Ethics FINAL
What is the characteristic function of a human being? How does Aristotle use an explanation of the human soul (psyche) to identify the characteristic function of a human being? **
"psyche": soul This is the principle that animates any living thing. Plants have psyche because they are living, although to a different degree that humans do. What does the human soul look like? He lists *3 characteristics of psyche*: *1) Human beings are living beings* "life of nutrition & growth" - which we have in common with both plants & animals; it is the most primitive level of psyche for a human being. Even if a person is in a coma or vegetative state, they are still a human being & will still have this level of psyche. They do not turn into a plant, but are functioning at this level. *2) Human beings are sentient beings* "life of perception" - At what point is a living thing conscious? This is a more advanced stage of psyche, shared by animals. *3) Human beings are rational* " life of the rational element/life of reason" - the capacity unique to humans to reason/ration. Aristotle identifies the human telos according to this part of the soul/psyche - *The characteristic function of humans is to live a rational life well, to have this capacity for reason* The life of reason is broken down into: Possess & exercise reason (theoretical reason) Obeying reason (practical reason, using it to make choices, etc) Aristotle makes a 2nd presentation of the human soul, describing it 3 different ways: rational - practical & theoretical irrational - both vegetative and emotional, which can be either rational or irrational depending on whether it obeys or disobeys reason
What does "telos" mean? **
"telos": goal/end, aim, purpose, function Teleology
According to Susan Wolf, what is the common sense notion of a moral saint? **
*A moral saint has a total commitment to help other people or society as a whole.* Their life is dominated by this commitment to improve the welfare of others. The common sense understanding of a moral saint is that they have & cultivate the qualities necessary to treat others as justly & as kindly as possible.
Explain Wolf's notion of a Rational Saint. **
A Rational Saint disregards his own happiness for the sake of the wider concerns of morality. He sacrifices his own interests in the name of serving others' interests, and he feels this sacrifice. The Rational Saint is driven by the motive of duty, or *deontology.* Whereas, with the Loving Saint, this person truly enjoys putting others before himself and does not see it as a sacrifice to do so.
The theories we've covered so far are "principle" theories in that they define a fundamental principle by which we can make moral decisions. This in contrast is a "virtue" theory, which says that what is morally correct is what a person of virtue would decide in the particular situation.
A person of virtue is someone who possesses & exercises all of the virtues.
According to Aristotle, happiness is the chief human good. What argument does Aristotle use to reach the conclusion that happiness is the chief human good? **
Aristotle's theory is that a life of happiness is defined by a life of virtue. Virtue defines human happiness ("eudamonia"). Eudamonia means the quality of a person's life that is the result of his own efforts - it is an achievement-oriented idea (in contrast to a mental state or a static state as some other theories hold). Happiness is the quality of life as a person lives it, which is a function of the way he is living his life. Eudamonia is a reflection of the way a person has lived their life rather than what they have accumulated over the course of their life; this is something that the person has complete control over. In this understanding, winning the lottery would not be part of human happiness, because you haven't done anything to earn it. There is a hierarchy of value. Something that has only instrumental value would be money. Something that has both would be health or knowledge. Something that has intrinsic value would be happiness. --Something that is desirable in itself is "more final" than something that is desirable as a means. Something that has both types of value is more final than something that has only instrumental value. "more final" means have more ultimate value. According to this hierarchy, happiness is the ultimate or the greatest good. *A teological understanding is what builds this hierarchy -- because for something to have value, it must be valuable for something. This reasoning leads us to believe that happiness is more final/ultimate than anything else, thus is the chief human good.*
What is Aristotle's understanding of human happiness? How does it include the idea of a characteristic function? **
Eudaimonia is functioning well as a rational being; it is achievement oriented. Only humans, having the 3rd level of the psyche (ability to ration/life of reason) have the capacity to attain eudaimonia. The life of reason is broken down into: Possess & exercise reason (theoretical reason) Obeying reason (practical reason, using it to make choices, etc)
In terms of different moral motivations, Wolf distinguishes, more specifically, between a Loving Saint and a Rational Saint. Explain Wolf's notion of a Loving Saint. **
For the Loving Saint, promoting the welfare of others is enjoyable. The happiness of the Loving Saint would lie in the happiness of others. He would devote himself to this gladly & wholeheartedly. The Loving Saint is driven by the motive of *natural altruism.*
What is the difference between intrinsic good and instrumental good? **
Intrinsic value means that something has value in itself, or is desirable for its own sake Instrumental value says that it has value insofar as it is the means to gain something else. There is a hierarchy of value. Something that has only instrumental value would be money. Something that has both would be health or knowledge. Something that has intrinsic value would be happiness. --Something that is desirable in itself is "more final" than something that is desirable as a means. Something that has both types of value is more final than something that has only instrumental value. "more final" means have more ultimate value. According to this hierarchy, happiness is the ultimate or the greatest good. A teological understanding is what builds this hierarchy -- because for something to have value, it must be valuable for something. This reasoning leads us to believe that happiness is more final/ultimate than anything else, thus is the chief human good.
Explain why Wolf thinks that it is good NOT to be a moral saint; that is, what does Wolf think is wrong with the paradigm of moral perfection? **
It is valuable and desirable for people to strive for personal interests/excellences (art, music, education, accumulation of wealth, sports, science, medicine, fitness, intelligence, successfulness); it would not be good to eradicate these traits in the name of moral perfection. These are very good, but independent of moral concerns. Wolf thinks that moral saints would lack qualities necessary to have a happy & fulfilled life. *The dominance of moral perfection denies the existence of an identifiable personal self.* The total commitment to others is incompatible with the non-moral values, it makes it impossible to have a well-rounded life. Being a moral saint basically makes them a "blank", never able to develop an identity of their own. Incompatible in principle: to pursue self-interests/excellences does not fit within the picture of the moral saint. Incompatible practically:
Why does Wolf think that non-moral values are incompatible with the ideal of moral saintliness? What are her arguments regarding incompatibility between these two paradigms? **
Moral saintliness reveres the interests of others at all times and does not allow indulgence in one's own interests. Non-moral values are rooted in self-interest, thus would not work within the confines of moral sainthood: personal interests, personal excellences < These are good pursuits, intrinsically worthwhile, but their value is found independent of morality. They define the components of a good life, thus the moral saint could not truly have a "good life" by this definition. Her arguments are that in moral sainthood, morality disproportionately dominates. The average person's desires for objects or activities conflict with attainment of moral perfection, thus must be suppressed or discarded altogether. If the moral saint happens to gain joy from some altruistic act, it can only be seen as a "happy accident", as they cannot be encouraged in their own right. There is a *practical conflict*: investment in non-moral activities interferes with the demands of moral perfection. And there is a *substantive conflict*: non-moral values may conflict in principle with moral perfection because they "go against the grain." (a sarcastic wit or indulging in expensive cuisine would conflict with looking out for others & other ways to use your resources that would be morally admirable)
How does Aristotle contrast moral virtue with ways of choosing and acting that show a lack of virtue? **
Moral virtue is abiding by the doctrine of the mean when responding to emotion. A lack of virtue, then, would be responding to emotion in the "excess" or "deficient" ends of the spectrum. Indulging in too much fear for instance, would result in cowardice and would not exemplify Aristotlean virtue.
Explain what Wolf means by non-moral values and virtues (include examples). **
Non-moral values are those that have intrinsic worth and contribute to the well-roundedness of a person, but do not have a specific "moral" value. They include both personal interests & personal excellences. *Wolf believes that non-moral values are what make life worthwhile* Personal interests would include playing an instrument or sport, interior design, the fine arts, etc. Personal excellences would include a sense of humor, athleticism, ambition, keen perception & beauty. Virtues would be kindness, generosity, patience, reluctant to make negative judgments or favor someone over another, etc. Wolf argues that these virtues would be prioritized over anything else in the Moral Saint, thus leaving no room for the attainment or development of non-moral values
How does Wolf describe a utilitarian moral saint? ** We are redefining the moral saint from the perspective of these moral theories.
One who is committed to utility, who bases all their decisions on what will most promote aggregate utility. This would require invoking "marginal utility", giving up all sense of self. This brings us back to the common sense definition: A true utilitarian could not be a moral saint, as utilitarianism does not deny self-realization, development of interests/talents & other personally attractive traits that a moral saint would be without.
What is the role of reason in living a life of virtue? **
The human excellence corresponds to both aspects of the life of reason, or characteristic function: theoretical & practical reason. Each one defines a category of virtue: intellectual virtue & moral virtue. Moral virtues are dispositions of character, which are attained by choice (we aren't born with them). The virtues are dispositions to choose the "mean" or intermediate course, which requires theoretical reason. *A virtue, by Aristotle's definition, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in the mean, determined by a rational principle that a person of reason would choose.* Thus virtue cannot be attained without reason -- and can only be attained by humans, who have the capacity to reason due to that 3rd level of their psyche.
Aristotle's theory of moral virtue concerns traits of character. What is moral virtue according to Aristotle's doctrine of the mean? **
The moral virtues are not feelings or even faculties, but rather dispositions of character (a standing tendency to choose in certain ways). Neither the virtues nor the vices are feelings, because we are not called good or bad on the basis of feelings. The person who feels fear is not blamed,because we feel that without choice. Virtues involve choice. Moral virtue is concerned with feelings/emotions. Feelings/emotions can be in excess, a deficiency, or an intermediate. To experience them at the right time, toward the right people, with the right motive, in the right way, in proportion, is the intermediate, or the doctrine of the mean.
How does Wolf describe a Aristotelian moral saint? ** How does Wolf argue that on none of these definitions would it be possible to combine moral perfection with her paradigm of non-moral values?
The understanding of virtue is very inclusive: intelligence is considered a virtue. Thus in the Aristotelian view, the "non-moral value" of enhancing one's intelligence would be considered virtuous and could be incorporated into the life of the moral saint. Aristotle also includes self-development as a virtue, so if the moral saint is one who is "perfectly virtuous" then the Aristotelian theory could be a perfect marriage between the 2 paradigms. This is probably the best solution to the original question, but Wolf does not want to accept this as the best alternative either. As we get to this point, her attempt at creating a dichotomy begins to unravel. Many of her non-moral values are considered virtuous in the Aristotelian view (to live the life of virtue defines happiness, according to Aristotle). That's why this theory is the most challenging to Wolf's thesis. She responds by saying no matter how inclusive Aristotle's theory is, it will necessarily leave out certain value because there must be a distinction between moral & nonmoral value. She focuses on beauty. No matter how you regard this, you could never consider beauty to be a moral value. Beauty would have to be left out of the life of moral duty, even in the Aristotelian view. BUT this depends on the definition of beauty. Art, etc could be considered beauty, and would definitely be included in Aristotle's definition of living life well, of furthering one's higher intellect. To create beauty for other people could also be regarded as a moral value -- ex: the architect who makes beautiful temporary structures for disaster victims. Utilitarian: The paradox would be that in being so concerned with social utility, one would be disregarding their own utility. Aggregate utility would lose its value.
What are some specific examples of the virtues that illustrate and explain Aristotle's doctrine? How is virtue acquired? **
The virtues of character must go along with the virtues of mind, or with intellectual virtue. As with the virtue of courage, it's necessary to have a correct appreciation of risk in order to make a correct judgment about risk & to then choose appropriately (or "obey reason"). To experience fear & confidence in the right way, or in the right "intermediate" proportion, is what Aristotle means by the virtue of courage. Eudaimonia is the fact that you are able to function well in a fear-inducing situation (or any situation), regardless of the outcome. To be excessive or deficient to any degree is to miss the mark of the virtue. By cultivating the traits of character, we can more often & accurately judge & act in a way that is appropriate - that is neither too much or too little. This is something that must be learned; no one is really born with virtue or vice. Although there is no algorithm for making morally right decisions, there is an objective for the process of doing so.
How does Wolf describe a deontological/Kantian moral saint? **
With his emphasis on reason, the Kantian would find as much value in the Loving Saint as in the Rational. One who is perfectly dutiful, adhering to set societal rules/standards. They would weigh decisions based on the imperfect and perfect moral duties. Even someone perfectly dutiful could have room in their life leftover for pursuing self interests. One of deontology's imperfect (discretionary) duties is self-development, which would be considered a non-moral value. Therefore there is overlap and we could combine the moral theories - suggesting that the dichotomy Wolf suggests doesn't work. According to Wolf, if you're a moral saint, that would suggest there is no upper bound to the discretionary nature of this obligation -- therefore benevolence would be required as well as part of the total commitment to others, again excluding all non-moral values. She says that allowing yourself to be dedicated to pursuing your own interests or furthering your excellence disallows total commitment to others. HOWEVER, the counter argument could be that it IS possible to relate self-interests with altruism (ex: pursuing medicine could benefit many people).
According to Aristotle, happiness consists of living a life of virtue. The Greek word for happiness is eudaimonia. What is the meaning of this term? **
happiness Aristotle's theory is that a life of happiness is defined by a life of virtue. Virtue defines human happiness. Eudaimonia is functioning well as a rational being; it is achievement oriented. Only humans, having the 3rd level of the psyche (ability to ration) have the capacity to attain eudaimonia.
What is the meaning of arête? What is Aristotle's general conception of human virtue (arête) - including both intellectual and moral virtue? Using this definition, explain how happiness consists of living a life of virtue. **
virtue/excellence We can't understand the excellence of something unless we first understand its purpose (or telos). Virtues are the things that allow something to fulfill its characteristic purpose. (such as a knife, whose purpose or telos is to cut, would have the virtues of sturdy & sharp). If we can identify the telos of a human being, we can list the virtues, or arete', that would allow the person to live well. The human excellence corresponds to both aspects of the life of reason, or characteristic function: theoretical & practical reason. Each one defines a category of virtue: intellectual virtue & moral virtue. If then, you have a good mind & good character, this will define your telos: living the rational life is the human telos, to live a life of reason is the human purpose (NOT to continue the species). What enables us to do this are the qualities of theoretical & practical reason, which are the virtues. To function well as a purpose is what defines human happiness. It doesn't enable us to ATTAIN happiness - because he doesn't believe happiness is something that is ATTAINED - but rather it IS happiness itself.
What does "arete' " mean? **
virtue/excellence We can't understand the excellence of something unless we first understand its purpose (or telos). Virtues are the things that allow something to fulfill its characteristic purpose. (such as a knife, whose purpose or telos is to cut, would have the virtues of sturdy & sharp). If we can identify the telos of a human being, we can list the virtues, or arete', that would allow the person to live well. But is there a human purpose?
