PHI 105 Exam 3 Questions

Which kind or virtuous life is best, according to Aristotle, and what is his main reason for thinking so?

A life that would be excellent in theoretical reasoning = scientist. Practical reasoning = politician, businessperson. Lives focused on reasoning about strategy would be practical, what exists is theoretical reasoning. If we have a choice, we should be scientists because our capacity for theoretical reasoning is what is highest in us, it is what is most like the gods and least like the animals. We share this reasoning with the gods, and therefore it is the best kind of life—a life of theoretical reasoning.

What is a perfectly just person like, according to Plato? How does this view help explain how justice is non-instrumentally good for the just person?

A perfectly just person is someone who has 3 other virtues—wisdom, courage, and temperance. Justice is when you have all three virtues. A just person is one with a healthy soul. The soul has 3 parts—rational, spirited, appetitive. Each part of the soul has a specific virtue. Rational = wisdom (knowledge about what you ought to believe, do, and feel, normative knowledge). Spirited = courage (non-standard use of word, virtue of the part of us that might feel fear). Appetitive = temperance (moderation). A person is just when the rational part is wise, when the spirited part obeys the rational part and is courageous, and when appetitive part obeys rational part and has temperance.

How is the perfectly just state ordered and maintained, according to Plato?

A person who has wisdom, courage, and temperance—the rational part is wise, the spirited part and appetitive part obey the rational part, when that is the case the person is just. A just society like the just person, is one that is well-ordered. In the just society there are three primary social groups—philosopher-kings, guardians/auxiliaries, everyone else. Well-ordered when guardians obey philosopher-kings and everyone else obeys philosopher-kings, and the philosopher-kings are wise. Phil-kings-rational, guardians-spirited, everyone else-appetitive. Aristocratic society.

Which is better, according to Socrates, a long, rich, powerful, famous, and vicious life or a short, poor, humble, obscure but virtuous one? Why?

According to Socrates, a short, poor, humble, obscure, but virtuous life is better because a person is to be understood as identical to their soul, what is good for a person's soul is good for them, and what is bad for a person's soul is bad for them. Vice and viciousness is bad for a person's soul. If one has a long, rich, powerful, famous, but vicious life it is a bad life because it is bad for your soul and vice versa. Anything good for your soul is truly good for you and vice versa.

What, according to Socrates, has he tried to teach the young people of Athens?

According to Socrates, he has tried to teach the young people of Athens that the good life is the virtuous life, the most valuable thing in life is virtue, virtue is what one should want most for oneself, that virtue is more important than fame, status, money, and wealth.

What characterizes the five forms of political order that Plato identifies and discusses?

Aristocracy--rational Timocracy/timarchy--spirited Oligarchy--appetitive Democracy—appetitive mix of necessary and unecessary Tyranny--unnecessary Ordered from best to worst. Aristocracy—those who are wise rule, everyone obeys those who are wise. Timocracy/Timarchy—those who are brave and courageous/guardians rule (military). Oligarchy—rich people rule. Democracy—people rule, everyone except the slaves and the women (adult, male, non-slaves). Tyranny—a tyrant rules. All except first form are disordered. Timochratic personality spirited person rules, oligarchy necessary desires rule, democracy necessary and unnecessary desires rule, tyranny unnecessary desires rule.

Why does Socrates think it would be unjust for him to escape?

Because by living in Athens and benefitting from its laws, he has agreed to obey Athenian laws. His sentence is one of those laws, and he has agreed to obey it—if it escapes he will be going back on his agreement, he will be failing to do what he agreed to do or "breaking faith."

Why would showing fear of death be inconsistent with Socrates' general teaching?

Because it would suggest that one can be harmed by something other than a vicious act or one can be harmed by something other than something with harm to one's soul.

What is excellence in reasoning, according to Aristotle?

Believing, doing, and feeling the right thing for the right reason.

What definition does Socrates suggest as a replacement? Is Socrates satisfied with this definition? Why or why not?

Definition he suggests as a replacement is that pious is what all the gods love. Socrates is not satisfied with this definition because it does not address a fundamental question: it does not explain why things are pious or not pious—it says everything is pious is something loved by all the gods, but it doesn't answer question of what MAKES something pious or what the essence of being pious is... Is something pious because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is pious?

What is Euthyphro's initial definition of piety or righteousness and how does this definition lead to a contradiction, according to Socrates?

Euthyphro proposes that to say that something is pious, is to say that the gods love it or approve of it (Anything that the gods approve is pious). He thinks this because one action that is pious is giving offerings and sacrifices to the gods, it is pious because the gods like it. Socrates does not think that definition is good because different gods love different things. He gets this idea from the Homeric epic tales (Illiad) Some gods loved the result of the war, some gods hated the result of the war. If what's pious is what the gods love and empias is what the god's hate, this definition entails the same action (that one action is both pious and not pious and that is a contradiction) then this definition cannot be correct because Socrates has reduced it to absurdity.

Do you think this is a good argument? Why or why not?

Even granting that he agreed, his agreement does not generate any agreement to obey and unjust law. You don't agree to obey the law just by living somewhere. There are limits to what you can agree to.

What two reasons does Crito give for thinking Socrates ought to try to escape?

First, it will harm his friends and family by leaving them behind. Second, it will make them look bad because everyone will assume that his friends did not do enough to help him escape—it will damage the reputation of his friends.

Why, according to Socrates, does it make no sense for him to fear death?

He cannot be harmed by death. Since a person commits no vicious act in dying, death cannot harm them. A person can be harmed only by what harms their soul, a person's soul can only be harmed by a vicious act.

Socrates' argument suggests that he would violate a duty of gratitude were he to escape. Explain.

He has benefitted from living in Athens. Only in Athens could he have led the best kind of life for him—the life he has had as a philosopher. The city-state has an educated population that values freedom of thought. He is grateful to Athens, and he ought to be, and because he ought to be he shouldn't mistreat Athens.

Why is the tyrannical personality the least happy?

He is totally unordered and a slave to unnecessary desires. He is never fulfilled, he never has enough, has a lot of addictions, anxious. Tyrannical person is extremely miserable.

Is excellence in reasoning alone sufficient for happiness, according to Aristotle? Why or why not?

He recognizes a possible objection, couldn't someone have excellence in reasoning and be really unlucky? It seems like it's not really sufficient—he says happiness is excellence in reasoning and having a good life.

Why is Socrates sentenced to death? What "punishment" does he think he deserves and why?

He thinks that he should be honored and invited to attend the regular public banquets as an honored guest. He is sentenced to death because they do not think his suggested punishment is funny.

What state of mind does Epictetus's philosophy aim to produce in us? In what ways is this state of mind instrumentally good?

His lectures aimed to produce peace of mind or inner-peace or serenity. As a result of listening to him, we will gain peace of mind. This state of mind is instrumentally good because it promotes rationality, self-control, and dignity. We are more likely to think and act rationally when we are at peace. We are more likely to act in a dignified manner. The goal is to make us more rational and dignified and to free us from negative emotions—if we achieve inner tranquility or serenity we are more likely to achieve these things.

What is Kant's humanity-as-an-end principle? What does he mean by "humanity?" What does it mean to treat humanity as an "end-in-itself?"

His primary meaning of humanity is rationality, by humanity he does not mean humans—not referring to a biological category. He uses the term interchangeably with the idea of a "person" there can be persons who are not homo sapiens. "Persons" have a capacity for practical reason—they have the capacity to reason about what to do and act based on what they should do. Always act in a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simplify, as a means, but always at the same time as an end... Never treat other people as if they are means to help you get something else—don't treat them as tools to be used. If you use someone as a means treat them as an end. You treat someone as an end when you respect their rights—if you employ someone and respect their rights, then you are treating them as a means and an end. Treating humanity as an end-in-itself is to treat humanity as having supreme intrinsic value. When we treat it in a way that is consistent in believing it has non-instrumental value and furthermore, supreme value—it has greater value than anything else. Always act in a way that treats the capacity for practical reason as having supreme value.

How would someone violate this principle if he were to kill himself to escape pain (mental or physical)?

If Tolstoy killed himself he would be doing something morally wrong, because he would be violating the categorical imperative in its humanity as an end. By killing himself he would be destroying his capacity for practical reasoning and would be doing that for the sake of a lesser good. He would be treating this capacity as a means of pleasure—not as if it has supreme intrinsic value.

Under what conditions would suicide be in a person's best interest on a hedonistic theory of individual welfare?

If you are feeling anxious and depressed and those feelings are making you feel miserable. He was thinking his future contained more pain than pleasure. Tolstoy assumed his future had a net negative value. He thought his future pain was greater than his pleasure—in a hedonistic view if his future contained more pain than pleasure than suicide is warranted/in his best interest.

Would the humanity-as-an-end principle necessarily prohibit all forms of suicide? Why or why not? Give an example of a suicide that it might not prohibit.

If you have a disability that you know is going to destroy your capacity for practical reasoning such as a brain tumor—killing yourself to avoid that degraded state, you're not killing yourself to avoid pain or maximize pleasure, you're killing yourself to avoid a state where you will no longer be a human.

Would Tolstoy accept Aristotle's conception of the best life? Why or why not?

If you're exercising capacity for theoretical reasoning you're living the best possible life—Tolstoy would not accept this because this life is missing pleasure, he was searching for meaning of life but he was miserable, and thought the only way to address misery was to discover meaning of life without using the capacity for theoretical reasoning. The capacity for theoretical reasoning led him to a dead end. He was unable to discover any meaning of life. When he accepted religious beliefs for no good theoretical reason he was able to see his life as having meaning.

Why does Socrates think it would be bad for him to escape?

It would be bad for him to escape, because it would be unjust. It is only by doing something unjust that someone can be harmed.

How does Plato respond to this challenge in the Republic?

Justice is good for a person because it is good for a person to have a healthy or well-ordered soul, and only a just person has a healthy or well-ordered soul. Just as it's good to have a healthy body—good to have healthy soul. Justice is crucial for having a healthy soul.

In what way is justice good for a person, according to Plato?

Justice is the supreme virtue, constituted by other virtues. The claim that he is making is that justice is good for the just person. Injustice is bad for the unjust person. Justice is intrinsically good for a person or non-instrumentally good for a person.

In what way does the hedonistic view of Mill incorporate ideas of Aristotle? In what way does Mill's view remain fundamentally hedonistic?

Mill's view may not be hedonistic bc he supposes something besides pleasure is valuable. It does remain hedonistic because Mill's view is the only thing that has value for its own sake is pleasure—some pleasures have more value than others though.

Why does Socrates think it does not matter what the majority thinks?

Most people might think the friends didn't do enough, but who cares? This comment reflects a central tenet—only a small minority of people have knowledge, and most people are ignorant, and there's no reason to value their opinion. Both Socrates and Plato thought democracy was a terrible format of government because it meant rule by the ignorant.

Can a bad man harm a good one, according to Socrates? Why or why not?

No, a bad man cannot harm a good one. A person can be harmed only by what harms their soul, and a person's soul is only harmed by unjust or wrong actions. Because Socrates has not done anything wrong, he is not harmed. The people who accused him are harmed and asked for the sentence of death, but he is not harmed—they're harmed because they did something unjust.

Is Kant right that any suicide is wrong that is motivated by a desire to escape pain? Why or why not?

No, because one can kill themselves to avoid extreme pain.

Why, given the nature of humanity, must a good human life be one that is excellent in reasoning, according to Aristotle?

Observes that in general we use good as a kind of functional term. A good car, we're talking about a car that performs its function well. To understand what makes something good, we must understand what its function is. In order to understand function of something, we must understand something's essence. Essence of a knife is a hand-held instrument with which one can cut food, its function is to cut food. Essence of human being is to be a rational animal. Nothing that is not a mammal/incapable of rationality is human. Everything capable of rationality and is a mammal is a human being. Function of a human life is to be a rational animal life. A good human life is an animal life that is excellent in reasoning.

What things are within our control and what things are not, according to him?

Our own attitudes and actions are in our control—everything else is not. We have control only over our own actions and attitudes. Other peoples' attitudes are not in our control.

Can a perfectly wise person be harmed (or made unhappy) according to Epictetus? Why or why not?

Someone who believes does and feels for the right reason and such a person could never be made by others to do the wrong thing—since only failures of rationality harm us, other people cannot harm us.

Give an example of a life that Epicurus would think is pretty good, and Aristotle would think is not so good. Give an example of a life that Aristotle would think is pretty good, and Epicurus would think is not so good.

Someone who's born into a rich family, has plenty of money to have fun, just spends his money for fun, but he doesn't do anything to develop his capacity for theoretical reasoning—Epicurus thinks good, Aristotle doesn't. A student who is only able to go to college from a scholarship, and has to work to pay for school so he is a brilliant scientist but is miserable because he has to work all the time to pay for school, someone who uses higher reasoning capacities but is suicidal—Aristotle thinks good, Epicurus doesn't.

In Euthyphro, Socrates asks: "Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?" What question is he asking here, and what does he think is the right answer?

Something is not pious because it is loved by the gods. The property of being pious is logically independent of the property of being loved by the gods. Piety is a property that is independent of the attitudes of the gods. A discussion of piety is a discussion of righteousness. Is an action right, because god commands it or does god command it because it's right? Is an action wrong because god prohibits it, or does god prohibit it because it's wrong? Is it independent or dependent of god's will. Is something desirable because we desire it or do we desire it because it's desirable?

What simple principle or distinction must we grasp before we can be free and happy, according to Epictetus?

The distinction we must gasp is that there are some things we can control and things we cannot control.

How does this view help explain how justice is non-instrumentally good for the just person?

The idea is that once we see that it's necessary to be just in order to have a healthy soul, we'll see it's something worth having for its own sake. Explains why just person has well-ordered and healthy soul and vice versa. When we think about picture of what it means to have a healthy soul we will see it's something worth wanting for its own sake.

How does the internal order of the just person mirror the political order of the just state, according to Plato?

The same structure as above.

What two arguments does Socrates give to rebut the charge that he has willingly corrupted the youth of Athens?

The two arguments that Socrates gives to rebut the charge are 1. The content he has taught. What he has taught the youth of Athens is that the good life is the virtuous life and that the most important thing to want for oneself is virtue. The thing we should want most for ourselves is being virtuous, more important than power, fame, and money—it trumps all. Someone who teaches that is doing the opposite of corrupting the young people. Corrupting the youth would be teaching them that money and power trump all other things. 2. It wasn't what he was trying to do, maybe his teachings misfired. He can't be guilty of intentionally corrupting them—maybe he accidentally corrupted them, in that case he did not intentionally corrupting them. He's being charged with intentionally corrupting the youth, but that has no merit.

What does the existence of "righteous" or "justified" anger seem to constitute an objection to Epictetus's claim that it makes no sense to be angry at others or oneself? Is this objection decisive? Why or why not?

There is a distinction between two meanings of anger—it's never appropriate and it doesn't do you any good. The objection is not decisive because the phrase "makes no sense" is indecisive. If it means is never appropriate it is decisive, if it means latter it is indecisive.

What is the story of the ring of Gyges? What challenge is meant to pose to Plato's view about the way in which justice is good for a person?

There's a shepard out tending his flock and at the end of the day he gets together with all of the other shepards and they sit around the campfire and have dinner, then wake up the next day and they're flocked again. Shepard notices on the ground, a ring, he picks it up and puts it on his finger and as people are talking he notices as if the other shepards start talking as if he was no longer there and he fiddles the ring again. The ring can make him invisible based on how he turns it. Now that he can be invisible, he can do bad things and get away with it—murders king, marries queen. Suggests justice is only instrumentally good—be just in situations where being unjust would be risky (breaking law, customers don't trust you, bad rep, get arrested). Shepard doesn't have to worry about this because he can get away with anything now. The Shepard is worse off even though he can become a king by perpetrating these injustices.

In what key respect do Aristotle and Epicurus agree about the good life?

They both think the best kind of life is a life of philosophical contemplation and having intellectual conversations. Epicurus thinks it's best because it's most pleasant, Aristotle thinks it's best because it exercises our highest human capacity for theoretical reasoning. They agree on what kind of life is best, but this disagree about why it's best.

Why is the actual tyrant the least happy of all?

They can't trust anyone, worried about being assassinated. Have to murder everyone—no family/friends. Alone and fearful. A tyrant ruled by unnecessary desires.

In what does true human excellence consist according to Epictetus? In what does it not consist?

True human excellence consists in perfect rationality and the dignity that follows from that—perfect rationality is believing, doing, and feeling the right thing for the right reason, and achieving the dignity that goes along necessarily with that kind of rationality. It does not consist in being famous, rich, of high status, powerful, having any artistic accomplishments. He believes each of us can have a truly excellent life regardless of talent, luck, wealth, fame, etc.—true human excellence is within everyone's grasp, they just have to commit themselves to living a truly rational life.

What attitude should we take toward blame or anger, according to Epictetus, and why should this attitude function to make us happier, more rational, more dignified?

Try never to indulge them, not feel them, do without them. If we find ourselves getting angry find tricks to deal with it. This should function to make us happier because anger makes us unhappy, less rational, and less dignified.

What is virtue, according to Aristotle?

Virtue is excellence in reasoning.

A Stoic might hold that although anger is sometimes justified, it makes no sense to be angry. What is a natural objection to this position? What interpretations of "justified" and "makes no sense" would address this objection?

We can defend position by saying that when stoic says anger is sometimes justified he is saying that it is permissible to feel angry under certain circumstances—but that doesn't mean it's advisable. Something can be permissible without being advisable. Stoic might say, although anger is sometimes permissible it is still never advisable—that would make sense of the claim "although anger is sometimes justified it makes no sense to be angry.

Aristotle's argument for his conception of a good human life depends on an analogy between tools and human lives. Why is this analogy problematic?

We know the function of something based on why it was created. A tool has a function only because it was designed and created only for a particular purpose. This is problematic, because for the analogy to be true it means humans are going to have a function like tools have a function if someone designed and created humans to have a certain function. Analogy is puzzling unless he's assuming there's a god that created humans. No one created humans with a function or analysis, we know function a tool has because it was created for a particular purpose, if humans don't have function in the way tools do, Aristotle's argument doesn't work.

What should our attitude be towards things that are out of our control? What should our attitude be toward things that are within our control?

We should just accept things for how they are and we shouldn't allow ourselves to become angry. Anger is what we want to avoid—it's unpleasant, we lack inner-peace, anger can make us act irrationally and make us do/say things we shouldn't. We shouldn't be angry at ourselves, we should just accept that we've made a mistake and try to do better in a non-angry way, we shouldn't try to punish ourselves and should avoid anger if possible in both cases.

What does human happiness primarily consist in, according to Aristotle?

When we study ethics we are asking what is the best kind of life for us to lead. Assumes best life is the happy life. Does not have a hedonistic perception of happiness, using happiness as a synonym for the good life. You're happy if you have a good life—even if you're miserable. Human happiness primarily consists in virtue, the virtuous person is the happy person and vice versa.

Might escaping be dishonorable even if it is not unjust?

Yes, he wants to act in a way that is most faithful to his philosophy, he doesn't want to do anything that might lead people to say "Socrates didn't really believe what he said he believed." He is thinking what is the best way to act given the content of his philosophy. To accept his penalty is the best way to launch his philosophy into the future.

What characterizes the five forms of personality that correspond to them

above chart.