Ethics 330 Final
Describe the virtue and vices associated with feelings about feelings (§14).
Aristotle believed that there are "means in feelings and about feelings" (Aristotle 27). The virtue of this is being appropriately "prone to shame," while the excess vice is being excessively "prone to shame" (Aristotle 27). This means that the deficiency vice associated with feelings about feelings is being deficient in shame. In other words, the person has "no sense of disgrace" (Aristotle 27). VIRTUE: Appropriately prone to shame VICE (EXCESS): excessively prone to shame VICE (DEFICIENCY): No sense of disgrace
Describe the virtue and vices associated with pleasure and pain (§3).
Aristotle explains that pleasure and pain can be broken down into a virtue (or a "mean"), an excess vice, and a deficiency vice. Specifically, Aristotle explains that the mean/virtue is temperance (Aristotle 26). Because of this, the excess is intemperance or in other words, self-indulgence (Aristotle 26). The deficiency vice associated with pleasure and pain is insensibility (Aristotle 26). However, this vice is rare and not found often. VIRTUE: Temperance VICE (EXCESS): Self-indulgence VICE (DEFICIENCY): Insensibility
Explain what Aristotle means when he says that there must be an ultimate good or end at which all acts aim.
Everything has an aim, and there is one goal; the good to which every aim is directed. If we know what the ultimate end is we can organize our whole life and all our actions so that we can attain this one end in the most effective and efficient way, like accomplish a goal to get a better opportunity. Aristotle states, "every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action, and decision seems to seek some good; that is why people were right to describe the good as what everything seeks". *It's an idea or view called 'teleology' and holds that all things are directed. For Aristotle, all things are directed toward some end such that the end is better or more perfect than the thing.*
Why does Kant believe that the rational will is of absolute value, i.e., valuable as an end in itself? 427-429
For Kant, rational will is necessary in order to formulate universal moral maxims of conduct. We need reason to get to a universal morality for Kant. Without it, people would never, for Kant, move beyond an animalistic morality governed by instinct and a base concern only for the outcomes of actions.
On the natural law formulation, why is suicide immoral? p. 421-422
Kant argues that it would be absurd and contradictory for everyone to follow the rule of suicide but not absurd or contradictory for everyone to follow the rule of no suicide - thus he reaches the conclusion that suicide is always morally wrong.
On the end-in-itself formulation, why is suicide immoral? p. 429
Kant argues that suicide is a clear and universal case in which a person uses themselves not as an end and instead merely as a means and hence will always be morally wrong.
What end do we all have? (Kant thinks that it is naturally necessary.) p. 415
Kant thinks that happiness is the end that we all have. But at the same time he does not, unlike Mill, think that happiness is the cornerstone of morality because (i) often times we cannot use reason to know what will make us happy and (ii) happiness is far too subjective to be governed by a universal rational maxim
On the end-in-itself formulation, why is rejecting talent's immoral? p. 430
The end in itself formulation is primarily concerned about a person treating his or her self or others as an end and never merely as a means (like a tool to be used to merely accomplish some goal). Kant thinks our duty to treat humanity as an end applies to ALL of humanity including our self. Kant sees no reason why the moral ways in which we are supposed to treat others would also not apply to ourselves as well. It is an aspect of humanity either way.
What is the end-in-itself formulation of the categorical imperative? p. 429
The end in itself formulation of the categorical imperative directs us to think about whether we are treating people as ends in themselves or merely as objects to be used as mere instruments or means. It sounds simple enough not to treat people like a tool such as a hammer but sadly this basic notion is violated countless times everyday.
On the end-in-itself formulation, why is a false promise immoral? p. 429-430
The end in itself formulation of the categorical imperative states that we should treat all of humanity always as an end and never merely as a means. This suggests that we should never use ourselves or others as a mere tool or object to get something else but instead must treat all of humanity as valuable in a non-instrumental fashion. Kant further suggests that all instances of lying constitute using another merely as a means and hence lying will always violate this idea.
On the end-in-itself formulation, why is rejecting charity immoral? p. 430
With the end in itself formulation the focus is on treating one's self and others as an end and never merely as a means. The key here idea is just one of placing the proper respect on humanity. Kant thinks that when we reject charity either when we need it or when another needs it from us is wrong because such a rejection treats humanity merely as a means. When we give or accept charity during a time of need then we are treating humanity as an end.
Describe the virtue and vices associated with honor (§7).
You can engage in honor by displaying honorable act but it mostly depends on the person delivering honor rather than be deficient in taking. Usually virtues people know how to behave morally right at all times they act in the route of good ethics. *The specific answer can be found on page 26: "In honor and dishonor the mean is magnanimity, the excess something called a sort of vanity, and the deficiency pusillanimity." Find and study that along with all the other virtues on pages 26-27.* VIRTUE: magnanimity VICE (EXCESS): vanity VICE (DEFICIENCY): pusillanimity
Explain Aristotle's view of the hierarchical nature of activities.
the hierarchical nature of activities is greater than capacity. "And so the human good proved to be activity of the soul in accord with virtue, and indeed with the best and most complete virtue, if there are more virtues than one" (Aristotle, Pg. 9)" We have found, the, that the human function is activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason" (Aristotle, Pg. 9).
Describe the virtue and vices associated with anger (§10)
"Anger also admits of an excess, deficiency, and mean. These are all practically nameless; but since we call the intermediate person mild, let us call the mean mildness. Among the extreme people, let the excessive person be irascible, and his vice irascibility, and let the deficient person be a sort of inirascible person, and his deficiency inirascibility." Aristotle is speaking on anger here, and the levels at which people behave, on a scale of mild and extreme. Irascible , or having or showing a tendency to be easily angered, is a vice in Aristotles writing. Anger is a deficiency or a vice here, meaning extreme people are excessive in this vice and mild people are the opposite. I could totally agree with this theory. Anger is a trait and addiction some "extreme" people practice and that we all have hidden deep inside. However anger is more extreme depending on the person, it could be taken as an addiction or a vice. Virtues have deep rooted standings with anger, a person with virtues and morality usually is not the quickest person to anger in the room, nor the last. They are usually somewhere in the middle, with just the right amount of mild and extreme and just the perfect ratio of in-irascibility and its opposite. VIRTUE: mildness VICE (EXCESS): irascible VICE (DEFICIENCY): inirascibility
Why can't even Jesus Christ serve as a model for moral action? p. 408-409
"For every example of it that is presented to me must itself first be judged according to principles of morality, whether it is actually worthy to serve as an original example, i.e. as a model; but by no means can it furnish the concept of it at the outset. Even the Holy One of the Gospel must first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before he is recognized as one." (Kant, P.4:408) This is simply stating that we only know if Jesus Christ was morally good by comparing him to what we believe to be morally good. Kant believes moral law cannot come from examples because it has to be a pure law and examples are never pure. Kant notes that appealing to Jesus as an example will run into the problem of trying to establish a moral foundation by appealing to any example. That is, the example itself must be understood against the backdrop of a moral principle in order for it to have any meaning.
What does Kant mean when he says that all moral concepts must be a priori? p. 411-412
A priori knowledge or experience is a form of knowledge of experience that is not based upon empirical -five senses- input. It is based upon 'reason alone'. Kant relies so heavily on the a priori because he does not think that empirical experience itself gives us information or knowledge about morality. Empirical experiences just seem like a series of flashing lights and rolling waves without a priori concepts or ideas to make sense of them and give them intelligible content.
What is the relationship between the highest human good and pleasure?
According to Aristotle the highest human good is happiness. He says that every action has an end that we wish for because of itself not because of something else. While the action may be different and the ends may be different from the activity it does not matter because we are not doing it because of something else. If we did the desire of it would be meaningless and empty. If we do it for itself it is good therefore the best good for that reason. "Pleasure causes us to do base actions and pain causes us to abstain from fine ones."( A & Irwin, 2007, p.21) The pleasure or pain following their someones action is a sign of their state or happiness.From this I take that pleasure is what causes us to do an action, we do something because it is pleasurable to us. The pleasure of something causes the action and the action will cause us happiness. The action if done because we are doing it out of pleasure and because it is being done for itself and no other reason gives us the result of happiness.
On the natural law formulation, why is not developing one's talents immoral? p. 422-423
According to Kant (2012), the universal law of nature is "so act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature." With this, he presents a few different scenarios, one of which being a man who chooses not to develop his talents. Kant says that as a rational and moral being, a man should not let his talents waste by because they were given to him for a reason. They are used for the betterment of himself and those around him, therefore they can be seen as a duty to develop these talents. Because talents are a natural part of the person, to neglect them would be to completely ignore the universal law of nature and to ignore one's duty to have the will to act upon these talents. The key idea here is that Kant argues that as a person imagines the universal rules that they would embrace they would much rather embrace of universal rule that says to develop talents rather than a universal rule that says to neglect talents.
Describe the virtue and vices associated with pleasures in amusements (§13).
After reading the text, struggling to find some of the ideas of Aristotle, I saw a sentence that really stuck out to me saying, "For when we speak of someone's character we do not say that he is wise or has good comprehension, but that he is gentle or temperate. And yet, we also praise the wise person for his state, and the states that are praiseworthy are the ones we call virtues" (Aristotle, Pg. 18). After reading this, there's no wonder why a lot of the great theologians studied his work. To answer the question, the pleasures in amusements listens to reasons and obeys it. And he says that nature has no share in human virtue and that nature shares in reason. By that train of thought, pleasures and amusements are not of virtue. **With regard to pleasures in amusements, have another look on pages 26-27. Aristotle is very clear with regard to each of the virtues of character what the names of the vices are. In this case, the intermediate person is witty while the vice of excess is buffoonery and the vice of deficiency is boorishness. "let us call the intermediate person witty, and the condition wit; the excess buffoonery and the person who has it a buffoon." Regarding the sources of pleasure. He then calls the deficient person a sort of boor.** VIRTUE: Witty VICE (EXCESS): Buffoonery VICE (DEFICIENCY): Boorishness
Choose some object other than a human and explain the relationship between excellences and a thing's good.
An object's good is connected to its function, and it's excellence is stemmed from habit or repetition. The locomotive, for example, has the main function of transporting goods, or people, across great distances. If it achieves this it is its good. However if it achieves this repeatedly from the time of its creation to a hundred years after this would be its excellence.
Explain Aristotle's account of human virtue. Generally, what are virtues? How are they obtained?
Aristotle believed that virtues are "neither feelings nor capacities" but rather "states"; these virtuous states, he says, "causes its possessors to be in a good state and to perform their functions well" (23). So, in general, virtues are not what we feel or limited to our capacities. Rather, they are the states that allow us to perform our human tasks more efficiently. This point leads to the second that Aristotle seeks to make, which is that virtues of character are formed through habit, and are not inherently found within us. Aristotle compares a person well-practiced in virtue to a builder or a harpist. These traits are something that we learn. Like people who are cultivating a specific craft, such as being a builder or harpist, some people excel in their goals, and others do not. Aristotle notes, "building well makes good builders, and building badly makes bad ones" (19). Essentially, because virtues of character are obtained through practice, it stands to reason that those that practice virtue well become virtuous, and those that do not practice it well do not. Overall, by Aristotle's beliefs, virtues are states that we obtain through practice and habit, and is not something that we are born possessing.
Describe the virtue and vices associated with giving and taking money (Small Money) (§4).
Aristotle says that "in giving and taking money the mean is generosity, the excess wastefulness and the deficiency ungenerosity... the wasteful person is excessive in spending and deficient in taking, whereas the ungenerous person is excessive in taking and deficient in spending" (Aristotle, 1999, p. 26). I'm not going to lie, this reading was very difficult for me for some reason. I believe what he's saying here is that some of the vices of money are both wasteful and ungenerous people. The wasteful person isn't taking a lot, but spending everything he has; the ungenerous person isn't spending a lot, but taking from everyone and/or being stingy. He also mentions in §6 that there are magnificent and generous people. The magnificent are concerned with the bigger picture, probably things like world poverty, hunger, homelessness. The generous are concerned with the small, which I imagine to be a giving money to a panhandler or a friend in need. I see those as the virtues, the people who want to make others happy. He says that the deficiency here is stinginess, meaning that there is little to none of it. VIRTUE: Generosity VICE (EXCESS): Wastefulness VICE (DEFICIENCY): Ungenerosity
Carefully explain Aristotle's view of "good" using examples
Aristotle says that good is happiness. "People reach their conception of the good, i.e., of happiness, from the lives they lead; for there are roughly three most favored lives: the lives of gratification, of political activity, and third, of study" (Irwin 4). Those that like the life of gratification are the most numerous and vulgar, and lead "a life for grazing animals", which I think means simplistic. The second are people who are political and cultured. The third is the life of study. Aristotle also says that your conception of good/happiness depends on what you already have. Those in poor health consider being healthy god, and those who are poor consider being wealthy good. Aristotle also discusses the platonic form of the good, the human good, and goods are divided into three types: external good, goods of the soul, and goods of the body. This is a hard topic for me to understand. I'm not entirely certain what Aristotle's view of the "good" is, so it's hard to provide examples.
What is the highest human good? Why? Explain carefully.
Aristotle, which John Stuart Mills aligned his beliefs with, believed that Happiness was the highest human good. And that through the pursuit of happiness, we would find ourselves acting upon what would result in good. When we choose to act out upon our feelings, we only wish to find happiness in our daily life, and we can only be happy when we do what is right and good. Aristotle's criteria for the highest good were summed up as the following: One. It is desirable for itself. Truthfully, happiness is desired for the sake of the mind wanting positive affirmation of its existence. Two. Is not desirable for the sake of some other good. For many, happiness is the end result of their virtues and actions. And lastly, three. All other goods are desirable for its sake. We do act upon all other goods for the result of happiness.
On the natural law formulation, why is rejecting charity immoral? pp. 423
At the heart of this question is the idea that rational agents would opt for a universal rule that says to accept and give charity when it is needed, rather than an alternative universal moral rule which says to reject charity. Any of us could find ourselves in a situation where we need charity to even survive, as such a rational person not knowing the future would never endorse a rule that rejected charity for the needy. To do so would be reject self-preservation and Kant would argue that is a clearly irrational thing to do.
Describe the virtue and vices associated with feelings of fear (§2).
Fear comes about when we think of things that can harm us, In Aristotle's book a frequent theme is the fact that a virtue lies between two vices. The Virtue of fear is courage and the vices of fear are cowardice and rashness. when we are fearful of something we develop the right amount courage to overcome that fear we are having. If a person is unable to overcome a fear then you would be a coward, the coward has too much fear and the rash person has too little fear. *With regard to fear, the intermediate position is courage or perhaps bravery. We call this virtuous person 'brave' or 'courageous.' To much of this is reckless and too little of this is cowardice. You nailed it. Now, I want you to think about what Aristotle says, specifically. Pay attention to where on that spectrum the intermediate position lies. Is it in the middle? Closer to one of the vices? Which one and then what does that mean for us as we try to be brave?* VIRTUE: bravery, courage VICE (EXCESS): Reckless VICE (DEFICIENCY): Cowardice
What does Kant mean when he says "Actions objectively recognized as necessary are subjectively contingent?" p. 412-413
For Kant our (moral) action is a combination of objective principles such as the categorical imperative with our subjective mind and will. The objective principles are true because they are every bit a real feature of the universe as much as matter, space, or gravity. But unlike concepts in physics our moral concepts only become entirely real of 'activated' when they are processed by our subjective minds.
What is the relationship between the objective principle of reason and the subjective will? p. 412-414
For Kant reason is an objective feature of the universe (much like gravity is) but unlike gravity the will gets its force once when it is digested and understood by a subjective mind.
What is the worst thing we can do for morality? p. 408-409
For Kant the worse thing we can do for morality is to think that we can determine it by appealing to examples. For Kant, only a rational principle can provide a universal moral truth. The example itself never simply stands on its own, it is always backed up or explained by some principle. And it is that principle (in the form of the categorical imperative) that Kant tells us provides the foundation for moral judgment, not some example that derives from the principle.
Why can the moral law not be to maximize happiness? pp. 417-418
He is also skeptical that people can use reason to acquire happiness in any consistent fashion. The primary problem Kant notes here is that very often rational people cannot use reason to predict what will make them happy. For instance have you ever really thought that having something would make you happy and then you had it and low and behold it didn't make you happy at all even though you had good reason to think that it would. Kant would say this is not a failure of reason, instead it is proof that using reason is often not what leads to happiness.
Describe the virtue and vices associated with other conditions of money (Big Money) (§6).
On page 26, Aristotle discusses the circumstances of money in two means concepts, generosity, and magnificence. He weighs the objectives of excessiveness and deficiency. When a person is being more generous they are excessive in wastefulness and deficient in ungenerosity, whereas a person that is ungenerous is excessive in taking and deficient in spending. He also contrasts "The difference between a magnificent person and a generous person. He states, the magnificent person differs from the generous by being concerned with large matters, while the generous person is concerned with small. The excess is ostentation and vulgarity, and the deficiency is stinginess. " **So, we notice that the 'other' conditions regarding money go beyond mere generosity and according to Aristotle, involve 'large amounts.' Now, that means only the really wealthy can display magnificence. Do you think that's right? Is it possible to be generous and then magnificent with things/stuff that do not involve money? Assessment?** VIRTUE: Magnificence VICE (EXCESS): VICE (DEFICIENCY):
Explain the relationship between function, virtue and happiness (eudaimonia).
The highest human good is called happiness (eudaimonia) by convention. According to Aristotle, a thing's highest good is in terms of its function, purpose or characteristic activity. The characteristic activity of a human being is practical reason, i.e., making deliberate choices. So, the highest good for a human is choosing well. Choosing well means living well as a human being. We might even coin a new word here to better capture what Aristotle means: "happying". Aristotle believed that choosing well means choosing the mean in regard to extremes. A virtue is a trait of character that allows us to perform our characteristic activity well. Since our highest good is choosing well, and choosing well means choosing moderately, then virtues are character traits that indicate dispositions to choose the mean. When I possess the virtues and choose to act based upon them, then I am living well or "happying".
What is the natural law formulation of the categorical imperative? p. 421
The concept of the categorical imperative is used to identify judgments and states that we have an indefinite moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on an individual's inclination or purpose. According to Kant, he states that morally applicable rules are categorical imperatives because the consequences of our actions which is prohibited morally, will apply whether we like it or not. One example if we commit crimes we cannot escape these consequences of our actions as long as we are moral individuals. The natural law formulation of the categorical imperative mentions to "act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature". In other words, we should do the right thing always whilst taking humanity into consideration regardless of the circumstance and treating our actions as if it were the natural laws of nature.
Explain the two tests for consistency of natural law and maxim. What two different kinds of duties are illustrated? p. 423-424
The first test just asks us 'could we' make a universal rule out of the maxim that we are choosing. Not even would it be a good idea but could it even be done. In the case of lying, murder and suicide, Kant argues that rules allowing for these things could not even be conceived of as universal maxims. In a logical sense they could not exist as universal maxims. As such for Kant these actions are all strictly prohibited. But we can run a second test and ask would it be a rational for our maxim to be a universal rule? So even if it is possible for everyone to do this would rational people have a universal rule that allowed it? Here we get into areas like charity and developing talents. Yes it is possible to conceive of a world where no one develops talents or accepts/gives charity but no rational person would have a rule that wanted such a world. Thus we have an imperfect or wider meritorious duty to form rules that encourage to develop their talents and accept and give needed charity.
What are the two different kinds of imperatives? p. 414-415
The two different kinds of imperatives that Kant speaks of are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical, according to Kant are "only if the action is good for some possible or actual purpose" (4:414). Categorical imperatives "declare the action to be of itself objectively necessary without reference to any purpose" (4:415). Hypothetical imperatives are the ones where we first set an end or goal and then form a maxim around some sort of means to reach that end or goal. I think it is safe to say that for almost all of us hypothetical imperatives are extremely common. But with categorical imperatives we are completely duty driven toward the stated imperative end or goal, the means-ends process has no role within such imperatives.
Describe the virtue and vices associated with truth telling (§12)
There is a lot to what Aristotle believes to the virtue and vices of true telling, he never clearly says which a person should directly do, but he does state that a person who tells the truth is a person who is intermediate, meaning that the person is more educated more advanced and not a beginner. He says "let us call the intermediate person truthful and the mean truthfulness" (Aristotle). Then he counts some of the vices as being boastful and self-deprecation. Aristotle says "The person who has it boastful; pretense that understates will be self-deprecation, and the person who has it self-deprecating" (Aristotle). Which means the difference in means between both the vice and virtue of being boastful and self deprecation is the truth. So in this case truth is the virtue and the vice of the situation is boastfulness and self-deprecation. VIRTUE: truthfulness VICE (EXCESS): boastful VICE (DEFICIENCY): self-deprecation
Why can't we use experience to discover moral rules? p. 408-409
We cannot use experience to discover moral rules because experiences are personal to each individual. If a person has not gone through and experienced and certain things then it would be hard for them to know what may even fall as a moral or immoral rule. With the end in itself formulation the focus is on treating one's self and others as an end and never merely as a means. The key here idea is just one of placing the proper respect on humanity. Kant thinks that when we reject charity either when we need it or when another needs it from us is wrong because such a rejection treats humanity merely as a means. When we give or accept charity during a time of need then we are treating humanity as an end.
What happens when reason is perfect and perfectly controls the will? p. 412-413
When reason is perfect then the outcome for Kant must be a moral action. For Kant moral actions flow from our reason and likewise immoral actions flow from a lack of reason or as is more often case a weakness of being able to act with reason when other things get in the way such as goals of happiness or a concern with the consequences of an action. Kant takes this connection to reason so seriously that uses it explain the morality of God. For Kant, God always acts morally BECAUSE God is a fully rational being - this is what Kant has in mind when he speak about the idea of a 'divine will'. Even for God, in Kant's moral picture, it is reason that allows for morality
On the natural law formulation, why is a lying promise immoral? pp. 422
a lie will necessarily form a contradiction and violate the notion of universal rational law. The natural law formulation says that people must be willing to will actions that could be universally willed by all. The demand here is just that the action could be willed (not even that it should be willed) in universal fashion. So we have to ask could a person even will that the lying promise be universalized to all? The answer here is no. This is not because of the bad consequences that would result from everyone lying. That would only show that the maxim could be universally willed but with a result that most people would not like. The reason here goes much deeper. Imagine a world where everyone lies as a universal rule. At first this seems like bad situation but possible. But that is deceptive, this situation is actually conceptually impossible. Why? Well, if everyone were a liar and this was known then the lie could not exist. Lies depend upon people thinking something could be true and if the universal rule is to lie then no one would think this at all! Thus it is literally impossible to universalize the will that everyone engage in lying promises - it simply cannot occur because it such a situation the lie would lose its deceptive power and hence no longer be a lie. *Note that this is all very different from the typical idea that lies are wrong because they harm people. Kant would likely agree that lies can harm people but he does not think that is what makes lying wrong.
Describe the virtue and vices associated with pleasures in daily life (§13).
n Book II, Chapter 7 [The Particular Virtues of Character], S13 - In sources of pleasure in amusements let us call the intermediate person witty, and the condition wit; the excess buffoonery and the person who has it a buffoon; and the deficient person a sort of boor and the state boorishness. In the other sources of pleasure, those in daily life, let us call the person who is pleasant in the right way friendly, and the mean state friendliness. If someone goes to excess with no [ulterior] aim, he will be ingratiating; if he does it for his own advantage, a flatterer. The deficient person, unpleasant in everything, will be a sort of quarrelsome and ill-tempered person. Very similar to the oriental argument of Yin and Yang, Aristotle derives his beliefs from the source that every virtue one holds to has a morally just side as well as can have a darker motive behind it. Take consumption for example. One can have virtue in consuming food by taking only enough to survive, yet can take it to the extreme of gluttony which is considered its vice. For kindness, one can hold to the virtue of caring for others, while the vice is manipulation with motives to gain from said person something you desire. Pleasures in life can be taken in moderation or led to the extremes in all scenarios. And this is not something that society can control. It all comes down to the human heart and what they believe is the virtues worth acting upon to obtain the outcome of pleasure. If one chooses to pursue virtue for goodness sake, they will approach daily life with honesty and integrity that presents goodwill towards others. If they choose to chase personal gain, they will equip themselves with resources like manipulation, and deceit through actions that portray kindness to obtain their desires. Pleasures in the daily life have to be determined based off what kind of human you wish to be. Do you wish to gain honor and reverence, or success and personal gratification? VIRTUE: Friendly VICE (EXCESS): ingratiating (a flatterer) VICE (DEFICIENCY): ill-tempered