neuroscience provides some support for this view. When you were born, you had more synaptic connections between your neurons than you will have later. The synaptic connections that are used are reinforced while those that are unused are eliminated. That appears an odd way to develop a brain, but no one can know what experiences or needs you will develop later in life, so it is important to possess the ability to gain whatever skills you may need. As an example, your brains are wired quite differently than your grandparent's brains because you have grown up using computers. However, this brain rewiring ends at about age 25, so your neural rewiring will come to a halt in a few years. On a related note, young children possess a remarkable ability to learn language. But, as you grow older, the ability to learn languages becomes weaker. So, a certain hapless instructor has limited ability to learn a new language, but you have far greater resources in that regard—though not as great as a young child. (But, at the present time Elon Musk is working on brain implants that may greatly enlarge our ability to learn and retain information. See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53956683.) d) The virtuous act will be "moderate" (i.e., falling between excess and deficiency). This will be discussed in greater detail later on. But, as we may note for now, Aristotle believed that there is a spectrum of responses for every action, ranging from too much to too little. (Consider the disposition to face danger. Those who are too reluctant to face danger are called cowards, while those who are too eager to face danger are foolhardy. The trick, for Aristotle, is to find he mid-point between too much and too little, but facing the right amount of danger at the right time and in the right way. This sort of thing will be discussed further later.) e) Pleasures & pains are tests of character, since our characters are revealed through those things that give us pleasure or pain. For example, if you gain pleasure by helping others and pain from seeing them harmed, that is an important indication of what type of person you are. The two are also important as motivatingfactors, forces that goad us into action. Note, however, that these differ from the end or goal of action. That is, the excellent person will gain pleasure from the right things and be pained by the right things. (However, it is important to be clear about this matter since Aristotle also says that people who seek pleasure are not the most excellent people. Hence, the excellent person does not seek pleasure but does gain pleasure from the right things. If this seems a bit hazy, consider two grandmothers, Grandmother A and Grandmother B. Grandmother A loves to make others happy, and she is aware that she can make college students happy by sending them cookies. So, she bakes cookies and sends them off. Now, it happens that she enjoys baking cookies, but her primary motive for doing so is to make others happy. Grandmother B, on the other hand, is irritated by college students because they are noisy and rowdy. Nonetheless, she loves baking cookies. So, she bakes cookies to give herself pleasure then sends them off to college students to get rid of them. Which grandmother would you rather have? 2) Features of virtuous acts: a) Done with knowledge. (That is, you know what you are doing.) For example, suppose that while you are studying, you idly swat a fly. At that point, your roommate rushes in and exclaims, "You are a hero. "That was a deadly TseTse fly." Well, not exactly, since you had no knowledge of what kind of bug you swatted. b) Chosen for its own sake. (That is, you chose the virtuous act for its own sake.) In this case, suppose you spy a rickety ethics instructor trying to hobble across College Street. You think, "Ah hah, if I help the geezer across the street, I might get a better grade on my exam," and then help the wobbly instructor across the street. That action would not be virtuous since you did not perform the action for its own sake. c) Resulting from a fixed disposition of character. (That is, your action is something you commonly do. In this instance, suppose that Saddam Hussein was on his way to nearby prison to torture a few prisoners but spotted an orphan who was clearly hungry. He impulsively stopped his car and ordered the orphan to be fed. Since this did not result from a fixed disposition of character, Aristotle would say Saddam's action was not virtuous. (We will recall this example when we take a look at Kant, who would give a very different interpretation of this sort of case. Aristotle's general presumption is that only if an act has these qualities can it be called a genuine instance of virtue.

a) What are the features of the correct conception of happiness according to Aristotle? b) What reasons does Aristotle give for claiming that intellectual virtue is better (i.e., more excellent) than moral virtue?

1) Happiness is the exercise of the trained capacity for speculation (i.e., thinking about the fundamental natures or principles of things). To help understand this, recall that "happiness" is the translation of the Greek term "eudemonia" which is "the most excellent life," Hence, for Aristotle, people such as James Hawking or Albert Einstein were happy since they led the most excellent lives. The people who are devoted to satisfying their desires are not happy in Aristotle's sense because they are not making use of their most excellent ability, namely the capacity for theoretical reasoning. It is worth noting that Aristotle believed that only human beings possess the ability to engage in theoretical reasoning. Other creatures do not have this ability and so cannot lead the most excellent lives. But, of course, intelligence is not visible. So, how did Aristotle know that other creatures lack it? Aristotle's assumption is that only humans have the capacity for language, and the capacity for genuine language is a requirement for the ability to engage in theoretical reasoning. Consider that any thoughts you are having right now are formulated in language. Hence, some have concluded that losing the ability to use language is also the loss of the ability to reason. By that he means that they have the capacity to generate sounds in orderly fashion to communicate complex ideas. Animals can communicate but through patterns of sound that do not amount to genuine language. This belief has been the center of intense controversy for the past 40 years. Some scientists believe chimpanzees or parrots or dolphins or elephants have genuine language. This is in the sense that they are able to produce orderly arrays of sound to communicate their thoughts or desires. The question is whether these abilities amount to language. There is considerable disagreement on this matter. But, Aristotle was free of this controversy, so he simply assumed other creatures have no capacity for language and thus no reason. a) Only this meets the criteria of being final, sought for itself, and the end of all that is done. b) The exercise of the highest must be the exercise of reason itself, which is the noblest & most godlike part of our nature. c) We, being human, cannot achieve this totally, but we should nonetheless keep it as our goal. 2) Moral virtues (i.e., habitual expressions of action and emotion) are of lesser importance than intellectual virtues (i.e., trained activity of the intellect) a) Moral virtues are allied with the lower, physical, part of our natures. b) Moral virtues require material goods & good fortune for their exercise—and are therefore less self-sufficient than intellectual virtues. c) It would be silly—in Aristotle's view—to think of the gods as exercising the activities associated with moral virtue. d) Animals cannot be happy—in the same sense that humans can—because they lack theoretical reason. Of course, many humans are guided by their emotions or animal appetites will not be happy either since they are not guided by their most excellent capacity—i.e., theoretical reason.

a) What reasons does Aquinas give for claiming that the ultimate happiness of human beings is not found in this life? b) What is "eternal law," and what is "natural law," and what is the relation between them?

1) Ultimate happiness not found in earthly life. a) Ultimate happiness is knowledge of God, which cannot be fully achieved in this life (in contrast to Aristotle's life of contemplation). The knowledge Aquinas has in mind here is not intellectual but the sort gained through mystical vision. b) Happiness is final, but human desires on earth never cease, so ultimate happiness cannot be achieved here. c) Happiness is the end, beyond which there is no further striving, but this cannot be attained in earthly life. d) It takes a long time to achieve perfection, too long to be gained in a human lifetime. e) The ultimate good must be entirely free of evil—which cannot be achieved in this life. f) Happiness is an activity-but a single activity cannot be continuously sustained in this life. 2) Eternal and natural law. a) Aquinas believes there are a variety of types of law, eternal & natural law being the most important of them. b) The eternal law is the rational order of the universe, established & sustained by God. Hence, there is an order which governs all things; and all things function in accordance with it. This law would include what we call "laws of nature." c) Natural law is the eternal law insofar as it provides guidance for rational beings (i.e., those capable of following law rather than simply acting in accordance with it).

a) What are some of the common views of the good life for human beings that Aristotle examines then rejects? b) What does Aristotle believe must be the features possessed by the highest good for human beings?

1) Various views of the good life for human beings a) One is that of pleasure. Aristotle rules this out on grounds that this is the sort of life fit for animals. Something more needs to be said in order to clarify his position. His view is that the good of human beings must be found in our own essential nature—and therefore unique to us. Since pursuing pleasure is common to all creatures—and because the pleasures of the animals are of the lowest sort, the good of human beings must be of a higher sort. (Pause here to discuss Aristotle's conception of the soul—and its three-fold nature: nutrition, sensation—which may be guided by reason—and reason itself. Only the latter, Aristotle believes, is unique to human beings and, therefore, the likely seat of the highest good for us.) b) Aristotle also rules out the life of honor, i.e., seeking the esteem of others by performing noble deeds. Aristotle assumes as a matter of course that this is to be achieved in politics, and he would presume that it could not be achieved in, say, business. Honor, however, cannot be the highest good, and for two reasons: i) It depends on the opinions of others and is therefore not self-sufficient. (Why is this important for Aristotle?) ii) Honor is not sought for its own sake but as a sign of recognition of excellence—and the personal excellence is sought for itself. c) Aristotle, however, also seems to rule out the life of virtue or excellence on grounds that it would appear to be possible to be virtuous even when passive or quiescent. Aristotle, though, is only setting this aside until the time when he can establish the correct view of virtue. We shall eventually see that it is the good life which Aristotle seeks. d) He also sets aside the life of contemplation—but will return to it later. e) He wastes little time ruling out a life seeking wealth as being too implausible. His more serious objection, however, is that wealth is not sought for its own sake but for the sake of other things. 2) Aristotle argues that whatever is the highest good for human beings must have a number of qualities: a) It must be final: that is, when it is achieved, we have nothing more to seek. It is also final in the sense that it is chosen for itself and is not chosen for the sake of something else. b) It must be self-sufficient in the sense of that which "by itself makes life desirable and in want of nothing. (p. 61). Further, it cannot become more desirable by the addition of anything else. c) It must be the end or goal of all that a person or anything does. 3) He argues that the particular function of human beings is reason, since it is possessed by them alone. (This is derived from Aristotle's presumption that the genuine essence of something is that which distinguishes it from all else.) Hence, Aristotle proclaims, "Man's function then being, as we say, a kind of life—that is to say, exercise of his faculties and actions of various kinds with reason—the good man's function is to do this well and beautifully"

a) What does Aristotle mean by saying, "Virtue, then, is a kind of moderation..."? b) How, according to Aristotle, do we achieve moderation in our acts?

1) Virtue as moderation a) He concludes that (intellectual) virtue is the exercise of a trained faculty (as opposed to an emotion or capacity), and he claims that the excellence of this training of exhibiting feeling and action is found in the middle ground between excess and defect for each class of emotion and action. That is, we can identify classes of actions and emotions and notice that there is a range of possible responses within them. Excellence is achieved by finding the middle way between too much and too little. Hence, it is possible to be too eager to take risks (in which case a person is foolhardy) or too reluctant to take risks (in which case a person is a coward). The essential thing is to take the proper amount of risk in the right way. In this case, a person unable to swim and in poor shape, would be foolhardy to attempt to save a person floundering in Chewacla. But, someone in good shape and an excellent swimmer would act properly to attempt to save the individual in distress. On the other hand, if someone is in good shape and an able swimmer but refuses to assist the person who is floundering, then that person is cowardly. It is also possible to be too reluctant to tell the truth, in which case the person is a liar. But, is it possible to be too eager to tell the truth? Consider a visit to your Uncle Albert who is extremely sick and in the hospital. If Uncle Albert asks you whether he will be able to go home soon, and you notice that the information on his medical charts is very negative. Would you be obligated to tell him the truth about his condition? It would likely be considered cruel and crude to tell him he has no chance of recovery. Telling him the truth in this case would not be excellent conduct, but would be wrong. b) This talk of the mean sounds vague—and Aristotle would readily acknowledge that it is so. This is because he believes that the correct middle way differs from person to person and from circumstance to circumstance. The discovery of a mean is necessarily a judgment which takes into account all the features of the issue. This is why hitting the mean is so difficult and why the exhibition of virtue can only follow training and experience. Hence, we cannot give any simple rules in advance of action to be followed simplistically: we must respond to the situation itself. At the present time, all who attend classes at Auburn are required to wear masks and keep 6 feet away from others. We can assume these rules are justified because of the threat of contracting the coronavirus. Notice that such rules would have been unjustified one year ago when there was no such threat. So, we can say circumstances are vastly different today. But, what if a student in class collapsed and fell to the floor? Should we say we are unable to do anything since we must keep 6 feet away? That seems obviously wrong, since the student's life may be in danger without immediate help from others. Hence, once again, the important thing is to make the correct judgment about how to act. c) Aristotle provides support for his account of these matters by noting that admired people are admired for just these sorts of qualities and that we often try to puzzle out matters for ourselves by asking, "What would __________ do in a situation like this?" In many cases, such as the Uncle Albert example above, it will not be easy to decide what to do. Aristotle would agree but insist that we can all think of someone who would know exactly the right way to address Uncle Albert's concern. But, it is also the case that Aristotle would insist that there is always one, single correct answer to the question of what we should do. The difficulty is to take account of the nature of the situation and our own nature to make a judgment about the correct course of action. The excellent action for one person with one set of abilities could possibly be wrong for another person with different abilities. Those able to do this are excellent in Aristotle's conception of virtue. If most of us are unable to achieve that level of correct response, Aristotle would say that's too bad, but most people cannot achieve genuine excellence. 2) Achievement of moderation a) Aristotle points out that we must take account of both our own nature and of the nature of the action involved when seeking the mean. b) If our temperament tends more towards one extreme, we should lean to the other. If, for example, we are naturally timid and are aware of this, we perhaps should face greater risks than we are comfortable facing. That approach will make it more likely that we will act in excellent fashion. On the other hand, if we are too eager to take risks, we should likely face fewer risks that we believe is proper for us. c) Anything involving pleasure is treacherous since Aristotle assumes we are strongly attracted to it. We should therefore be suspicious of actions that we believe will bring pleasure. Hence, if we find a nicely done buffet table with many tempting dishes, we should be aware that we are likely to over eat and accordingly take fewer helpings than we are tempted to take. d) In some ranges of action, one extreme is not as far removed from the mean as the other—as cowardice seems further from courage than is foolhardiness. Hence, if we are apt to overshoot the mean, we should do so in the direction of that which is closest to it.

What are the implications of Aristotle believing humans are social beings?

1. That we are fitted by our nature to live together 2. That we can only live the life of a human being—and achieve the excellences of human beings—through our lives with others.

According to Aristotle, politics, religion, education, the arts family and personal relations are all facets of...and politics is the activity that ...

1. a single whole 2.governs the whole.

Aristotle concludes that (intellectual) virtue is the exercise of... and he claims that the excellence of this training of exhibiting feeling and action is found in...

1. a trained faculty 2.the middle ground

According to Aquinas, natural law is directed at the..., while some virtuous acts are...

1. common good 2.private.

According to Aquinas, that which is in accordance with nature is..., but acts of virtue are not...since...

1. common to all 2.common to all 3. what is virtuous for one being may be vicious for another.

According to Aristotle, people do not have it in their own power to.... Their goodness, or excellence, or lack of them, is largely the result of...

1. make themselves good 2.their upbringing and early experiences, over which they have little control

According to Aquinas, it only makes sense to criticize actions in relation to... Because we criticize, therefore...

1. the end to which they are directed 2.all acts must have an end or goal.

For Aquinas, ultimate happiness must consist in exercise of..., but differs in believing this must be the contemplation of.... For Aristotle, it is the contemplation of...

1. the intellect 2.God 3.what exists.

According to Aristotle, the excellent person...but...

1.does not seek pleasure 2.does gain pleasure from the right things.

Anything involving pleasure is...since Aristotle assumes we are...

1.treacherous 2.strongly attracted to it.

Aristotle unmoved mover

A higher being that thinks only of itself and acknowledges no other presence As an intelligent being, it would only create things to serve a purpose

What arguments does Aquinas present for the view that there is a natural law for all human beings?

All human beings are governed by the principle good is to be done and evil is to be avoided. God gave them this instinct

What reasons does Aquinas give for claiming that the goal which agents seek is always a good?

All things are done in God's desire, and God would not want things to end in bad. - All actions are done in a way that is suitable for something, and nothing is intentionally bad

How did Aristotle discover only humans are intelligent?

Animals can communicate but through patterns of sound that do not amount to genuine language. Assumed other creatures have no capacity for language and thus no reason.

How are Aquinas and Aristotles beliefs on nature of the agent similar?

Both agree that circumstances & the nature of the agent must be taken into consideration when deliberating about a possible course of action.

How does Aquinas' claim that the ultimate happiness of human beings compare with Aristotle's views of the ultimate happiness for human beings?

Aquinas views ultimate happiness as not just contemplation, as Aristotle does, but contemplation of God, since He is the ultimate good and therefore results in the ultimate happiness.

How are Aquinas and Aristotles beliefs on the virtuous act different?

Aquinas would insist that everyone is free to be virtuous or not, while Aristotle believes that—once character takes a set—we cannot behave differently than we have been trained

a) Why does Aquinas say that every agent acts to achieve some end or goal? b) What reasons does Aquinas give for claiming that the goal which agents seek is always good?

Aquinas, like other scholars of the day, was anxious to study, write about and teach Aristotle's writing. But, there were several major problems. Aristotle thought it was a mistake to believe the world had a beginning. That would require something coming into existence from nothing, and Aristotle was doubtful that could occur. Hence, for him the world must always have existed. But, if there is no creation, there is no need for a Creator God. Though Aristotle mentions the gods in various places, they play no significant role in his thinking. As a result, Aquinas has a major problem. He was able to address the difficulty by making extensive use of one of Aristotle's most powerful ideas, that every existing type of thing must have a purpose. However, Aquinas was able to exploit an important feature of Aristotle's thinking. As we have noticed, Aristotle thought that everything has a purpose and fully understanding that type of thing requires understanding its purpose. But, Aristotle also believed the world is an organic whole, with each part working with the others. Aristotle addressed this difficulty by posting the existence of what he termed the unmoved mover, a universal cause that is absolutely excellent. That means that the unmoved mover is composed of the most excellent ability Aristotle knew, namely theoretical reasoning. But, from Aristotle's perspective a genuinely excellent being must focus on that which is excellent. (So, Aristotle would have been amazed that talented and distinguished people should spend their lives studying trivial things like bacteria or viruses.) But, the most excellent thing would have to be the unmoved mover itself. So, the unmoved mover thinks only of itself. It pays no attention to other things and is unconcerned about them. At this juncture, Aquinas can make a clever move. He assumed that the divinity that created the world also created every type of thing in it. As an intelligent being, it would only create things to serve a purpose. So, where Aristotle would have to say that things have the purposes they do simply because that's the way things are. Aquinas can say that every type of thing has a purpose because it was created by an intelligent entity. And, the world is an organic whole because the intelligent creator would naturally want to create a harmonious entity. By this means, Aquinas is able to address the difficulties with Aristotle's philosophy but also make use of important elements of his thinking. The most important of these elements was the belief that every existing type of thing has a cause or aim. But, Aquinas took this idea several steps further. For example: 1) Aquinas is being very incautious in claiming that all acts controlled by agents aim at some end. (In other words, there is no random or purposeless action.) Why is that you say? Aquinas' answer is as follows: a) The movements of all agents come to a halt. There must be some reason for this, which is that they have achieved their end. b) Finite agents cannot perform infinite actions, and they must therefore have an end (goal). c) Things act either by nature or by intelligence. i) He takes as axiomatic that intelligent action will only proceed if the agent has a clear conception of an end. ii) Even the natural agent must have some 'similitude' of the end to be achieved, otherwise it could not attain it. d) It only makes sense to criticize actions in relation to the end to which they are directed. Because we criticize, therefore, all acts must have an end or goal. 2) Agents always act to achieve a good. a) Aquinas claims that agents would not, by nature, seek something which they did not view as good. b) All desires aim at the good. c) Aquinas claims, also, that all movement aims at some perfection. If pressed, Aquinas would respond that this is just the way things are. d) Intelligent beings simply do not act other than to attempt to achieve the good. As before, Aquinas would claim this is just the way things are.

According to Aristotle, why can the life of virtue or excellence not be the highest good?

Aristotle, however, also seems to rule out the life of virtue or excellence on grounds that it would appear to be possible to be virtuous even when passive or quiescent.

What reasons does Aquinas give for claiming that all things are directed at the end of God?

God is the ultimate good, and since all things act towards good, all things act towards God

What qualities must an act possess in order to be virtuous, according to Aristotle?

Courage, Temperance, Magnificence, Magnanimity, Truthfulness, Friendliness, right ambition, wit, good temper, and justice

What reasons does Aquinas give for claiming that the ultimate happiness for human beings is not found in this life?

Death, and illness and other tragedies in life, will end any happiness you happen to have, so the ultimate (eternal) happinessis not found in this life.

What is "eternal law," and what is "natural law," and what is the relation between them?

Eternal law "Gods providence rules the world...his reason evidently governs the entire community in the universe." (91.1) Aquinas believes that eternal law is all god's doing. Natural law is the participation in the eternal law by rational creators. Natural lawallows us to decide between good and evil.

Why does Aquinas say that every agent acts to achieve some end or goal?

Every agent does something for a purpose. - It's impossible for this chain of actions and purposes to extend infinitely, so there must be something that, upon achieving, the agent comes to rest. God created everything with a purpose in mind.

The Ring of Gyges Plato's RepublicSummary

Glaucon: The only reason to be just is to avoid the consequences of unjust actions Being just is not fundamentally in our interest. It is something we do as a compromise because we cannot get away with injustice. In short, no one is just for intrinsic reasons. Story: A Shepard, Gyges, enters into the crevice of an earthquake and finds a metal horse w doors in it. In the doors there is a human skeleton with a ring on his finger. This ring turn Gyges invisible and he impresses the king w it to seduce her. -Any man with similar power, Gyges maintains, would do the same. If we could get away with crimes that advanced our interest, we would all do so. The only reason that we are just is that we do not possess such magical rings and we thus would suffer negative consequences for acts of injustice.

Aquinas' reasons for claiming that the end of all things is what?

God

What are the various "precepts" of the natural law, in Aquinas' view, and how does he argue for them?

Good should be done and evil avoided, good justification for a moral or legal rule is that it promotes the preservation of human life, and avoid ignorance

According to Aristotle, what is the highest good?

Happiness

What does Aquinas believe about the intentions of the creator?

He is presuming that the Creator will make things only for His own sake. Hence, all created things are for the sake of the Creator.

Morality and Moral Philosophy: William Frankena

If you were punished unjustly by everyone and sentenced to an unfair death, but your friends arranged an escape for you would you escape? Socrates is engaged in ethics, the branch of philosophy dealing with morality, moral problems, and moral judgments. More specifically, he is engaged in normative reflection, which attempts to identify what is right, good, or obligatory. This is distinct from both descriptive inquiry, which attempts to describe or explain moral phenomena, and meta-ethics, which seeks to answer questions about the meaning or use of moral terms such as "right" or "good." On Frankena's view, ethics is concerned primarily with normative inquiry and secondarily with meta-ethics, but it also involves occasional forays into ethical description. (1) that we ought never to harm anyone, (2) that we ought to keep our promises, and (3) that we ought to obey or respect our parents and teachers. In each case he also uses another premise which involves a statement of fact and applies the rule or principle to the case in hand: (1a) if I escape I will do harm to society, (2a) if I escape I will be breaking a promise, and (3a) if I escape I will be disobeying my parent and teacher. Then he draws a conclusion about what he should do in his particular situation. This is a typical pattern of reasoning in moral matters and is nicely illustrated here. Socrates is convinced he is obligated to obey even unjust commands of the state.

According to Aristotle, which is higher, intellectual or moral virtues?

Intellectual because they involve use of theoretical reason

What reasons does Aristotle give for claiming that the intellectual virtue is better (i.e., more excellent) than moral virtue?

Intellectual virtue requires less externally than moral virtue and is gained by learning; moral virtue is more dependent on interactions with othersand is gained through habit

What does Aristotle say about virtues after maturity is reached?

It cannot be reshaped after that point

What are the features of the correct conception of happiness, according to Aristotle?

It is final, the end is self-sufficient, and it is the end of all we do.

What does Aristotle say is the particular function of human beings?

Reason, since it is possessed by them alone

How does Aristotle differ between the normal man and the good man?

Regular men simply function but good men function effectively and with beauty

Why does Aquinas say there is no such thing as private virtue?

Since all virtuous acts (such as temperance in drinking) contribute to the public good

According to Aquinas, what is the relationship between sins and virtue?

Sins are believed to be opposed to virtuous acts. But, if virtuous acts are controlled by natural law, then sins are against nature—which is odd since many people believe that our bodily nature drives us to sin.

Why did Aquinas believe the world had no beginning?

That would require something coming into existence from nothing, and Aristotle was doubtful that could occur.

What is power, according to Hobbes?

The ability and means to obtain and secure some good for ones self

According to Aristotle, what is the noblest & most godlike part of our nature?

The capacity for reason

How are Aquinas and Aristotle's views on the creator similar?

The end must be final, self-sufficient and the end of all that we do.

Aristotle believed we can only exhibit which excellences?

The excellences which are characteristically human in a social setting, governed by a state

According to Aristotle, what is happiness?

The exercise of the trained capacity for speculation (i.e., thinking about the fundamental natures or principles of things).

What did Aquinas believe about the movements of all agents?

The movements of all agents come to a halt. There must be some reason for this, which is that they have achieved their end. Finite agents cannot perform infinite actions, and they must therefore have an end (goal).

Nichomachean Ethics

The problem is to decide what happiness (i.e., eudaemonia—the good life) is. The task of the Nichomachean Ethics is to discover this.

According to Hobbes, what is the ultimate goal of human life, and how does this view compare with that of Aristotle?

The ultimate goal of human life is to secure enough power to assure that he keeps his power and means to live well. Aristotle says we need happiness, but Hobbes just says we need power

What did Aristotle believe about the world and its components?

The world is an organic whole, with each part working with the others.

What does Aristotle think regarding answers to questions about what we should do in specific situations?

There is always one, single correct answer to the question of what we should do

a) What is "power," according to Hobbes, and why is it important for human beings? b) What is Hobbes' view of the goal of human life, and how does it compare with Aristotle's view?

Thomas Hobbes lived and wrote during the 17th Century. He was English and believed he was responding to the messages of the Scientific Revolution. (That is the science developed by Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.) In particular, he believed that these scientists had revealed the truth about all reality including human beings. In consequence, he believed that there is nothing in the world other than material stuff, so we are composed entirely of material stuff (or, in Hobbes' term, small massy particles). Hence, he went to some trouble to attempt to explain all human abilities, including thinking, emotions, appetites, desires, or memory, in terms of the movement of small massy particles. He also believed that, just as fixed scientific laws can be used to explain the movement of physical beings, so human behavior can be explained in terms of a set of fixed laws. Hence, there is no human freedom. We do not differ in any significant way from any other things that exist on earth. We are different only in the way our small massy particles are arranged. The book containing our selections is meant to include all the laws necessarily governing our behavior. So, he believed there can be a genuine science of human beings. In this regard he resembles the American psychologist B.F. Skinner (1904-1990) who also wished to devise a science of human beings. Skinner also believed the goal of psychology should be to discover the laws that govern human behavior. Skinner though, as well, that there can be no essential difference between humans and other creatures if there is to be a science of human behavior. 1) Power. a) Power for Hobbes is simply our ability to gain that which we desire. There are many sources for this power, including natural gifts, luck, and social position. For Hobbes we desire whatever we wish. There is no external standard to judge human desire. No desires are better or worse than any others. In this way he is in stark contrast to Aristotle and Aquinas. Hobbes also believed that the human capacity for theoretical reason is not a great asset to us. If the important goal for human beings is to satisfy their desires, only what we have called practical reason is important. In his view, if theoretical reason is no significant use in satisfying our desires, it is unimportant. b) He claims we believe that whatever we happen to desire is good & that there is no external, rational standard to determine this. As in the above paragraph, there is no external standard to judge what is good and bad apart from our desires. c) Further, he claims that the worth of people is simply the price others would be willing to pay for the use of their powers—and hence is dependent on place and circumstance. In this regard, he was inclined to say that we convict ourselves as much by our actions as he does by his words. We are willing to allow people to die for the sake of constructing large office buildings. We are willing to take the chance of killing others (or ourselves) when we drive automobiles. We would likely react with anger if someone proposed limiting automobiles to a speed of 50 miles per hour, even though such a step would likely save many thousands of human lives. d) Power is important, obviously, because it aids the achievement of our ends. e) However, there is a catch to all of this. Human beings are able to foresee the future and desire power to achieve their present ends and also power (in reserve) to achieve future ones. Hence, since there is no natural limit to the amount of power we desire; we are driven to continually seek more. This is strongly destabilizing and is the root of much of the strife that envelops human beings. Because, an increase in one person's power to satisfy desires results in a decrease in other people's ability to satisfy desires, conflict is built into the very structure of our existence. This is part of Hobbes' reason for claiming human beings are not naturally social creatures. We are fundamentally and necessarily in conflict. 2) Goals of human life a) Our goal is simply to satisfy our desires and, in instrumental fashion, to secure the resources of power to satisfy new ones. However, once one set of desires is satisfied, a new set will crop up. Hence, we are caught in a rat-race of desire after desire which will end only in death, which (because Hobbes is a materialist) is the end of our existence. b) In contrast to Aristotle: i) Reason has very little to do with setting goals. Its value is only as an instrument for achieving them. ii) The notion of happiness as a state of excellence would be alien to Hobbes. Those who satisfy their desires by whatever means are happy (i.e., in a state of felicity). iii) For Hobbes, the state of felicity (his term for 'happiness') is fleeting, a brief glow which quickly gives way to a new set of desires. Hence, the condition of felicity is not final, nor the end, nor self-sufficient. It can be attained by the lowest as well as the highest instances of humanity—in fact, the lower specimens may have a better shot at it than the higher, simply because they may not be burdened by scruple.

Leviathan (Hobbes)

Treatise concerning the structure of society and legitimate government; stated that humans are naturally evil and can only be controlled by an absolute monarch; mankind must cede his natural right.

Aristotle's argument in Nichomachaen Ethics

We aim only to achieve good. -Men seem to pursue honour in order that they may be assured of their goodness -If there is an end for all that we do, this will be the good achievable by action

How, according to Aristotle, do we achieve moderation in our actions?

We must find the middle ground between excessive and lacking acts and take into account surroundings and situations

What did Aristotle believe about reactions to certain things?

We need to find he mid-point between too much and too little, but facing the right amount of danger at the right time and in the right way.

According to Aristotle, why can wealth not be the highest good?

Wealth is not sought for its own sake but for the sake of other things.

Features of genuine virtuous acts according to Aristotle:

a) Done with knowledge. b) Chosen for its own sake. c) Resulting from a fixed disposition of character. (That is, your action is something you commonly do)

Aristotle argues that whatever is the highest good for human beings must have a number of qualities:

a) It must be final: that is, when it is achieved, we have nothing more to seek. It is also final in the sense that it is chosen for itself and is not chosen for the sake of something else. b) It must be self-sufficient

Why is moral virtue of lesser value than intellectual virtue according to Aristotle?

a) Moral virtues are allied with the lower, physical, part of our natures. b) Moral virtues require material goods & good fortune for their exercise—and are therefore less self-sufficient than intellectual virtues. c) It would be silly—in Aristotle's view—to think of the gods as exercising the activities associated with moral virtue.

According to Aquinas, agents always act to...

achieve a good.

Aristotle provides support for his account of these matters by noting that...

admired people are admired for qualities of moderation and that we often try to puzzle out matters for ourselves by asking, "What would __________ do in a situation like this?"

According to Aristotle, the state has responsibility for what?

all aspects of the society including that of the lives of the citizens

According to Aquinas, all desires aim...

at the good.

According to Aristotle, excellence is achieved...

by finding the middle way between too much and too little.

How did Aquinas make use of the Earth having no beginning?

by making extensive use of one of Aristotle's most powerful ideas, that every existing type of thing must have a purpose.

According to Aristotle, what is intelligence?

capacity for language, and the capacity for genuine language is a requirement for the ability to engage in theoretical reasoning

moral virtues

concern the proper use of emotions, appetites, actions and attitudes

According to Aristotle, all things do have a purpose and that this purpose can be discovered by...

determining what they strive to achieve.

Aristotle believes that the good of things is revealed by...

discovering the end or goal which they endeavor to achieve.

Aquinas claims that agents would not, by nature seek something which they did not view as...

good.

What does Aristotle believe about having a middle ground?

he believes that the correct middle way differs from person to person and from circumstance to circumstance.

According to Aristotle, why can honor not be the highest good?

i) It depends on the opinions of others and is therefore not self-sufficient. (Why is this important for Aristotle?) ii) Honor is not sought for its own sake but as a sign of recognition of excellence—and the personal excellence is sought for itself.

Natural law may appear to vary, because...

it will have different applications in different conditions and because sometimes people will misapply it.

Aquinas asserts that all particular virtuous acts in which human beings engage are governed by...

natural law

Aquinas believed things act either by...

nature or by intelligence

According to Aristotle, how is moral virtue developed?

our early experience and what we were taught and what we experienced as children

According to Aquinas, why is there no conflict when our human and animal nature confront each other?

since our "nature" is determined by our human aspect, not our animal aspect.

Aquinas claims, also, that all movement aims at...

some perfection

intellectual virtues

studying the speculative, practical, and productive sciences

According to Aristotle, Pleasures & pains are...

tests of character, since our characters are revealed through those things that give us pleasure or pain

What does one natural law for all human beings claim? What do we know about the conclusion of this reason?

that the basic principles of reason are the same for all However, the conclusions of this reason applied to particular cases and circumstances are neither the same

Aquinas takes as axiomatic that intelligent action will only proceed if...

the agent has a clear conception of an end.