Student Questions Winter/Spring 2016

Participation through Submitted Questions. By 8 pm the evening before every class meeting (exceptions are noted on the class syllabus) each student is to post to D2L one question derived from study of the assigned readings. Sample questions are indicated on detailed course syllabus but each student must post his or her own question on D2L. Students are not to work together for this. Questions which demonstrate familiarity with assigned texts and the ideas in them and show student reflection on the meaning of these will receive a grade of 1/1 (one out of one point), while those questions which fail to reflect these characteristics will receive a grade of 0/1 (none out of one).

A selection of some of these questions will form the basis for classroom discussion in the latter part of class.

1. *Marks a perhaps interesting but weak question that I have accepted even though it does not clearly meet the criteria. I recommend that students elaborate a bit more to clearly “demonstrate familiarity with assigned texts and the ideas in them and show student reflection on the meaning”.
   

Phil 2310-114 Fall 2016 Student Questions 5 October 2016

According to Mill's notion of higher and lower pleasures, would an invalid statement from a genius (like Albert Einstein) be considered more valuable than a correct statement from an idiot (like Kim Kardashian)?

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IN LOGIC VALIDITY HAS TO TO WITH PROPER ARGUMENT FORM. MORE GENERALLY IT IS USED TO INDICATE FAULTY REASONING.

SO A FAULTY OR FALSE STATEMENT BY EINSTEIN WOULD NOT BE MORE VALUABLE SINCE IT HAS NO VALUE BECAUSE IT IS FAULTY. A CORRECT STATEMENT BY A CELEBRITY ENTERTAINER ABOUT MOST CARS HAVING 4 WHEELS IS TRIVIAL EVEN IF CORRECT.

BUT MILL’S NOTION IT THAT THERE ARE HIGHER AND LOWER PLEASURES IN LIFE. THE PLEASURE OF FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE IS HIGHER THAN EATING PIZZA. THE PLEASURE OF SOLVING A VERY COMPLICATED PROBLEM IN MATH OR PHYSICS OR ENGINEERING IS GREATER THAN THAT OF SCRATCHING YOUR NOSE.

Since John Stuart Mill is all about utilitarianism and making sure everyone is happy in life, does he have no regard for happiness in immoral ways? How would Mill react to someone is achieving happiness by doing something illegal like drugs, crime, etc.?

HAPPINESS IS PLEASURE, UNHAPPINESS PAIN. MILL IS A HEDONIST. PLEASURE IS GOOD, PAIN BAD. YES, THERE IS PLEASURE AND THEREFORE ALSO HAPPINESS IN IMMORAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CRIME, DRUGS AND THE LIKE.

HIS REACTION WOULD BE THAT THIS IS NOT A SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE FORM OF PLEASURE SINCE IT FAILS TO CONTRIBUTE TO “THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER.”

If in Mill's eyes he believes the ultimate goal of humans is to not being unhappy and he explains that not everyone reaches happiness, are there levels of not being unhappy on a scale to reaching happiness? 

SURE. SOME LIVES ARE MORE PLEASURABLE THAN OTHERS. PLEASURE IS GOOD AND GOOD IS HAPPINESS. THE MORE PLEASURABLE A LIFE, THE BETTER AND THE MORE HAPPY IT IS.

I'm having a difficult time grasping Mill's philosophical idea of consequences. Mill says that the proof of the rightness of the actions is determine in the outcome. In other words, if the outcome is good, then the actions to get the end are good as well. I believe that this philosophical approach is true, but in only SOME cases. For example, it applies when you are making a cake for someone. If the cake tastes good and the person likes it, then it can be said the the actions you took to make the cake are good as well. But what about if you steal something and get away with it? Let's say you steal an candy bar from Walgreens. You steal the candy bar and do not get caught by any employees. You enjoyed the candy bar too! This follows along with what Mill's philosophy so would that mean that he thinks it's okay to steal?  

THE OUTCOME IS WHAT COUNTS MOST FOR MILL. BUT IF YOU STEAL AND GET AWAY WITH IT, YOU WILL STEAL AGAIN AND AGAIN. EACH TIME THE CANDY TASTES GOOD BUT YOU ARE DEVELOPING AN ANTI-SOCIAL HABIT. AND THE UTILITARIAN GOAL IS ***NOT*** THE GREATEST PLEASURE / HAPPINESS FOR SOME INDIVIDUAL BUT THE GREATEST FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

If all actions are good or bad depending on the consequence or outcome, how does Mill explain actions that had bad intentions that Kant would say are immoral, even if they result in a good thing?

FOR MILL THE MORAL VALUE OF AN ACTION LIES NOT IN THE INTENTION BUT IN THE OUTCOME. THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

Can the outcome be moral but not the person because the intention wan't moral? 

THE OUTCOME CAN BE GOOD EVEN IF THE INTENTION WAS NOT. IF I WAS VERY ANGRY AND TRIED TO RUN OVER THE PERSON I AM ANGRY AT, BUT INSTEAD HIT A MAN BEATING A CHILD WITH A BASEBALL BAT, THE OUTCOME IS GOOD SO THE ACTION IS GOOD.

Mill's main argument is that happiness is the ultimate good at which we as humans aim (similarly to Aristotle). However, Mill argues that happiness coincides with pleasure or the absence of pain (unlike Aristotle). Aristotle argues that anyone can achieve happiness, however, Mill's sense of happiness can also be connected with education. According to Mill, can the uneducated attain true happiness?

NO, BECAUSE THERE ARE LEVELS OF HAPPINESS. YOU SAY true happiness AND FOR MILL THAT MEANS THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF HAPPINESS. THE UNEDUCATED DO NOT KNOW OR EXPERIENCE THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF EDUCATIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL EXPERIENCE AND JOY OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT THAT THOSE WHO LIVE AT THE MOST PROFOUND LEVELS OF HUMAN RATIONALITY.

If the end goal is the same:happiness.  Is it concerning individual happiness or everyone always has to happiness with the teachings of utilitarianism? For example: If I am happy but others around me are not happy, am I not happy? considering Mill's teachings of utilitarianism? 

YOU SHOULD WRITE IN FULL ENGLISH SENTENCES.

THE END IS THE GREATEST GOOD (= GREATEST HAPPINESS) FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER ( OF HUMAN BEINGS).

YOU SHOULD WRITE IN FULL ENGLISH SENTENCES SO I DON’T HAVE TO GUESS WHAT THE REAL POINT OF YOUR QUESTION IS. CLARITY IS YOUR BUSINESS IN THIS. RESPONDING IS MINE.

FOR MILL THE HAPPINESS OF ONE IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE HAPPINESS OF THE MANY. REMEMBER HAPPINESS = PLEASURE = GOOD.

Would John Stuart Mill justify war by saying that it is an example of utilitarianism?

THIS DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. HE WOULD NOT ADVOCATE FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION TO TAKE THE WEATHER AND MINERAL RICHES FROM ANOTHER STATE, THOUGH HE LIVED IN A TIME OF BRITISH COLONIALISM.

Mill exclaims that utilitarianism is about increasing general happiness, not just increasing happiness in an individual. However, doesn't increasing happiness in one individual, mean that others can also be happy for that individual or the situation at hand, and, in turn, create an increase in general happiness? Why or why not?

SURE BUT THAT IS NOT TAKEN UP BY HIM IN THIS FASHION. AS HE SEES IT, THE HAPPINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CAN BE OVERRIDDEN BY THE HAPPINESS OF THE MANY. THERE IS A SENSE THAT WE WANT AND PERHAPS CAN TAKE SOME CONSOLATION IN SEEING THE GREATER SOCIETY IN A STATE OF PLEASURE AND HAPPINESS.

Mill discusses in chapter 2 how the creed that accepts as the foundation of morals, or utility, as those actions are right in proportion as they tend to create happiness and those actions are wrong in proportion as they tend to create unhappiness.

CORRECT!

Since, according to Mill, utilitarian writers place a higher importance of mental pleasures over bodily pleasures, then how is one to define the goodness or utility in a purely physical pleasure. For example if it brings someone bodily pleasure to knock their head against the wall, how was this be the "greatest form of happiness" that Mill talks about in this creed of utility?

THAT IS A SHORT TERM PLEASURE SINCE THE RESULTING BRAIN INJURY WILL SEVERELY AFFECT THE APPRECIATION OF OTHER PLEASURES AND LIKELY LATER BRING PAIN OR UNHAPPINESS.

THIS IS A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE AND LATER THINKERS RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER MILL MEANT US TO FOCUS ON IMMEDIATE ATTAINMENT OF PRESENT PLEASURE (CALLED ACT UTILITARIANISM) OR THE LONGTERM GOOD / PLEASE (RULE UTILITARIANISM). WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS IN CLASS. RAISE IT THERE.

Mill's moral theory says that the individual's motives are not important in morality. So does an action that produces happiness, but was motivated by the wrong reasons considered a moral action according to Mill?

KANT: THE MORAL VALUE OF AN ACTION LIES IN THE INTENTION WITH WHICH THE ACTION IS DONE, NOT IN THE OUTCOME.

MILL: THE MORAL VALUE OF AN ACTION LIES IN THE OUTCOME OF AN ACTION, NOT IN THE INTENTION.

TO YOUR QUESTION: THE ACTION MAY NOT BE MORAL BUT SINCE THE OUTCOME WAS GOOD, THE ACTION WAS GOOD.

ASK ME TO EXPLAIN THIS.

In trying to understand Mills framework in the contemporary context of capital punishment, how would his analysis resolve or define the issue?

HIS ANALYSIS WOULD SEEM TO PERMIT IT. BUT IN FACT HE OPPOSED IT EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF “of atrocious cases.” SEE https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1042771600004890.

It states that all good results have to come from good actions. Is this always true? QUESTION 1

RESPONSE: NO, RATHER GOOD RESULTS ARE ASSERTED TO MAKE THE ACTIONS THAT BRING THEM ABOUT TO BE CALLED GOOD ACTIONS.

‘THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.’

There are some situations where a bad action can result in a good outcome.

YES.

One example could be stealing medicine to help some one who is sick. Stealing is not a good action but the result was intended for good use. Does this rare occasion count in the argument that good actions always result good outcomes?

IT SOUNDS GOOD TAKEN IN ISOLATION. BUT MILL WOULD REJECT IT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SERVE TO BRING ABOUT THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER.

Mill talks about doing good will have an outcome of good or pursuing good will have an outcome of good. Is there ever a case where you mean to do or pursue good but the outcome is bad?

YES, OF COURSE. WE MIGHT TRY TO SAVE A DROWNING CHILD BUT WITH THE RESULT THAT WE AND THE CHILD DIE.

Or how about doing bad but the outcome is good? 

‘THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.’

In Chapter 2, when the author differenciates between higher and lower pleasures, why does he establishes that clasification of pleasures and what does he mean when he talks about a difference in quality? Why do utilitarian writers say that mental pleasures are better and more gratificant than bodily pleasures that have to do with sensations? 

WHICH IS THE GREATER PLEASURE, EATING PIZZA OR KNOWING THAT YOU ARE LOVED AND RESPECTED BY YOUR FRIENDS AND CLASSMATES? WHICH IS MORE PLEASUREABLE, EATING GOOD PASTA OR COMPLETING A COMPLEX, CHALLENGING  PROJECT IN THE AREA OF YOUR MAJOR AND GETTING PRAISE FOR IT FROM YOUR TEACHER? WE HUMANS MOSTLY CHOOSE HIGHER PLEASURES WHEN WE KNOW ABOUT THEM THAN MERELY THE KIND THAT ARE COMMON AND AVAILABLE EASILY.

WOULD YOU PREFER THE SIMPLE LIFE AND SIMPLE PLEASURES OF A COW OR A PIG WHICH JUST EATS AND RESTS ALL DAY, OR DO YOU WANT THE CHALLENGING AND COMPLEX LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING WHOSE LIFE PLEASURES ARE MUCH, MUCH HIGHER?

In estimating the value of anything else we take into account the "quality" and the "quantity". Few humans creatures would agree to be changed into any of the lower animals in return for a promise of the fullest allowance of animal pleasures even in cases of unhappiness.

RIGHT. THAT IS MILL’S VIEW.

According to utilitarism,  if an animal lives better, with more food and other desirable quantities, why do we still think our lives as humans are further better?

SIMPLY PUT: WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, ABOUT SCIENCE, ABOUT HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY, ABOUT GREAT ETHICAL QUESTIONS, ABOUT MUCH, MUCH MORE, AND WE FEEL THIS IS HOW WE FULFILL OURSELVES OR HAVE HIGHER PLEASURES. AND, MORE THAN FEELING IT, WE THINK IT.

Mill refers to utility as the greatest happiness principle and describes actions as a proportion being right when it promotes happiness and wrong when it reduces happiness. How does this compare to Aristotle's happiness as an end goal, and Kant's happiness as a duty?

IT IS VERY DIFFERENT. YOU HAVE ARISTOTLE RIGHT BUT FOR KANT THE GOAL OF ETHICS IS NOT HAPPINESS BUT RIGHT MORALITY. FOR MILL, THE GOAL IS GREATEST GOOD FOR GREATEST NUMBER WHERE GOOD IS PLEASURE. BUT IT HAS TO BE FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER AND NOT JUST FOR ME. THAT IS THE MORAL AIIM OF THE UTILITARIAN.

In the first chapter Mills (MILL) talks about how it could be argued that there is a standard for moral believes (BELIEFS OR BELIEVERS?) but it is unrecognized. If this were to be true and that there is a sold (SOLID?) standard how would we figure out what it is?

YOU MUST PROOFREAD YOUR QUESTIONS BEFORE SUBMITTING THEM.

WE FIGURE IT OUT BY USING OUR MINDS AND GETTING BEYOND JUST THE SIMPLE THINKING OF THE UNEDUCATED.  HE THINKS THAT MOST PEOPLE THINK IT IS CRASS TO SEEK PLEASURE IN ALL THINGS, BUT HE SAYS THAT IN FACT THIS IS NOT CRASS BUT REALISTIC AND RIGHT IF YOU THINK DEEPLY ENOUGH ABOUT IT.

Since Mill believes that government should not be a matter of a social contract, how would he structure a government in order to keep it civil and non-chaotic?

HE SAYS WE SHOULD DO IT IN WHATEVER WAY WORKS BEST TO ATTAIN THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER, WHERE GOOD MEANS PLEASURE. THAT IS THE END AND WE SHOULD USE THE BEST MEANS TO GET THERE. THE GOOD OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE THE LESSENING OF PAIN AND THE INCREASE OF PLEASURE OF LIVING FOR AS MANY AS POSSIBLE.

since utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people,if you could choose to kill ten people or to kill your mom a utilitarianism would want you to kill your mom, however would it be ethical to kill your mom over some random strangers? As far as all of your family members and friends that you would hurt. 

FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE.

THIS SORT OF OBJECTION IS A PROBLEM FOR MILL. THIS SAME SORT OF THINKING MIGHT SAY THAT SLAVERY IS GOOD IF IT INCREASES PLEASURE FOR THE MAJORITY. BUT MILL WAS AGAINST SLAVERY IN HIS DAY.

SO TO YOUR QUESTION, WHY WOULD MILL NOT FAVOR THE KIND OF THING YOU SUGGEST? WHAT WOULD IT DO TO HUMAN HAPPINESS AND SOCIETY?

I struggle with Mill's emphasis of the outcomes of actions, as I feel there are many situations when this idea can be seen as unethical. For example, if you cheat on a test and do well, how is the act of cheating  justified by a good test score? He says the end justifies the mean, however I do not think that cheating is every  justifiable.

DOES THE CHEATING BRING ABOUT THE GOOD FOR US OR JUST THE SEEMING GOOD? DO YOU WANT YOUR DOCTOR TO CHEAT HIS WAY THROUGH MEDICAL SCHOOL AND TO THINK THAT THIS WILL STILL HELP HIM BE A GOOD DOCTOR?

THE END (A FALSELY ATTAINED PLEASURE) IS NOT REALLY GOOD FOR THE CHEATER THOUGH HE THINKS IT IS. IS THAT RIGHT?

Since Mill believes that government should not be a matter of a social contract, how would he structure a government in order to keep it civil and non-chaotic?

HE SAYS WE SHOULD DO IT IN WHATEVER WAY WORKS BEST TO ATTAIN THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER, WHERE GOOD MEANS PLEASURE. THAT IS THE END AND WE SHOULD USE THE BEST MEANS TO GET THERE. THE GOOD OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE THE LESSENING OF PAIN AND THE INCREASE OF PLEASURE OF LIVING FOR AS MANY AS POSSIBLE.

Mill says that, although “utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others,” it does not allow that this type of action is a good action because it does not allow for optimum happiness.  However, he also says that the teachings of Jesus have “the complete spirit of the ethics of utility.” How, then, would he see Jesus dying for our sins?

MILL IS NOT PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN USING RELIGION IN HIS PHILOSOPHY. AND HE DOES NOT DISCUSS THEOLOGY AT LENGTH.  I DON’T THINK WE CAN USE THE GREATEST GOOD PRINCIPLE HERE.

Would he say that this sacrifice was not a good moral action because Jesus sacrificed his own greatest good?

CERTAINLY HE WOULD NOT SAY THAT SINCE HE THINGS THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER SHOULD BE THE PRINCIPLE, NOT ONE’S OWN GOOD. THIS IS THE NATURE OF MORALITY FOR MILL, WHEN ONE IS WILLING TO GIVE OVER ONE ‘S OWN GOOD FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF MANY.

Phil 2310-114 Student Questions 4 October 2016

Kant is quoted on page 54 saying, "Therefore, if I were solely a a member of the intelligible world, then all my actions would perfectly conform to the principle of the autonomy of a pure will." Is Kant implying to have a pure will that you must be solely intelligible? How can one distinguish the intelligible from the unintelligible? Does Kant's idea of the autonomy of the pure will line up with Aristotle's idea of the morally virtuous? 

YES.

ONE USES REASON AS PRIMARY, THE OTHER DOES NOT.

AUTONOMY OF THE PURE WILL WOULD YIELD MORAL VIRTUE OR EXCELLENCE.  BUT FOR ARIST WE ARE MORALY VIRTUOUS FOR THE SAKE OF HAPPINESS. FOR KANT WE ARE MORALLY VIRTUOUS FOR THE SAKE OF RIGHT MORALITY ITSELF AS PART OF OUR NATURE AS INTELLECTUAL BEINGS. THIS IS A GOOD COMPLEX QUESTION. ASK ME TO EXPLAIN MORE IN CLASS IF YOU LIKE.

Kant explains that the only way we can truly have free will is when we follow moral law, not when we do what we want to do. How does being obedient and following the law provide free will? If an individual were to not want to follow the moral laws and does what he/she pleases, does this mean that they do not have a free will?

FOR KANT THE CHOICES ARE (1) FREE WILL WHEREIN YOU ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY ANYTHING BUT YOUR OWN SELF OR (2) NO FREE WILL WHEREIN YOU ARE CONTROLLED BY THINGS OUTSIDE YOUR TRUE SELF. YOUR TRUE SELF HERE IS YOUR NATURE AS A RATIONAL BEING AIMING AT THE MORAL GOOD AS OUR ULTIMATE END. (2) IS WHEN WE LET DESIRES FOR MONEY, POWER, PLEASURE TAKE US OVER AND CONTROL US RATHER THAN HAVING THE GOOD WILL AND REASON RULE US FOR OUR MORAL FULFILLMENT.

THE CHOICES ARE FREE WILL (AUTONOMY) OR ENSLAVEMENT TO DESIRES AND WANTS OUTSIDE OUR TRUE SELVES.

Due to several reasons (war, rights, etc.), many people around the world will never be able to experience freedom. How can Kant characterize these people despite them never really having a fair shot to be "free.

FOR KANT THEY WILL STILL EXPERIENCE OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPRESS RESPECT FOR THEMSELVES OR OTHERS EVEN IF THEY DO NOT HAVE POLITICAL FREEDOM. THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS AUTONOMY AND TO ESCAPE HETERONOMY.

If Kant were alive today, how would he balance his conception of freedom (that freedom allows us not to be controlled) with the idea of a strong central government? Where would he stand on common social issues like gun control and government interference in business?

KANT HAS NOT ADDRESSED THESE IDEAS SO WE WUOLD HAVE TO TAKE HIS PRINCIPLES AND IMAGINE HOW THEY MAY APPLY.

THIS IS INTERESTING BUT YOUR QUESTIONS PROBABLY SHOULD BETTER BE ORIENTED TOWARD PROBLEMS UNDERSTANDING HIS PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING AND DOCTRINES.

If free will is not that something that we can know we have, then how is it that we can choose to convict people? Is this not the same as convicting someone when we know that we don't have free will?

WHILE WE CANNOT PROVE IT A POSTERIORI, WE ASSUME IT A PRIORI EVEN IN OUR LAW COURTS. THIS IS INTERESTING, ISN'T IT?

YES, SO WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF COURTS IN THAT CASE? THINK ABOUT IT.

Kant says that any being endowed with reason and will must think of themselves as free, and reason would not be if it were controlled by irrational forces. If someone with a mental disability, for example schizophrenia, is unable to control their rational thoughts, is this person able to think of themselves as free?

PERHAPS BUT PROBABLY NOT OR NOT WELL. THAT PERSON IS NOT IN CONTROL OF HIS/HER BRAIN AND CONSEQUENT ACTIONS AND THOUGHTS.

CAN SUCH A PERSON BE MORAL?

"One must show that freedom is also the property of the will of all rational beings" (Kant 50). So as rational human beings we need to show that we have the freedom to choose our own paths toward happiness?

THIS IS WHAT WE MUST DISPLAY IN ALL OUR ACTIONS.

BUT NOTE THAT THE GOAL IS NOT HAPPINESS BUT MORAL RIGHT AND RESPECT FOR OURSELVES AND OTHERS AS RATIONAL BEINGS.

Kant says that we can prove the existence of freedom. How then can we know it's there? If it is in fact pre supposed how can this be possible with the concept of morality? What is Kant's argument for why we can assume this?

NO, HE SAYS WE CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF FREEDOM IN ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER!

WE HAVE TO ASSUME IT; WE DO NOT KNOW IT.

ITS PRESUPPOSITION MAKES MORALITY POSSIBLE. WITHOUT PRESUPPOSING IT, THERE WILL BE NO MORALITY.

OUR ASSERTION THAT WE ARE FREE AND THE NEED FOR IT TO EXIST SO THAT MORALITY CAN EXIST.

DO YOU CHOOSE MORALITY OR THE NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY MORALITY WHATSOEVER? IF THE FIRST, FREEDOM MUST BE PRESUPPOSED. IF THE SECOND, THERE IS NO FREEDOM AND NO MORALITY.

Kant has an interesting view on freedom and free will. I struggle to understand it, as it seems to be a constant stance that we don't complete actions with free will, but simply actions with presupposed causes. Would the following statement be valid then? I did my homework last night not because I have free will, but because of the presupposed cause of my conscience and wanting to get good grades.

NO, YOUR CONSCIENCE ABOUT YOUR OBLIGATIONS TO YOURSELF AND TO PARENTS WHO PERHAPS SUPPORT YOU, AND MU IF MU SUPPORTS YOU WITH FUNDING, IS TO RESPECT YOURSELF AND OTHERS. TO FAIL OR REFUSE TO DO HOMEWORK IS TO FAIL TO RESPECT (FIRST) YOURSELF AS A RATIONAL BEING WITH COMMITMENTS AND (SECOND) THOSE WHO SUPPORT YOU.

If reason is "independent of mere subjective determination," then how do individuals draw different conclusions when they reason, if reason is not subjective? 

RATIONAL BEINGS COMMITTED TO KANTAN MORALITY OF RESPECT DO NOT FREQUENTLY DIFFER SO MUCH AS YOU IMPLY. WE ALL AGREE MURDER IS DISRESPECTFUL OF OURSELVES AND OTHERS.

FOR KANT REASON PRESENTS TO US AN OBJECTIVE REALITY ON THE MORAL MATTER. BUT IT IS STILL UP TO US AS RATIONAL BEINGS TO GET OUR WILL UNDER CONTROL AND TO MAKE OURSELVES ACT IN ACCORD WITH WHAT REASON TELLS US IS MORALLY RIGHT.

WE CAN DO OTHERWISE BUT THAT IS (HETERONOMY) TO ENSLAVE OURSELVES TO THINGS OUTSIDE OUR TRUE NATURES AS RATIONAL BEINGS.

Why must we count ourselves as belonging to the sensible world? Is it impossible for someone to completely know everything about himself, knowing how he/she acts in different situations? Or is it just our appearance what we know?

WE NEED TO BREATHE, TO EAT, TO HAVE FRIENDS, TO LOVE, TO WORK: WE ARE BEINGS OF THE SENSE WORLD.

GOOD QUESTION. YES, SUCH PERFECT UNDERSTANDING IS BEYOND OUR POWERS.

YES, WE SEE ONLY APPEARANCES. BUT WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OR PREREQUISITES FOR ANY POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE? AND WHERE ARE THEY?

According to Kant, freedom involves law, so does it mean that our rational actions are the moral valid ones?

MORAL LAW.

YES.

How can you explain the case in which a thief  steals money? Is he free?

NO, IT IS A MANIFESTATION OF HIS ENSLAVEMENT TO PASSIONS AND DESIRES AND HIS REFUSAL TO FOLLOW WHAT HIS REASON PRESENTS TO HIM AS THE RIGHT ACTION.

Can we make a rational decision, using free will, to ignore a categorical imperative?

NO. THAT WOULD BE TO REJECT OUR RATIONALITY WHICH PRESENTS US WTIH THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AS A WAY TO BE FREE AND UNENSLAVED TO THINGS OUTSIDE OUR TRUE SELVES AS RATIONAL BEINGS.

 And if so, how would Kant resolve the conflict between having a categorical imperative and making a rational decision to ignore that categorical imperative?  

PREMISS DENIED.

Kant describes there being nobody, using reason, that does not wish for the qualities of honesty in purpose, steadfastness in following good maxims, etc. But says people cannot not attain them because of their inclinations and impulses. On the next page his definition of freedom is "an idea of reason whose objective reality is in itself questionable". If all that is true, then how can we really be free or have free will? Especially if A) its questionable and B) we are trapped by our inclinations and impulses

FREEDOM IS NOT LIBERTY OR DOING WHATEVER WE WANT WHENEVER WE WANT. RATHER, IT IS DOING RIGHT AND REFUSING TO BE ENSLAVED BY THINGS OF THE WORLD OF SENSUALITY.

OUR REAL FREEDOM IS PRESUPPOSED AND CANNOT BE PROVEN BY ANY POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY ‘QUESTIONABLE’?

WE CAN ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE HABITUTATED TO BEING ‘TRAPPED’ BY OUR BAD HABITS, BUT WE ARE IN FACT FREE TO FLEE IMMORALITY BY OUR WILL.

Kant believes that you are at your most free when you follow moral law.

CORRECT!

If you are following a set of rules are you truly free?

CORRECT!

These moral laws would seem to limit your true freedom

FALSE

and create limitations.

CORRECT: FREEDOM IS NOT LIBERTY OR DOING WHATEVER WE WANT WHENEVER WE WANT. RATHER, IT IS DOING RIGHT AND REFUSING TO BE ENSLAVED BY THINGS OF THE WORLD OF SENSUALITY.

OUR REAL FREEDOM IS PRESUPPOSED AND CANNOT BE PROVEN BY ANY POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY ‘QUESTIONABLE’?

WE CAN ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE HABITUTATED TO BEING ‘TRAPPED’ BY OUR BAD HABITS, BUT WE ARE IN FACT FREE TO FLEE IMMORALITY BY OUR WILL.

Kant says that “free will” is properly expressed by a rational human being who acts in accordance with respect. Those who do not act in accordance with respect are not expressing their true self and are being pull away from the true moral law that exists within them.

CORRECT!

What would Kant say about slavery?

THEY ARE LITERALLY ENSLAVED AND PERHAPS EVEN CHAINED.

Would he say that the slaves are acting against their free will because they subjected themselves to their owner in the fear of being killed?

PROBABLY NOT. IT IS TOO MUCH TO EXPECT EVERY HUMAN BEING DIE FOR FREEDOM TO EXIST.

Or would Kant say that the slave owners are the ones that are acting against their free will because they are not acting in accordance with respect to others?

SLAVE OWNERS ARE AT FAULT AND ARE FIRST SHOWING DISRESPECT TO THEMSELVES AND SECONDLY TO THE SLAVES.

If you do an action only to be good according to the law, are you truly acting freely?

YES. IF YOU DO AN ACTION ONLY TO BE GOOD ACCORDING TO THE MORAL LAW, YOU ARE DOING YOUR MORAL DUTY AND FOR KANT THIS IS TRUE FREEDOM FROM ENSLAVEMENT TO PASSIONS OR DESIRED.

Kant talks a lot about "freedom of will", in this reading. He also states that you cannot have free will without the concept of self-legislation. (= SELF CONTROL) Is there a way to follow your own law, and have specific morals, but do it unwillingly?

NO.

And vice versa. Is there a way to have free will, but not follow your own moral code? 

NO.

ASK ME WHY IN CLASS.

In this third section, Kant speaks of two worlds: the intelligible world and the world of sense. From what I understand, the intelligible world is the idealistic, hypothetical world that includes “transcendent concepts,” like freedom, while the world of sense includes the empirical and the rational. In which world does moral duty lie?

PRIMARILY IN THE FIRST BUT WE MUST BRING IT INTO THE SECOND WITH OUR CHOICES AND ACTIONS. REMEMBER MORALTY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD UNLESS WE BRING IT.

Is it an abstract concept of an idyllic world or something found realistically in the physical world in which we live?

I DENY THESE ALTERNATIVES.

IT IS A SEPARATE WORLD THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO BE MORAL.

MORAL DUTY IS MOST EASILY FOUND IN THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD BUT WE LIVE ALSO IN THE WORLD OF SENSE AND ARE OBLIGATED TO BRING MORALITY INTO THE WORLD OF SENSE.

RECALL MY QUESTIONS ABOUT ASSAULTS ON CAMPUS.

If our duty is to always be moral as humans are people who are not moral considered inhumane?

NO, IMMORAL.

According to Kant, we can't rationally prove that we are free. So we have this idea of freedom but we can't prove that we have it?

CORRECT

If we use our freedom as a grounds for morality but we can't prove our freedom then how do we rationally discuss our morals? 

WE CANNOT DO SO WITHOUT FREEDOM, SO WE MUST ASSUME IT.

CAN THERE BE MORALITY WITHOUT FREEDOM?

Is Kant saying that we have no way of knowing if we are free or not?  

CORRECT

Also how does one achieve purely unconditional morality?  It seems to me like that would be impossible.

BY FOLLOWING THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE PERFECTLY.

Kant says because we are rational beings and we are not controlled by natural necessity because we have freedom of will. My question is aren't there situations that cause/force us to do things or control us?

IT SEEMS SO, DOESN’T IT? BUT IS THAT TRUE?

I'm thinking a financial crisis forcing you to live on the street or someone putting a gun to your head. In those moments where we loose control, do we also loose our rationality? 

NO, BUT WE CAN.

Kant explains that he could not prove freedom as something real in nature or people. However, what would Kant consider physical freedoms to be, such as slavery?

ILLICIT IMMORAL ACTIONS.

If freedom is not an actual thing that can be proved, what would slavery be considered then? Is it not a lack of freedom? 

THE FREEDOM HE SPEAKS OF HAS TO DO WITH AUTONOMY AS A NECESSARY CONDITION OF MORALITY. ASK ME ABOUT THIS IN CLASS.

i remember you asked in class that if we really had free will, then would everything really happen for a reason?  

CORRECT.

Do you think that we really have frree will?

YES.

Or do we have a certain list of things that we can choose from that makes it seem like we have free will,  but in reality we don't have complete free will because our choices are limited within themselves. 

SOME HOLD THIS.

WHY DO I HAVE THE VIEW IN INDICATED?

Kant says that "The principle of morality is a synthetic proposition." He also says that morality is followed by analysis the concept of freedom. So if he believes that morality stems from freedom but is synthetic. Does he believe that freedom is also synthetic?

NO, YOU NEED TO REVIEW WHAT SYNTHETIC MEANS. WE WILL TO THIS IN CLASS.

In class we briefly spoke about the circular reasoning/paradox of the human free will and the predetermination of the universe. One cannot truly have free will since it was predetermined that they would make a given choice; even the deliberation of that decision was predetermined. Could it be argued that the illusion of free will is all it takes for a person to make decisions?

YES, THAT CAN BE ASSERTED.

Even if they were written in stone at the beginning of time, I would think that since the actions that I choose through my own moral guidelines affect my life, then it doesn't matter whether or not they were "of my own free will". In the scope of my own human intelligence, what is the difference?

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT SENSES OF MORALITY AND WHAT ARE THE PRESUPPOSITIONS. PERHAPS WE WILL DO SO IN CLASS TODAY.

Phil 2310-114 Student Questions 28 Sept 2016

Kant argues that all human beings should act as ends in themselves. However, I am confused on this notion because if humans are forever changing, growing, and adapting, how is something so fluid supposed to act as an end?

In this context the term 'end' means absolute value. Humans as rational animals are absolute values. No amount of money, pleasure, power, etc. is worth more than a rational human being. Rational beings are beautiful beyond belief because they create themselves as moral persons and can do what is right simply because it is right. No one can fully force them to do anything or to will anything. They can be autonomous and need not allow themselves to be controlled by heteronomy.

Kant states that moral law is a priori and that it is found through deduction. However, can't it also be a posteriori and seen through real life experience? Someone can see a robbery take place, won't they see this is against moral law?

It can be seen in the world but the world is full of instances of human actions contrary to morality, as you indicate.

But it cannot come from the world because it claims to be absolutely right and universal. We do not see that in the world. In the world we see sexual assaults take place but we claim that it is morally right that there be zero sexual assaults. Where is that absoluteness come from? 

Also why would any one see robbery as wrong? What moral law is it against? It is against the absolute moral law that comes from a different a prior source.

Kant explains that since all actions depend on the circumstances, then it is impossible to derive a priori from our past experiences. If this is true, how do humans derive their expectations? What makes us say that we would know what to do in certain situations if they have not occur yet?

Kant explains that since all actions depend on the circumstances, then it is impossible to derive a priori from our past experiences.

NO THAT IS NOT TRUE. THE A PRIORI DOES NOT DEPEND ON EXPERIENCE.

If this is true, how do humans derive their expectations?

LIKE THE DISCUSSION IN CLASS ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULTS ON CAMPUS, THERE OUGHT TO BE NONE BUT IN THE REAL WORLD THERE IS SOME NUMBER N ASSAULTS.

MORAL STANDARDS ARE A PRIORI, NOT DERIVED FROM EXPERIENCE.

What makes us say that we would know what to do in certain situations if they have not occur yet?

WE WOULD KNOW WHAT WE **OUGHT TO DO** BUT WE CAN NEVER KNOW THE FUTURE AND PRECISELY WHAT WE WILL DO.

Kant believes that moral law is universal for all rational human beings. How would he explain extremist terrorists who believe that they are acting rationally, even when most people believe that their actions are evil?

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE REQUIRES RESPECT FOR EVERY RATIONAL BEING. THOSE WHO ACT CONTRARY TO THIS ARE DENYING THE VALUE OF THEIR OWN RATIONALITY AS A VALUE IN ITSELF REFLECTIVE OF THE ABSOLUTE VALUE OF EVERY RATIONAL BEING.

THEY OFTEN CONCEDE THEIR RATIONALITY TO SIMPLISTIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF WITHOUT RATIONAL REFLECTION, KANT MIGHT SAY.

On Page 21 Kant writes, "What he will find in an amazing mixture is at one time the particular constitution of human nature (but along with this also the idea of a rational nature in general), at another time perfection, at another happiness; here moral feeling, and the fear of God; something of this, and also something of that." This is the first time Kant or Aristotle have referred to a diety while regarding morality.

NO, NOT AT ALL. KANT REFERS TO IT ELSEWHERE.

Would Kant view god as the all holy or something differently?

ALL HOLY AND MORALLY PERFECT.

Why is Kant associating religion with morality? HE THINKS HE IS NOT DEPENDING ON RELIGION BUT RATHER ONLY DEPENDING ON PURE REASON. BUT HIS RELIGIOUS VIEW ON SUICIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, ENTER INTO HIS PHILOSOPHY. WE WILL CRITICIZE HIM FOR THAT LATER.

Kant states that the source of universal moral laws can't come from experiences. If it doesn't come from human experiences then what is the source of these moral laws?

IT IS A PRIORI AND BUILT INTO US INSOFAR AS WE ARE RATIONAL BEINGS. RATIONALITY ITSELF COMMANDS THAT WE ACT IN ACCORD WITH THE MORAL LAW, ACCORDING TO KANT.

Is it possible for people to act with pure moral actions with no external motives? If so, would there be specific individuals or leaders in which we can point to demonstrate these actions, perhaps Gandhi? 

KANT THINKS THAT THAT IS THE IDEAL WHICH WE MUST STRIVE TO ATTAIN.IN THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR MOST HUMANS SINCE ALL BUT TWO ARE SINNERS.

This is more of a clarifying question. From my understanding of the reading Kant says humans are rational beings that must make good use of our minds and think carefully. We all know some people that do not think carefully and are constantly forgetting things, whether that is forgetting that there was an exam or even forgetting what day it is. Are these people then not rational or not moral?

NO, THEY WOULD NOT BE IN COLLEGE WERE THEY NOT RATIONAL. THEY ARE NEGLIGENT OR LAZY AND ARE REFUSING TO ACT AS SERIOUS ADULTS ENGAGED IN SERIOUS LEARNING. IF THEY HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS, THAT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER AND STORY. BUT IF THEY FORGET THINGS BECAUSE THEY  PREFER BEER TO STUDYING AND MAKE THE CHOICE THEMSELVES, THEY ARE DISRESPECTFUL OF THEMSELVES AS RATIONAL BEINGS

I would think not moral right because Kant believes simply because we are human then we are rational... are these people not human? (just joking)

AGAIN, THEY ARE NEGLIGENT OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS BY THEIR OWN CHOICE AND CHOSEN WEAKNESS.

KANT IS VERY TOUGH ON PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR RATIONAL BEINGS.

Going with that we are supposed to have this built in reason that keeps on the moral track and yet again there are people that fall away from reason. Are they blatantly ignoring the reason or is it a possibility they were born without it?

IF THEY ARE BORN WITHOUT IT, THEY ARE MENTALLY ILL. ALL RATIONAL BEINGS HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL THEMSELVES BUT SOME ARE TRAINED AND RAISED TO BE OTHERWISE. WHEN THEY BECOME ADULTS AND KNOW WHAT ACTIONS ARE RIGHT, THEY MUST RETRAIN THEMSELVES TO RESPECT ALL RATIONAL BEINGS.

Kant brings up the fact that morals are sought [DO YOU MEAN 'THOUGHT'? OTHERWISE YOUR ENGLISH HERE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME: YOU SHOULD PROOR READ WHAT YOU WRITE TO GET IT RIGHT!] to be derived from the knowledge of human nature, and not from popular opinion, or as he puts it, "taste."

RIGHT, THEY ARE NOT 'TASTE' BUT A PRIORI CONDITIONS CONSEQUENT UPON RATIONALITY.

What would happen if the popular opinion of today's morals changed in some way shape or form? Would these morals change due to popular opinion or would the knowledge of human nature triumph? Why or why not?

THEY COULD CHANGE. AMERICANS COULD BECOME HATEFUL RACISTS, AS THE NAZIS WERE. THIS IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. BUT WE HOPE OTHERWISE.

FOR MORE, ASK ME AGAIN IN CLASS. THE REST OF YOUR QUESTION IS NOT CLEAR AND DEPENDS ON MANY CLARIFICATIONS OF THE MEANINGS OF WHAT YOU WRITE.

In Section 2, Kant explains at some length the importance of abiding by the four human duties regarding the categorical imperative. All of these duties seem to be in the interest of the preservation of humanity as a whole. Curiously, human sexuality seems to be left out of these fundamental duties; but one would think that the furthering of the human race would be an instinctive enough imperative to warrant being labeled a priori knowledge. Why do you think this is? Do you think Kant would regard homosexuality in a similar vein with how he views suicide? (i.e. if we were all homosexual humanity would cease to exist)

 A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE HAS TO DO WITH MORALITY. THE INSTINCTUAL BEHAVIOR YOU MENTION WILL BE HANDLED BY INSTINCT IN THE DIRECTION OF HAPPINESS. BUT RECALL THAT KANT IS CONCERNED WITH MORAL RIGHT AND NOT WITH HAPPINESS OR THE CONTINUATION OF THE SPECIES.

YES, KANT WOULD CONDEMN BOTH THAT AND SUICIDE.

Since moral law is for all rational beings, what about the people who are irrational? Since they stop thinking with rationality does this take away from their moral law or does this still apply?

WHAT PEOPLE DO YOU HAVE IN MIND? WHAT HUMANS ARE IRRATIONAL? A RACE? A COUNTRY? THE MENTALLY ILL IN EACH COUNTRY? YOU NEED TO DEFINE AND EXPLAIN YOUR TERMS HERE.

THOSE WHO ARE MENTALLY SOUND BUT CHOOSE TO CAST RATIONALITY ASIDE AND TO LIVE BY EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS SHOW DEEP DISRESPECT FOR THEMSELVES AS RATIONAL BEINGS AND ARE TO BE CONDEMNED FOR IRRESPONSIBILITY.\

Kant brings up the idea of a “kingdom of ends.” He explains that everyone in the kingdom are either ends or means to each other in his terms of moral duty. He says that everyone is either a member of the kingdom or a sovereign of the kingdom. Members have to follow the universal laws that are put into place, and sovereigns is subject to “the will of no others.” Although both types of people create the universal laws, why do only the members have to follow them? Sovereigns are described as being “a completely independent being without needs.” If this is true, how can one even become a sovereign?

THIS KINGDOM OF ENDS IS AN IDEAL PLACE WHERE EVERYONE ALWAYS IN EVERY SITUATION SHOWS RESPECT FOR RATIONAL HUMAN NATURE WITHOUT ANY FAILURE OR EXCEPTION. EVERY HUMAN BEING IS TREATED AS AN ABSOLUTE VALUE OR END. THEY FOLLOW THE MORAL LAWS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE IDEAL PERFECT REALITY OF THE MORAL UTOPIA. ONE IS A SOVEREIGN ONLY OVER HERSELF.  IT IS AN IDEALIZED STATE.

Is Kant saying that moral duty is what pushes any personal [WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?]to do moral things? He believes that this will push us to even make great sacrifices. What is the extent that he believes moral duty will reach?

PERFECTION.

Is there a line that we won't cross even if our moral duty is telling us to? 

THAT DEPENDS ON YOUR MORAL STRENGTH.

Duties are important because we must realize our job to help those people around us.  

YES, TO SHOW RESPECT TO ALL RATIONAL BEINGS, OURSELVES AND OTHERS.

If someone did not want to help and did not [COMMA] would they be against moral ethics?

YES, IF THEY SHOWED DISRESPECT FOR RATIONAL BEINGS.

Morever, if someone did not have good will but worked in a hospital as a doctor or PT would they still have morals because they are doing their “duty” to help those around them? (pg. 19-21)

NO. WE MUST WILL FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. WE MUST WILL TO DO OUR MORAL DUTY NOT FOR MONEY OR PLEASURE OR POWER BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

How does Kant describe the relationship of respect and rational being? What is the importance of the synthesizing between the two?

LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS PAGES AND ALSO AT THE POWERPOINT SLIDES WHERE THESE MATTERS ARE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH. ALSO LOOK AT THE VIDEOS FOR THE ANSWER. YOU CAN FIGURE OUT THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION BY DOING A LITTLE OF YOUR OWN RESEARCH IN THE COURSE MATERIALS.

WOW. THIIS IS A LONG QUESTION.

n chapter two Kant discusses further the duty of people. He says that an action is not moral unless it solely derives from [***MORAL***] duty; it is hard to think of any actions that would be truly moral.

SAVING A CHILD FROM WALKING INTO TRAFFIC? STOPPING A MURDER FROM TAKING ANOTHER INNOCENT LIFE?

WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT " it is hard to think of any actions that would be truly moral"????

Therefore also our actions cannot become universal law because it is impossible for us.

THAT IS BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE AND SO IT IS ITSELF FALSE.

If we can create an idea of what ought to happen, why is it that we can't make it what happens in the world and make that law a realistic concept?

BECAUSE WE ARE LAZY, SELF-INTERESTED AND DISRESPECTFUL OF OTHERS AND OURSELVES AS RATIONAL BEINGS.

According to Kant, if only a rational person can have pure thought and act according to their conception of laws, can a person who is sometimes irrational have pure thought and act according to their conception of laws or is a person only strictly rational or irrational according to Kant?

YES, MOST PEOPLE ARE INCONSISTENTLY RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL DUT TO LAZINESS OR REFUSAL TO TAKE THE TIME TO EDUCATION THEMSELVES AND TO ACT WITH CONSCIOUS VIRTUE AND RIGHT HUMAN ACTION.

As the categorical imperative states: "all rational beings must be respected", I have to wonder how these timeless laws apply to current situations. As far as gay rights go, I feel this law did not necessarily include this group due to the lack of respect in our society today. What did Kant have in mind when he discussed the a priori moral laws? Did this include "rational beings" as those who are gay, a certain race, or mentally disabled? This may be taking this concept a step too far, but it did make me think about what might Kant be thinking of today's events and beliefs.

THIS IS A HUGE MULTISTEP QUESTION, NOT JUST ONE QUESTION!!!

As the categorical imperative states: "all rational beings must be respected", I have to wonder how these timeless laws apply to current situations. As far as gay rights go, I feel this law did not necessarily include this group due to the lack of respect in our society today.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT GAY PEOPLE OUGHT NOT TO BE RESPECTED? WHAT YOU WRITE IS NOT CLEARL

What did Kant have in mind when he discussed the a priori moral laws?

THAT ALL RATIONAL BEINGS SOHULD BE RESPECTED.

Did this include "rational beings" as those who are gay, a certain race, or mentally disabled?

IT SHOULD INCLUDE ALL RATIONAL BEINGS IF TAKEN IN ITS FULL THEORETICAL MEANING. HOWEVER, KANT WAS RACIST BY 21ST CENTURY STANDARDS.

This may be taking this concept a step too far, but it did make me think about what might Kant be thinking of today's events and beliefs.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS MORE FULLY BEFORE I CAN RESPOND.

In chapter 2, Kant talks about imperatives and he said that they are expressed with an 'ought', what does he mean when he says this? does it refer just to good things that are good for us?

HE MEANS WE ARE MORALLY REQUIRED TO SHOW ALL RATIONAL BEINGS RESPECT.

DO YOU MEAN 'IF EVERY ACTION" ???   Every action is pursued for an end,how can we explain the categorical imperative? For example, we must eat, it is a necessity but it also involves a fulfillment, a desire of surviving. Can what is necessary involve a purpose?

ASK ME IN CLASS. THIS, AS YOU HAVE EXPRESSED IT, IS UNCLEAR OR TOO COMPLEX FOR A SIMPLE RESPONSE HERE.

Many says that "but unfortunately the concept of happiness is such an indeterminate one that even though everyone wishes to attain happiness, 635 he can never say definitely and consistently what it is that he really wishes and wills"? Is Kant saying that he doesn't believe that individuals know what makes them happy or that they don't have the ability to know what makes them happy? 

YES, AND FURTHER, THAT WE SHOULD CONCERN OURSELVES WITH BEING MORAL, NOT WITH GETTING HAPPINESS.

Kant tells us in Section 2 that it is reason is born within us and tells us what to do the right thing to do is. Humans are supposed to work in accordance with reason because it is our duty to show respect. Sometimes, however, that always doesn't happen and people will pursue their pleasures rather than reason. What is it that is within us that makes the decision between pursuing reason or pursuing pleasure? 

WILL.

Student questions 26 September 2016

Kant explains that lying should be prohibited because it violates moral law. Kant's reasoning behind this is that if everyone is allowed to lie, then there is no such thing as telling the truth. Also, people tell lies to get out of their own difficult situations instead of doing it because it is their duty. If this is so, what about white lies that we say in order to help others? If the intent of the lie is for the better of everyone, is this still against moral law?

GOOD QUESTION.

NOT FOR KANT. FOR KANT TO LIE TO SOMEONE IS TO DISRESPECT THEM AS RATIONAL BEINGS WHO DESERVE THAT WE SHOW THEN RESPECT AT EVERY INSTANCE. WHEN WOULD IT BE A GOOD THING TO SHOW DISRESPECT TO A HUMAN BEING BY DECEIVING HER? IF YOU SAY THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, THEN WE CAN LIE AND LIE AND LIE. KANT IS TOUGH ON LYING.

If Kant believes that happiness is not a human's end goal and instead it is reason, then can everyone achieve it as long as they think through their actions? How does whether or not they're reasoning is "good" or "bad" come into play?

GOOD QUESTION!

THE GOAL IS NOT HAPPINESS BUT RESPECT. REASON'S ROLE IS TO HELP US BE MORAL AND *ALWAYS* TO RESPECT RATIONAL BEINGS, OURSELVES AND OTHERS.

INTENTIONS ARE NOT JUST THINKING OR FEELING YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. IT REQUIRED THAT YOU USE YOUR REASON TO THE VERY GREATEST EXTENT TO BE SURE THAT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE RIGHT. IF YOU DO NOT USE YOUR REASON IN FIGURING OUT HOW TO TREAT OTHERS WITH RESPECT, YOU ARE THEN DISRESPECTING THEM! THE GOOD OR BAD OF REASONING COMES IN RIGHT HERE. WE OWE IT TO OTHERS TO USE OUR MINDS AND REASONING TO BE SURE WE ARE SHOWING RESPECT.

IF YOU HAVE A BAD MEMORY AND MIGHT FORGET YOUR MOTHER'S BIRTHDAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH REASON TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE A CALENDAR ALERT TO BE SURE YOU NEVER SHOW HER DISRESPECT BY FORGETTING ABOUT HER BIRTHDAY.

Kant mentions the term good will a lot within the first few pages. He says that something is good in itself if it is good in its willing. If there is someone who is not in good will, is it possible to obtain good will throughout a span of one's life? If you can, is there no limit to having good will? 

WE HAVE TO WORK HARD WITH OUR REASON TO BE SURE WE FORM THE GOOD WILL INSIDE OURSELVES. THIS MAY BE VERY DIFFICULT GIVEN ALL OUR DESIRES AND DISTRACTIONS. WE DO NOT START OUT WITH THE GOOD WILL AND WE MUST ALWAYS STRUGGLE AGAINST DESIRE WIHT THE HELP OF OUR REASON TO ATTAIN AND MAINTAIN THE GOOD WILL.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF YOUR SECOND QUESTION.

Kant describes securing happiness as a duty and that it should be promoted as a duty not as an inclination towards it. How does this compare to what we learned about Aristotle's idea of happiness as an end and an activity?

FOR ARISTOTLE WE NEEDED MORAL CHARACTER AND VIRTUE TO GAIN THE REWARD OF HAPPINESS. 

FOR KANT WE ARE NOT AFTER A REWARD. IT IS OUR MORAL DUTY TO RESPECT OURSELVES AND OTHERS. IF WE HAVE THE GOOD WILL, WE CAN DO THAT IN A RELIABLE WAY. SO WE SHOULD USE OUR REASON TO MAKE OURSELVES INTO PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS EXPRESS GOOD WILL AND THEREBY NEVER ACT IMMORALLY

How does happiness pertain to reason? How does this differ and how does this expand from Aristotle's view?

KANT DOES NOT EXPAND ON ARISTOTLE. HE THINKS ARISTOTLE IS JUST WRONG. REASON IS NOT FOR GETTING HAPPINESS BUT RATHER FOR MAKING AND KEEPING US MORALLY GOOD AND RESPECTFUL OF EVERY RATIONAL BEING, OURSELVES AND OTHERS.

Can it be said that Kant took some of his ideas regarding happiness from Aristotle?

NO, HE DISAGREES DEEPLY WITH ARISTOTLE ABOUT THE USE OF REASON. ARISTOTLE SAID IT WAS FOR GAINING ULTIMATE HAPPINESS. KANT SAYS IT IS FOR GAINING THE GOOD WILL AND RIGHT MORALITY.

If a person does not act in such a way that they wish a maxim to become law, then is it fair to say that that person is immoral? Also Kant mentions that the laws of the categorical imperative are dependent on the some goal, is the law relative to the individual and the goal, or is the law relative to both?

GOOD QUESTION. 

THAT PERSON WOULD NOT BE MORAL, WOULD NOT GET CREDIT FOR BEING MORAL.

THE GOAL IS RESPECT AND ALL FORMS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AIM AT THAT

How does Kant understand happiness in relation to the end of mankind?

HAPPINESS IS PART OF THE END OF HUMAN BEINGS. THEY ARE MADE TO SEEK IT OUT. BUT THE PURPOSE OF HUMAN RATIONALITY IS NOT THE ATTAINMENT OF HAPPINESS BUT THE ATTAINMENT OF MORALITY. REASON HELPS US GET THE GOOD WILL AND THAT IS THE KEY TO RIGHT MORAL ACTION.

kant believes that "a good will is good not because of what it effects of accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end; it is good only through its willing" does that mean that a person can accidentally murder someone but since they did not mean to murder someone then the act is good?

MURDER BY DEFINITION MEANS THE KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE WITHOUT MORAL OR LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.

GIVEN THAT DEFINITION OF MURDER, A PERSON WHO ACCIDENTALLY KILLS ANOTHER (AS WITH A CAR ACCIDENT) MAY HAVE NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTION.

KILLING SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM MURDER.

Does everyone have a "good will" or do some have it and others don't? Can you teach someone to develop a good will?

SOME DO, SOME DO NOT. TEACHING AND REASON CAN HELP US GET IT BUT WE HAVE TO WORK TO MAINTAIN IT ALWAYS BECAUSE IT IS THE KEY TO MORALITY.

Kant says that if you have the "good will", then you will not intentionally do anything bad. How does a person acquire the "good will"? Is it something that is innate within us or something that is acquired through experience over time? 

TEACHING BY OTHERS WHEN YOUNG AND HARD WORK WHEN ONE IS AN ADULT. IT IS NOT INNATE. WE HAVE TO WORK AT IT AND TO USE REASON TO HELP US WORK AT IT. WE HAVE TO USE REASON TO BE SURE WE NEVER DISRESPECT ANY RATIONAL BEING.

Kant's argument is that ethical acts are universally understood  But how would you account for differences in acceptable behavior in different societies?

CULTURAL OR HISTORICAL DIFFERENCES. HITLER'S GERMANY WAS A PLACE OF MANY PERVERTED VALUES. IN WARTIME PEOPLE OFTEN FORGET ABOUT RESPECT. WE KNOW THAT FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT'S USE OF TORTURE AND ITS LYING ABOUT IT. THE VALUATION OF TRUTH VARIES FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE BUT INDIVIDUALS HAVE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. THINK ABOUT RACISM IN OUR COUNTRY. HOW COULD THAT EVER BE PERMISSIBLE? BUT THERE STILL ARE RACISTS HERE. AND DISHONEST LYING POLITICIANS. IN SOME SOCIETIES (MOST?) MORALITY IS NOT THE HIGHEST VALUE. HERE IN THE US MONEY AND WEALTH AND POWER OFTEN PUSH ASIDE MORALITY.

After reading the section and taking a high school ethics course mostly related to Kant, I understand most of his ethics are based on the principles of reason. Knowing Kant talks a lot about morals is it to early to ask does reason guide our morals or do morals guide our ability to reason or is that just called the supreme principal? (pg. v-vii)

REASON IS A TOOL MEANT TO GUIDE US TOWARD RIGHT MORAL INTENTION AND ACTION. MORALITY IS THE CHIEF END (NOT HAPPINESS) IN KANT AND REASON (AND SELF RESTRAINT, CONSISTENT RIGHT ACTION AND MORE) CAN GET US TO THE END OF RESPECTING EVERY RATIONAL BEING, OURSELVES AND OTHERS.

In chapter 1, with regard to the three obligations to good will and duty. Kant says that actions are genuinely good when they're undertaken for the sake of duty. When relating this to a U.S soldier and his duty to follow orders, if a soldier follows an order to conduct an airstrike but the airstrike happens to be on innocent civilians does this still keep up with what Kant is preaching?

DUTY HERE MEANS MORAL DUTY, NOT JUST ANY KIND OF DUTY.

WAS THE ACTION DONE INTENTIONALLY OR NEGLIGENTLY? DID THE AIRMAN INTEND IT KILL THE CIVILIANS? 

KEEP IN MIND THAT MORAL DUTY IS HIGHER THAN MILITARY DUTY. MILITARY PERSONNEL HAVE MORAL DUTIES AND SOMETIMES MUST REFUSE TO CARRY OUT A COMMAND SUCH AS TO KILL CIVILIANS AT THE ORDER OF A HIGHER OFFICER. THEY ARE NOT TO ACT BLINDLY AND DO WHATEVER THEY ARE TOLD. THEY ARE FIRST HUMAN BEINGS WITH MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND SECOND SOLDIERS.

In the first section of his book, Immanuel Kant maintains that “moral worth depends…merely on the principle of volition according to which, without regards to any objects of the faculty of desire, the action has been done.” Therefore, he believes that the morality of an action is not determined by the product or usefulness of the action, but by the motive behind the action. Yet, he also says that moral action is based on fulfilling one’s duty. Wouldn’t the fulfillment of one’s duty be the result of a moral action? How can the morality of an action be judged solely on intent and yet also be contingent upon the result (i.e. the fulfillment of duty?)

THE DUTY DISCUSSED HERE IS MORAL DUTY, NOT CIVIL OR MILITARY OR ANY OTHER KIND.

THE FULFILLMENT OF A MORAL DUTY IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH AN INTENTIONAL MORAL ACTION DONE IN ACCORD WITH THE GOOD WILL. I THINK YOU ARE MIXING DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF DUTY IN YOUR THINKING.

Kant says that one with natural talents or good fortune cannot be considered absolutely good. This is because people can use these gifts poorly and not help others. In context, do you agree with this statement?

YES.

What if I said a very poor person spent their last penny on a lottery ticket and won, then didn't share the money? Would Kant's view of others' reactions still be valid if the poor person is seen as a bad person then even though they would probably use all of their winnings to start a new life? Or would they be seen as a good person because they were not making bad decisions with the money/good fortune?

DOES THE PERSON DO MORALLY RIGHT ACTIONS WITH THE MONEY? IS THE PERSON GUIDED BY THE GOOD WILL AND RESPECT FOR RATIONAL NATURE? OR IS THE PERSON DISRESPECTFUL OF HERSELF AS A RATIONAL BEING? HAVE GREAT WEALTH THROUGH CHANCE STILL REQUIRES THAT SHE SHOW RESPECT TO OTHERS THROUGH THAT WEALTH. HOARDING IT FOR HERSELF WOULD SHOW DISRESPECT TO HERSELF, WOULDN’T IT? PONDER IT.

In the preface, Immanuel Kants refers to the division of labour. To him, is it better that one person stiks  to one particular kind of work or should that person try to do everything? Can we apply this to our lifes? Do you what do you think is the best choice?

“All industries, crafts, and arts have gained by the division of labor, viz.,

one man does not do everything, but each confines himself to a certain

kind of work that is distinguished from all other kinds by the treatment it

requires, so that the work may be done with the highest perfection and

with greater ease. Where work is not so distinguished and divided, where

everyone is a jack of all trades, there industry remains sunk in the greatest

barbarism. Whether or not pure philosophy in all its parts requires its

own special man might well be in itself a subject worthy of consideration.

Would not the whole of this learned industry be better off if those who are

accustomed, as the public taste demands, to purvey a mixture of the empirical

with the rational in all sorts of proportions unknown even to

themselves and who style themselves independent thinkers, while giving

the name of hair-splitters to those who apply themselves to the purely rational

part, were to be given warning about pursuing simultaneously two

jobs which are quite different in their technique, and each of which

perhaps requires a special talent that when combined with the other

talent produces nothing but bungling? But I only ask here whether the

nature of science does not require that the empirical part always be

carefully separated from the rational part. Should not physics proper

( i.e., empirical physics) be preceded by a metaphysics of nature, and

practical anthropology by a metaphysics of morals?”

HIS POINT IS THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS FROM PRACTICAL ANTHROPOLOGY HERE. HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PERSONS. YOU NEED TO READ IT ALL IN CONTEXT.

According to Kant, ethics acts are accepted by everyone as they tend to be universally understood. How would you explain the differences between cultures that are still dominant among societies?

HISTORY, CULTURE, NATIONAL MINDSETS AND MORE ARE CAUSES OF DIFFERENCES, EVEN SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES AND GREED CONTINUE TO SEPARATE PEOPLE. CONSIDER NAZI GERMANY OR EVEN THE CONFLICTS IN THE US NOW AS THE ELECTION DRAWS CLOSER. RACE STILL IS A PROBLEM HERE AND ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD.

s this good that Kant is talking about in chapter 1 that includes wit, judgement and intelligence, the same good that Aristotle talks about that leads to this ultimate goal of happiness or are they two different "goods."

NOT QUITE THE SAME IN THE LARGER PICTURE. THESE ARE GOOD BUT FOR KANT THEY ARE NOT AS GOOD OR IMPORTANT AS THE GOOD WILL. FOR ARISTOTLE, THEY WERE KEY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF VIRTUE AND THE ATTAINMENT OF HAPPINESS. KANT WANTS TO ATTAIN MORALITY AND THE GOOD WILL.

Kant states that a specific obligation of good will is a duty(Kant, 9). He then goes on to say that actions are inherently good if they are done for duty alone. In this case, does that mean that the Nazi soldiers in WWII were practicing good will because it was  their duty, even though they killed millions of Jewish people?

A *MORAL* DUTY.

THEY FOLLOWED THEIR COMMANDERS AND DID THEIR MILITARY DUTY. BUT MORAL DUTY IS HIGHER AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN MILITARY DUTY TO FOLLOW ORDERS. THEY WERE FIRST HUMAN BEINGS WITH MORAL DUITES AND AFTER THAT SOLDIERS.

SO, NO, THEY WERE NOT PRACTICING GOOD BY MURDERING AND TORTURING JEWS AND OTHERS BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO RESPECT OTEHRS AND THEMSELVES AS RATIONAL BEINGS.

I am having a hard time understanding what Kant means by "good will".  How does a person know if he/she is acting with good will?  Also, is Kant saying that true happiness can not be attained through self action?

A PERSON KNOWS BY TESTING HER ACTIONS AGAINST THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. IF YOU ARE NOT RESPECTING SOMEONE AS AN ABSOLUTE VALUE, YOU  ARE NOT ACTING ON THE GOOD WILL.

KANT IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT HAPPINESS. HIS FOCUS IS ON MORALITY AND BEING SURE WE DO NOT DO IMMORAL ACTIONS ON PURPOSE OR OUT OF NEGLIGENCE.

Phil 2310 Student Questions 19 September 2016

In the "Topics of Feminism" the author states that during oppression the group that is oppressing (men, the wealthy, etc.) might not always try to oppress the group that is oppressed (women, the poor, etc.). For example, back when women were unable to vote, their reasoning was that women were unable to vote because they were not educated or literate; therefore, they were oppressed. Now that women are allowed to be educated and earned the same rights as men (voting, education, etc.), what do you think is the main cause of the oppression of women today? Is in our history, our society teaching men to be the dominant gender, or a combination?

EXCELLENT QUESTION. DO WOMEN TODAY STILL GIVE UP THEIR NAMES AND TAKE THE NAMES OF THEIR HUSBANDS? NOT ALL DO NOW BUT MOST DO, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT AROSE IN AN EARLIER ERA. AS YOU SUGGEST. I THINK TRADITION PLAYS A HUGE ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF OUR IDEAS AND MENTALITY. 

FOR EXAMPLE, DAUGHTER'S HUSBAND CAME TO ME BEFORE THEY WERE MARRIED AND, IN SOME SENSE, ASKED PERMISSION TO MARRY HERE. I LAUGHED AT AND WITH HIM SAYING THAT I HAD RAISED HER TO MAKE HER OWN DECISIONS AND THAT, WHILE THIS TRADITION IS POLITE, THE REAL QUESTION CONCERNS HER CHOICE AND HIS LOVE FOR HER.

THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES. ASK SOME WOMEN OF VARIOUS AGES WHETHER THEY LIKE A MAN TO BE DOMINANT. I DID NOT SAY OPPRESSIVE BUT DOMINANT. SEE WHAT REACTIONS YOU GET AND SHARE THEM WITH ME SOMETIME. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT YOU LEARN.

It is obvious that Aritotle was a sexist through his texts and probably wouldn't believe women are oppressed and would not know how to react to the waves of feminsim movements happening now.  )Also to be put in context though most people in the time of Aristotle were also sexists).  While learning about Aristotle these past few weeks and the definitions of virtue (excellence) and other morals, would he believe that women also have these virtues? Or because he thought so little of them, did he believe women did not have the character or intellectual capacity to reach levels of high moral living?

GOOD QUESTION.

THIS IS PRECISELY WHY I HAVE YOU READING THESE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES MODRAK SAY ABOUT WOMEN’S VIRTUES ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE?

It says that there are separate virtues for, "every action and every age, for every task of ours and every one of us." If this is true then how can someone ever be considered virtuous if the definition of virtue keeps changing? 

FOR ARISTOTLE THE WHOLLY VIRTUOUS PERSON IS A RARE ONE.  BUT PEOPLE CAN BE VIRTUOUS IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT WAYS.

REMEMBER THAT VIRTUOUS MEANS EXCELLENT. THERE ARE EXCELLENT GARBAGE MEN AND EXCELLENT POSTAL WOMEN AND EXCELLENT FOOD PREPARERS

In Modrak’s article, she mentions that Aristotle believed that women were made of weaker substance than men based on popular belief. In the Browning Cole article, she says how Aristotle defines women’s virtues as “subservient to the larger domain of male-defined human existence.” SHe also equates the rationality of women to that of slaves. How, then, did Aristotle account for the occasions when women made similar ethical decisions as men?

MAYBE LUCK, MAYBE IT WAS A RARE OCCASION SINCE THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR THE MOST PART. How did he justify slave men not having an equal capability to be ethical as free men? HE THOUGHT THERE WERE SOME NATURAL SLAVES, PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT TAKE CARE AND CONTROL THEMSELVES EVEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. Why were women considered in the same group as slaves when it came to rational capability and ethical thought? HE THOUGHT THEY COULD NOT CARE FOR THEMSELVES AND RULE THEMSELVES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GUIDING MAN, SOMEWHAT LIKE THE SLAVES.

Aristotle's thoughts on a woman's rationalizing and deliberating skills are definitely a little baffling. However as discussed in the first article; 'Aristotle: Women, Deliberation, and Nature'. Aristotle's thinking doesn't line up wit with modern views. With what we know today in science and how we view the world, would Aristotle's views on women still hold? Is there a current and valid argument that women can't be politicians?

I CANNOT SEE HOW HIS VIEWS COULD POSSIBLY HOLD UP TODAY IN THE LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE WE HAVE REGARDING THE ABILITIES AND ACTUALITIES OF WOMEN.

YOU ASK FOR A VALID ARGUMENT, PRESUMABLY REGARDING EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM POLITICS. THAT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE.

BUT WHAT ABOUT MILITARY SERVICE? MALES STILL HAVE TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT OR CONSCRIPTION. SHOULD WOMEN HAVE TO REGISTER AND BE READY TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY? IS THERE ANY REASON FOR THIS KIND OF DISCRIMINATION?

NOW THAT MAKES YOUR QUESTIONS INTO SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING.

In todays ready, theres a quote saying: "For example, some writers use the term ‘feminism’ to refer to a historically specific political movement in the US and Europe; other writers use it to refer to the belief that there are injustices against women, though there is no consensus on the exact list of these injustices." Given that quote, how would someone Aristotle view feminism? Is feminism at all virtuous? 

UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS MEANS SINCE IT IS NOT IN PROPER ENGLISH, “how would someone Aristotle view feminism?”

YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR QUESTIONS MORE CLEAR SINCE I CANNOT READ MINDS.

FEMINISM IS NOT A VIRTUE AS SUCH.

THIS QUESTION NEEDS MORE THOUGHT FROM YOU AND MORE CLARITY. PERHAPS WE CAN TAKE IT UP IN CLASS TUESDAY.

What makes men and women so different? Both have the goal of achieving happiness and setting out to do "good" before they die. Is there something specifically that sets men and women apart?

YES, THEY ARE DIFFERENT SEXUALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN HORMONES AND BRAIN CHEMISTRY AS WELL AS INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PHYSIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES.

NOW: ARE MEN AND WOMEN THE SAME IN EVERY WAY? WE SHOULD TAKE THIS UP IN CLASS.

Plato taught Aristotle the idea of female equality, yet Aristotle still saw women as inferior to men. If Aristotle was presented with the information regarding gender equality that we have today, as a rational thinker would he change his mind?

OF COURSE. ARISTOTLE WAS NO FOOL. HE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE. BUT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT NO ONE TOOK PLATO’S RADICAL TEACHINGS ABOUT THIS SERIOUSLY IN HIS DAY AND THEY WERE NEVER IMPLEMENTED. IT MAY HAVE NOT BEEN SERIOUSLY PROPOSED BY PLATO EITHER.  IT WAS ABSURD TO THINK IT BEST THAT MEN AND WOMEN EXERCISE TOGETHER. OF COURSE, EXERCISE TOOK PLACE NAKED. AT LEAST THIS IS WHAT IS THE CASE FOR THAT TIME AND PLACE IN HISTORY.

BUT WHAT DO YOU FIND IN MODRAK ABOUT THIS?

The third article talks about the injustice women face. Is it implying that the oppression and injustice females receive is due to the fact that they are included in the larger group that females make up called women?

RETHINK THIS QUESTION. YOU ARE ASKING WHETHER FEMALES FACE OPPRESSION BECAUSE THEY ARE ALSO CALLED WOMEN. I DOUBT THAT IS YOUR QUESTION, SO YOU SHOULD REFORMULATE IT.

Is it really the group membership that causes the unjust actions?

NO, GROUP MEMBERSHIP DOES NOT CAUSE UNJUST ACTIONS.

Can that be turned around to say that it isn't a male that oppresses the women but the collective group of men that oppress the collective group of women?

I DON’T THINK SO.

If injustice doesn't start with one male oppressing one female, how did it begin? 

IT TAKES PLACE ON CULTURAL CONTEXTS WHERE DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES ARE PLACED ON DIFFERENT PEOPLE, MANY VOLUNTARY. IT HAS TO DO WITH PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY AS WELL AS ANTHROPOLOGY.

MANY MALES TAKE ON TASK BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT AND ACCEPT CERTAIN DUTIES, E.G. PHYSICALLY DEFEND THEIR FAMILY. MANY FEMALES DO THE SAME THING, E.G. PLAY THE ROLE OF CAREGIVERS. IN THESE AND MANY OTHER CASES IT IS HARD TO DETERMINE THESE TO BE FIRM SEXUALLY DIFFERENTIATED ROLES OR CULTURALLY INFLUENCED ROLES. MALES AND FEMALES ARE DIFFERENT AND ARE USUALLY RAISED DIFFERENTLY ACROSS MANY HMAN CULTURES. INEQUALITY IS COMMONPLACE. MORE FEMALE AND CHILD REFUGEES ARE TAKEN IN BY THE US THAN MALES. WHY?

The author brings up a point that the WNBA has made terrific strides in the equality of pay between men and women, and there has recently been a lot of talk in the media about women athletes and their salaries being less then men's. Should men and women be paid the same, differently, or about the same in their respective sports? Why or why not?

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THIS? WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED TO DETERMINE THIS? IS THE MARKET RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT?

SHOULD THEY BE PAID DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH REVENUE THE LEAGUE GETS? SHOULD TV CONTRACTS REQUIRE THAT THERE BE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF WOMEN AND MEN’S BASKETBALL GAMES THERE AND THAT THE PAY BE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF REVENUE?

SHOULD MEN AND WOMEN COMPETE IN FULL AND COMPLETE EQUALITY?

HOW SHOULD THESE MATTERS BE DECIDED? SHOULD THE STATE BE IN CONTROL OF IT ALL?

SEP's "Topics in Feminism" discusses the two components of feminism: Normative (how women ought to be viewed/treated in society) and Descriptive (how women actually are viewed/treated in society). Is it possible for these two components to ever actually equal each other? Or will there forever be a distinction between the two?

YOU ARE ASKING WHETHER THERE WILL EVER BE A TIME WHEN WHAT OUGHT TO BE WILL BECOME WHAT ALWAYS IS THE CASE.

IDEALLY, YES, ACTUALLY, PERHAPS NOT.

BUT MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS THIS: ARE ALL WOMEN IN ALL SOCIETIES OPPRESSED? ARE THERE SOME WHO DO NOT WANT EQUAL TREATMENT WITH MEN? IS THIS A 21ST CENTURY IDEAL OF AMERICANS AND ONE WHICH MUST BE JUST THAT FOR EVERY CULTURE AND STATE IN THE WORLD?

Since feminism can be defined in many similar, but different combinations of normative and descriptive terms, does this add or take away, or both, from the political movement? In other words, does it cause confusion amongst people or does it provide for a spanning platform on which to discuss feminism? 

I THINK IN MANY CASES IT CAUSES CONFUSION. MANY YOUNG WOMEN IN THE US TODAY DO NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES WITH FEMINISM BECAUSE IT IS NOT CLEAR JUST WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT MEANS WITH RESPECT TO ACTION.

Women are better at some things as compared to men, and vice versa. For instance, men might be more physically advanced, while women are said to have better mental strength. Could it be possible that Aristotle noticed this and put it into some of his thoughts?

I JUST DO NOT ‘BUY’ YOUR COMPARISON. I DO NOT THINK THAT MENTAL ABILITY CAN BE SAID TO BE STRONGER IN GENERAL IN MEN VS WOMEN OR WOMEN VS MEN. GENERALLY MEN HAVE GREATER UPPER BODY STRENGTH THAN WOMEN. THAT MUCH SEEMS TO BE TRUE, JUST AS MEN GENERALLY SEEM TO BE LARGER THAN WOMEN AND TO HAVE MORE MUSCLE MASS. THAT HAS TO DO WITH RELATIVE DIFFERENCES IN HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY.

Could it be possible that Aristotle noticed this and put it into some of his thoughts?

CLEARLY, NO. THAT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE ARISTOTLE HOLDS THE OPPOSITE, NAMELY THAT MEN ARE INTELLECTUALLY OR MENTALLY SUPERIOR TO WOMEN.

Aristotle is said to believe that a male generates another male resembling himself when he has a baby with a women. However, if that baby were to turn out to be a girl, the male would have failed. With advances in technology we now know that this is not true. Going along with that, what other parts of Aristotle's philosophy could we prove to be wrong with the knowledge that we possess now?

THAT THE SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH AND MUCH MORE.

If Aristotle was born in a country where women were treated as equals during the same time, do you think he would have different opinions of women?

PERHAPS. HE DID KNOW ABOUT EQUALITY IN SPARTA.

In “Topics in Feminism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we can see that they refer to the women's movement as a wave model. Why is it a "waves" model?

IT HAS NOT PROCEEDED IN A STRAIGHT AND UNCHANGING LINE.

How many waves occured in this movement?

THE NUMBER IS N, DEPENDING ON WHAT SORT OF ANALYSIS IS USED.

What are the main differences between the different waves?

THAT DEPENDS ON ONES VIEWPOINT AND CHIEF CONCERNS AND IS A MATTER OF STUDY.

-Does feminism need to involve participation in any particular political movement or can it only refer to a set of beliefs?

THE LATTER.

As a consequence, if someone says: " I'm delighted that first-rate women basketball players are finally getting some recognition in the WNBA", does this thought imply being feminist?

NO.

SO WHAT IS FEMINISM? WHAT IS IT ABOUT?

Why does Aristotle treat women and slaves differently than men in this analysis when his other analysis’ are gender neutral?

THERE IS AN ANSWER. READ MODRAK AND TELL ME WHAT HER ANSWER WAS. ALSO READ THE OTHER ARTICLE AND TELL ME WHAT HER ANSWER WAS. THE FIRST TWO ARTICLES HAD CONCLUSIONS STATING WHAT THE ANSWER TO THIS IS. DID YOU READ THE ARTICLES?

I have to wonder if the arguments of Browning Cole and Modrak have much ground when you consider the time that Aristotle lived in... Women were not even close to equals to men, and this was a societal mentality. Does this really make Aristotle sexist in the sense that we would use it today when people blame rape on subjective clothing or other factors related to being a woman? I think Aristotle's teachings were sexist, however they were also according to the time, which did not make him any worse than his counterparts. Do Browning Cole and Modrak have substantial evidence to say Aristotle was a severe sexist, or do they simply illustrate the tendencies of most during that time?

YES. THE QUESTION IS, WAS ARISTOTLE SEXIST AND WHY. IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY, IT WAS HIS TIMES. TO SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT BLACK SLAVERY IN OUR COUNTY WOULD AMOUNT TO SAYING THAT IT WAS OKAY IN THOSE TIMES. SLAVERY AND SEXISM SHOULD BOTH BE CONDEMNED, THE FIRST MORE THAN THE SECOND, OF COURSE.

ONCE WE HAVE SETTLED THAT, THE QUESTIONS TURNS TO THE ‘WHY’. THIS IS REALLY WHY WE ARE STUDYING THIS. WHAT MADE A SMART PERSON SUCH AS ARISTOTLE MAKE SUCH A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, A MISTAKE THAT KEPT REPRESSED HALF OF THE WORLD’S BRAIN POWER FOR CENTURIES? THE KEY TO MODERN SOCIETY IS THE BRAIN AND ENERGY OF WOMEN. LOOK AT SOCIETIES WHERE WOMEN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE EDUCATED AND COMPARE THEM TO MODERN SOCIETIES THAT ALLOW WOMEM ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND OPPORTUNITIES TO CONTRIBUTE TO MEDICINE.

IS THERE OPPRESSIVE SEXISM IN OUR WORLD TODAY? IN OUR COUNTRY? WHY? WHAT MISTAKES ARE WE NOW MAKING THAT HISTORY WILL LOOK BACK ON AND CONDEMN?

If Aristotle's teacher, Plato, felt so strongly about "...women should be trained to rule."(Topics on Feminism), then why did Aristotle go against this and all equality in nature?

SEE MY RESPONSE TO A SIMILAR QUESTION ABOVE.

In the Women, deliberation, and Nature reading, Aristotle believes that women are inferior to men and are not able to deliberate. According to Aristotle, to deliberate means to "(the end) is a moral principle and the conclusion is a decisions about what should be done here and now" do you believe that part of the reason that Aristotle believes that women are inferior is due to them being more emotional and that's why they are not able to deliberate correctly because they sometimes let their emotions take over?

YES, I THINK THAT IN PART HIS PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION OF THAT PLAYS A PART. BUT WHAT DOES MODRAK ATTRIBUTE THIS TO? AND WHAT DOES THE OTHER ARTICLE SAY IS ‘THE’ OR AN IMPORTANT CAUSE FOR ARISTOTLE’S FAILURE TO SEE THE REALITY OF FEMALE INTELLECTUAL ABILITY AND ACTUALITY? HE WAS A BRIGHT GUY. WHY DID NO NOT SEE THE REALITY IN FRONT OF HIM?

"It follows that the free man has also the privilege and responsibility of directing the lives of the others: women, children, and slaves. They benefit from his management, because he is doing something for them which they cannot do for themselves". In regards to this quote, what if the man rapes a women slave? Would this be considered rape, or would it go along with the quote and say that its part of his responsibility of directing the lives of the others?

“The sons of vanquished foes would be enslaved and often forced to work in male brothels, as in the case of Phaedo of Elis, who at the request of Socrates was bought and freed from such an enterprise by the philosopher’s rich friends.[103] The rape of slaves was against the law, just as with citizens.[104]” SEE https://slaveryinjustice.wordpress.com/slavery-in-ancient-greece/.

Aristotle describes women and slaves to be essentially equal due to the fact that slaves works alongside free women in the household during many occasions.

IS THIS RIGHT? ARE THEY EQUAL *BECAUSE* THEY WORK ALONGSIDE OF SLAVES, OR DO THEY WORK ALONG SIDE OF SLAVES BECAUSE THEY ARE IN SOME SENSE EQUAL?

Aristotle continues to say that both women and slaves engaged in shared projects which are the very firmest basis for solidarity. If women and slaves resemble each other both politically and morally, what distinguishes a female "slave" from a female "woman'? 

THINK ABOUT THIS MORE. IS THE MARRIED DAUGHTER OF AN ARISTOCRAT THE SAME AS A FEMALE SLAVE? PONDER IT.

Reply to Thread

On the bottom of page 211 of "Aristotle: Women, Deliberation, and Nature” it states that Aristotle has two definitions of morally weak people. First is the person who fails to act in accordance with his/her opinions and the second is someone who acts impulsively and incapable of his/her own deliberations. 

In “Topics in Feminism" there are two definitions of feminism offered. The first is a normative definition being "Men and women are entitled to equal rights and respect." The second is a descriptive one: "Women are currently disadvantaged with respect to rights and respect, compared with men […in such and such respects and due to such and such conditions…]." 

Understanding these definitions do you believe all "feminists" act morally strong? How can anyone be sure they are acting morally strong? It's clear how to determine if someone is morally weak, but is it as easy to define someone as morally strong? What I am getting at is do feminists all have to share the same definition of feminism in order to be labelled as morally strong as a group? 

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TO ACT STRONGLY REQUIRES THAT ONE ALSO ACT RIGHTLY. REAL STRENGTH IS NOT LOUDNESS OR MUSCLES BUT ACTING IN ACCORD WITH WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT WITH DETERMINATION.

PERHAPS ‘MORALLY STRONG’ IS THE SAME AS ACTING WITH MORAL DETERMINATION.

THIS REQUIRES RIGHT THINKING AND REASONING AND ACTING FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.

ARE ALL FEMINISTS OF THIS SORT? ARE ALL HUMANS OF THIS SORT? PERHAPS ALL TRY BUT IN OUR IMPERFECTION WE ARE NOT ALL PERFECT AND CERTAINLY NOT ALL THE TIME.

BUT IT IS NOT THE LOUDEST VOICE THAT IS STRONG, BUT THE MOST CORRECT AND MORAL SOUND VOICE.

I THINK YOUR QUESTION REQUIRES MORE DIALECTICAL DISCUSSION, GIVE AND TAKE IN DISCUSSION SO WE CAN BE SURE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. PERHAPS WE CAN DO THIS IN CLASS TODAY. I HOPE SO.

Aristotle makes the claim that women have a "deliberative faculty". He also argues that this faculty is given without authority. With this, Aristotle insinuates that women posses and incapacity to participate in decision making (political) affairs and any decision that requires authority.

CORRECT. THAT IS WHAT HE SAYS.

As a child, one has little to no authority over the decisions they make. Until recently, the social trend has always been for the man to work and the women/children to stay home. If women are to be trusted (given authority) with the security of the future policy-makers, why does Aristotle refuse to even acknowledge part of their competence? 

HE SAYS THEY LACK AUTHORITY. WHAT ELSE DOES MODRAK SAY AND WHAT IS HER FINAL DETERMINATION AS TO THE CAUSES WHY ARISTOTLE WHO WAS SO BRILLIANT FAILED TO SEE WOMEN AS THE RATIONAL BEINGS THEY ARE?

Does this lessen Aristotle’s credibility as a philosopher to some degree?

YES.  BUT AGAIN, WHAT ELSE DOES MODRAK SAY AND WHAT IS HER FINAL DETERMINATION AS TO THE CAUSES WHY ARISTOTLE WHO WAS SO BRILLIANT FAILED TO SEE WOMEN AS THE RATIONAL BEINGS THEY ARE?

I may have missed it, but where does Aristotle exactly come to the conclusion that women are morally weak if he thinks that rationality has nothing to do with physiology?

IN HIS POLITICS AND ELSEWHERE. SEE MODRAK AND THE OTHER ARTICLE FOR CITATIONS.

It seems that Plato was even supportive of gender equality so why did Aristotle believe that women are morally inferior?

PLATO’S CASE IS NOT AS IT MAY APPEAR. WAS HE REALLY IN FAVOR OF STRICT EQUALITY? LET’S DISCUSS IT IN CLASS.

According to Deborah K. W. Modrak, Aristotle thinks "less" of women in comparison to men for a number of reasons, but one being that women have a "weaker hold on practical rationality."

RIGHT.

However, Aristotle also believes in other ways, such as biology or physiological ways, women are not weaker than men.

RIGHT. IS HIS VIEW COHERENT? IF NOT, WHY?

Therefore, according to the SEP, there is still debate on what is full justice and equality for women; therefore can't Aristotle be viewed as a feminist to some people because he acknowledges ways in which women are not weaker than men?

I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING PROBLEMATIC IN YOUR PHRASING OF THE SENTENCE ABOVE. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION FULLY ENOUGH TO RESPOND HERE.

Would he be using a descriptive claim because he explains what women are in comparison to men rather than what he believes they are entitled to?

PERHAPS BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS IN CLASS. I THINK YOU HAVE GOOD QUESTIONS BUT THEY ARE NOT CLEARLY ENOUGH EXPRESSED. I THINK WE CAN REFORMULATE THEM AND GET TO THE REAL PURPOSE OF YOUR QUESTIONS IN CLASS TODAY, OR AT LEAST I HOPE WE CAN.

Phil 2301 Fall 2016 Student Questions 14 September

Aristotle is quoted on Page 105 saying, "Some sources of pleasure are necessary; others are choiceworthy in their own right, but can be taken to excess." Given this quote, wouldn't it be a good to pursue a pleasure that is beneficial? For example, learning can be a pleasure since you become better from where you started, so wouldn't be learning a lot a good thing?

CERTAINLY! THE PLEASURE OF SPORTS CAN BE A GOOD CHOICE FOR A COLLEGE STUDENT FOR RELAXATION AND REFRESHING ONESELF. BUT TO PLAN ALL THE TIME AND NOT DO STUDYING FOR COURSES IS TO TAKE SOMETHING CHOICEWORTH IN ITSELF TO EXCESS.

I am confused as to why Aristotle argues that not all pleasures are desirable...defining pleasure as "a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment," why is it that one might not find something that is pleasurable to also be desirable if it is indeed bringing them pleasure? 

IT IS A PLEASURE TO EAT CAKE AND IT MAY GIVE SATISFACTION AND ENJOYMENT BUT IT IS NOT DESIRABLE AS A THING TO CHOOSE TO DO IF YOU ARE DIABETIC. IT WILL MAKE THE DIABETIC SICK IF SHE CONSUMES TOO MUCH SUGAR BEYOND WHAT HER DOCTOR OKAYS.

THERE ARE ALSO LOTS OF PLEASURABLE ACTIVITIES WE CAN DO BUT NOT ALL ARE RIGHT AND DESIRABLE FOR A PERSON WHO WANTS TO BE MORAL.

What is the difference between a person that is incontinent versus a person that is intemperate? 

I DISCUSSED EXACTLY THIS TOWARD THE BEGINNING OF LAST CLASS. SO THIS DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE ASSIGNMENT.

In Chapter 4, Book VII of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains the difference between simple incontinence and incontinence with qualification. He explains that incontinence concerning pleasures that are not necessary or bodily include incontinence of “victory, honor, wealth, and similar good and pleasant things.” These are incontinence with qualification (i.e. incontinence of wealth.) If it is true that seeking these pleasant things to excess leads to a type of incontinence, what does this say about our modern society?

IT SAYS THAT OUR SOCIETY IS DEMOCRATIC AND EACH PERSON IS TAUGHT GENERALLY BY TV AND OTHER ADVERTISING SOURCES TO SEEK OUT PLEASURE ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE AT ALL COSTS, AS YOU QUESTION SEEMS TO INDICATE.

How does society subtly teach us to attain wealth, honor, and power at all costs?

THINK ABOUT AND YOU TELL ME IN CLASS.

Have attitudes strayed from Aristotle’s initial thoughts about incontinence?

FAILINGS SUCH AS INCONTINENCE ARE MORE WIDELY DISREGARDED TODAY. PEOPLE ARE FREE TO INDULGE THEIR DESIRES AND ENCOURAGED TO GO PURSUE EXCELL, AREN’T THEY?

Was our society built on incontinence of power, victory, and wealth?

TOO COMPLICATED FOR A SIMPLE ANSWER HERE. RAISE IT IN CLASS OR SEE ME DURING OFFICE HOURS.

If so, how deeply is incontinence entrenched in our lives still today?

VERY.

LOTS OF QUESTIONS HERE, MANY MORE THAN ONE. THAT IS A GOOD SIGN OF YOUR ENGAGEMENT BUT TOO MANY FOR ME TO RESPOND TO HERE.

Aristotle explains that pleasure itself is an end, therefore, it is not harmful. But, what happens when individuals get pleasure from doing harmful things like emotionally abusing others or self harm? How can this not be harmful?

I DON’T BELIEVE ARISTOTLE SAYS THAT. YOU SHOULD TELL ME THE PRECISE TEXT WHERE YOU SEE SUCH A THING SO THAT I CAN CHECK IT AND RESPOND.

HE IS WELL AWARE THAT PLEASURE FROM HARMFUL THINGS LEAD TO THE OPPOSITE OF HAPPINESS EVENTUALLY.

Is there such a thing that can is an example of being both intemperance and incontinence? If so, what would Aristotle say about this?

THIS QUESTION MAKES NO SENSE AS WRITTEN. YOU MUST CHECK GRAMMAR AND MEANING BEFORE SUBMITTING QUESTIONS.

Aristotle notes, "Incontinence and intemperance are about the same pleasures and pains. They are about the same things, but not in the same way; the intemperate person decides on them, but the incontinent person does not" (Aristotle 105). Is it possible for an intemperate person to not decide on the pleasures or pains of doing what's right and be intemperate anyway, but do it involuntarily?

NO, BECAUSE THE INTEMPERATE PERSON IS VICIOUS AND PART OF THE DEFINITION OF INTEMPERATE IS THAT PERSON VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES TO DO THE ACTION.

Also, is it possible for an incontinent person to act on pleasures and pains, and do it voluntarily?

YES, S/HE COULD JUST BE VERY WEAK. THE SIMPLY INCONTINENT IS ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE WEAK.

For instance, if someone is suffering from an addiction, and they KNOW they're addicted, but go through with the addicting activity anyway. Isn't that acting on pleasures and pains voluntarily? Why or why not?

DOES ‘GO THOUGH WITH THE ACTIVITY’ MEAN CHOOSES THE ACTIVITY AND IS NOT FORCED TO CHOOSE IT?

THEN IT IS VOLUNTARY.

Chapter X talks about how there are different types of pleasures based on the activities. If I understand it correctly it also says that proper pleasure increases the activity. Does this mean that for someone who receives pleasure from a bad thing, that they will become better at that because they are striving to reach that pleasure again? NO. REREAD WHAT YOU WROTE IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE. PROPER PLEASURE MEANS MORALLY RIGHT PLEASURE. If bad things can be pleasurable, is there a way to "train" yourself to make it seem less pleasurable so that the bad things can be avoided? YES, THAT IS ONE WAY PEOPLE CHANGE HABITS.

If an individual is considered continent if he/she abides by any reason and any decision, or only the "correct" decision?

THIS IS NOT PROPERLY WRITTEN IN ENGLISH SO I CANNOT UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHAT YOU ARE ASKING. YOU MUST MAKE SURE YOUR QUESTION MAKES SENSE AS WRITTEN.

If the continent person knows his actions are base and does not follow them because of reason, is this to say that the incontinent person has no reason at all?

NO, THE INCONTINENT PERSON MAY FULLY KNOW WHAT SHE IS DOING BUT BE SO WEAK THAT SHE DOES IT ANYWAY. INCONTINENCE IS MAINLY ABOUT WEAKNESS OF WILL AND LACK OF SELF-RESTRAINT.

WHAT are the differences between being incontinent without qualification and being incontineNt by reason of a resemblance, or in respect of some particular bodily pleasure?

THE SIMPLY INCONTINENT (= INCONTINENT WITHOUT QUALIFICATION OR ABSOLUTELY INCONTINENT) PERSON IS ONE WHO IS SO WEAK SHE KNOWS WHAT IS RIGHT BUT DOES THE WRONG THING AGAIN AND AGAIN.

I AM NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE REST. YOU SHOULD TELL ME PRECISELY WHAT TEXT YOU ARE LOOKING AT.

In Book VII, Aristotle points out moral states to be avoided: vice, incontinence and brutishness. "The incontinent man knowing that what he does is bad, does it as a result of passion,while the continent man, knowing that his appetites are bad, refuses on account of his rational principle to follow them". But if a man follows this appetites because of his ignorance, is it fair to call him incontinent?

NOT SO MUCH, BUT I WOULD SAY YES IF HIS WEAKNESS WAS HIS OWN FAULT AND CAUSED HIS IGNORANCE HE WOULD THEN HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN IGNORANCE.

if the pleasure you are seeking or aiming to get is only good for you and does not effect other persons around you in a positive way does that constitute still as good pleasure for the person doing the action or does that make the pleasure negative because you are only doing it for yourself?

I AM THINKING OF THIS ALONG THE LINES OF READING A GOOD BOOK AND THE PLEASURE ONE GETS FROM THAT. THAT IS A POSITIVE PLEASURE AND ACTION, IT SEEMS.

IS THIS WHAT YOU HAD IN MIND?

Aristotle said "The continent person seems to be the same one as one who abides by his rational calculation; and the incontinent person seems to be the same as one who abandons it". If this is true, how can we determine this in every situation? If I'm a navy seal, my rational calculation would tell me "Don't go across enemy lines", but I'm going to do so for my country. Does this mean I'm an incontinent person because I'm doing what I'm told or because its what I believe in even though I know its not the smartest idea?

YOUR RATIONAL CALCULATION WOULD TELL YOU, FOLLOW ORDERS SINCE YOU ARE A HIGHLY TRAINED NAVY SEAL AND VOLUNTEERED FOR DUTY AS A SEAL.

IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW ORDERS, YOU ARE INCONTINENT, WEAK IN YOUR COMMITMENT. THE SOLDIER DOES NOT HAVE THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER AND SHOULD NOT ALWAYS QUESTION THE COMMANDS GIVEN.

Aristotle believes that is more forgivable when someone is incontinent out of anger and rage (temper) than someone whom acts on desire.

YES, HE SAYS JUST THAT.

I disagree with this. Isn't more humane to act on desire than to act out of temper?

PERHAPS BUT THE PERSON IN ANGER AND RAGE IS NOT BEING CONTROLED BY A SIMPLE DESIRE. BOTH ARE WRONG, OF COURSE, BUT THEY DIFFER. THE PERSON WHO KILLS ANOTHER IN A STATE OF ANGER AND RAGE HAS NOT PREMEDITATED THE KILLING BUT DOES IT OUT OF A LOSS OF CONTROL, THIS CONTRASTS WITH THE PERSON WHO DESIRED THE OTHER’S MONEY AND PLANS OUT THE KILLING ON THE BASIS OF THE DESIRE. TODAY WE MIGHT SAY THAT THE FIRST IS MANSLAUGHTER AND THE SECOND PREMEDITATED MURDER FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF SOME DESIRE.

Is it because it is easier to lose control of your temper and blow up on someone than act on a desire such as eating 4 big macs? Do you agree with Aristotle?

YOU HAVE IT RIGHT THAT THE KEY NOTION IS LOSS OF CONTROL. THE FIRST HAS LOSS OF CONTROL IN A VERY STRONG WAY, THE SECOND HAS GIVEN IN TO THE DESIRE QUITE CONSCIOUSLY AND WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL.

I LIKE THIS QUESTION.

Aristotle explained that some pleasures refill specific pains. Is there a pleasure that can counter every pain? Could some pain be pleasurable to other people or are pains and pleasures the same for everyone? 

SEVERAL QUESTIONS!

WHAT DOES ‘REFILL’ MEAN HERE?

THERE SEEM TO BE PLEASURES THAT CORRESPOND TO PAINS BUT IN SOME CASES THE PLEASURE MAY BE FOUND IN GOOD HEALTH OR NOT FEELING PAIN.

THERE ARE PERHAPS PLEASURES THAT HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PAIN, NOWT THAT I THINK ABOUT IT.

WE SHOULD ASK A PHYSICIAN OR PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPERT ABOUT THIS. IT SEEMS THERE SHOULD BE AN EMPIRICAL ANSWER TO IT.

According to Aristotle, pleasure is neutral. What does the individual need to do to ensure their use of pleasure is virtuous?

BY NEUTRAL I TAKE IT YOU MEAN NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD IN ITSELF BUT SO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTIVITY TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED.

THINK, REASON, EXERCISE SELF CONTROL, IN SUM: BE VIRTUOUS.

If incontinent people are said to not have knowledge of what they are doing, what is said to be the reason for the desire? 

IT IS NOT JUST KNOWLEDGE THAT IS LACKING BUT SELF CONTROL TOO. LACK OF SELF CONTROL.

According to Aristotle, can two people be friends if the pleasure they receive from each other is based on viciousness or do they both have to a high virtue of character?

NO. THE LATTER IS THE CASE.

When Aristotle speaks of people that are self-indulgent, is it not contradictory to say that a person has no appetite, but still pursues the excesses of pleasure? Is not pursing the excesses of pleasure defined as appetite?

I NEED TO SEE THE PRECISE TEXTS TO WHICH YOU REFER.

When Aristotle discusses pleasure in this section he writes; 'the prudent person pursues what is painless, not what is pleasant'. He then goes on to say; 'the fact that all, both beasts and human beings, pursue pleasure in IS some sign of its being in some way the best good'.Is the prudent individual attempting to lead a life free of all pain, or simply avoiding intentional pains? And, what pleasures would be 'the best good', if there are any?

GENERALLY WE DO NOT PURSUE THINGS THAT ARE PAINFUL AND SO GENERALLY AVOID PAIN. WE, AS IT WERE, DO OUR JOB, AND DO NOT PURSUE PLEASURE IN EVERYTHING WE DO.  PLEASURE CAN BE A SIGN OF SOMETHING GOOD BUT IT CAN ALSO DECEIVE US SINCE BAD ACTIONS CAN ALSO LEAD TO PLEASURE. AS I SAID IN CLASS, PLEASURE IS GOOD OR BAD NOT IN ITSELF BUT DEPENDING ON THE ACTIVITY TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED. PLEASURE CAN FEEL ‘GOOD’ OR STIMULATING, PLEASANT, BUT THAT IS NOT A GOOD GUIDE TO RIGHTNESS AND FULFILLMENT OF OURSELVES AS HUMANS.

The opposition between pleasure and pain IS interesting. If pleasure is good and pain is evil, can one believe that pain is good and pleasure is evil?

THE PAIN OF HARD ATHLETIC WORK IN PREPARATION FOR THE OLYMPICS IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS A SIGN OF MUSCLES WORKING TO BECOME MORE POWERFUL, ISN’T IT?

Is it possible for someone who was taught that pleasure is good and pain is evil to change these beliefs due to an uncontrollable event like a car crash, then live life differently from then on?

THIS PERSON IS CALLED A HEDONIST.

CERTAINLY BUT THIS IS MORE COMPLEX THAN I CAN DISCUSS HERE. YOU SHOULD RAISE IT IN CLASS FOR MORE DISCUSSION.

What's the line between being bestial and being diseased? How do you make the distinction between the two?

GOOD QUESTION. LET’S TALK ABOUT THESE TEXTS IN CLASS.

“And so, if, as they say, human

beings become gods because of exceedingly great virtue, this is clearly the

sort of state that would be opposite to the bestial state. For indeed, just as 25

a beast has neither virtue nor vice, so neither does a god, but the god's

state is more honorable than virtue, and the beast's belongs to some kind

different from vice.”

“Similarly, the bestial person is also rare among

human beings. He is most often found in foreigners; but some bestial fea-

tures also result from diseases and deformities. We also use 'bestial' as a

term of reproach for people whose vice exceeds the human level.”

“By bestial states I mean, for instance, the female human being* who

is said to tear pregnant women apart and devour the children; or the pleasures

of some of the savage people around the Black Sea who are reputed

to enjoy raw meat and human flesh, while some trade their children to

each other to feast on; or what is said about Phalaris.*

§3 These states are bestial. Other states result from attacks of disease,

and in some cases from fits of madness-for instance, the person who sacrificed

his mother and ate her, and the one who ate the liver of his fellow

slave. Others result from diseased conditions or from habit-for instance,

plucking hairs, chewing nails, even coal and earth, and besides these sex-

ual intercourse between males. For in some people these result from [a

diseased] nature, in others from habit, as, for instance, in those who have 1148b

suffered wanton [sexual] assault since their childhood.”

“One sort of vice is human, and this is called simple vice; another

sort is called vice with an added condition, and is said to be bestial or diseased

vice, but not simple vice. Similarly, then, it is also clear that one sort

of incontinence is bestial, another diseased, but only the incontinence corresponding

to human intemperance is simple incontinence.”

If incontinence leads to involuntary action, and yet we are still always held accountable by our actions, how does the "insanity plea" justifiably lead to a shorter sentence?

IT SHOULD NOT LEAD TO A SHORTER SENTENCE. IT SHOULD BE EITHER REJECTED OR ACCEPTED. IF ACCEPTED, THE INSANE PERSON GOES TO A HOSPITAL.

BUT IN SOME CASES SOMEONE WHO HAS SOME DEGREE OF MENTAL ILLNESS MAY BE HELD LESS THAN 100% RESPONSIBLE.

As we discussed in class Dahmer was unable to use the insanity plea because it was proven that he made a sound decision to be vicious, does this mean that he was intemperate rather than incontinent? 

YES, INCONTINENT IS WEAK BUT INTEMPERATE IS STRONG IN THE PURSUIT OF PLEASURES.

Aristotle believes that the incontinent person has knowledge but doesn't use it.

RIGHT.

Is it possible for any of us to be Incontenent at one time or another?

YES, THAT IS COMMON. WHEN WE GO GROCERY SHOPPING, IF WE ARE VERY HUNGRY, WE ARE WEAK IN RESISTING ATTRACTIVE BUT UNHEALTHY FOODS.

I'm sure that we all make decisions and then retract and believe that if we had been thinking we would have made a different decision. 

PRECISELY CORRECT. YOU’VE GOT IT!

Incontinence is habitual and a person can only be labeled as "incontinent" if they frequently act on impulse, however, if a person is continent their entire lives but does something extremely incontinent like have an affair or rob a Bank, does that make them an incontinent person? Does the extremity of the incontinent act have an effect on the persons continence? 

AN INCONTINENT PERSON IS SOMEONE WHO FAILS BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS TO DO WHAT S/HE KNOWS IS RIGHT.

A PERSON WHO FAILS ALL THE TIME IS EXTREMELY WEAK. ARISTOTLE CALLS THIS PERSON “SIMPLY INCONTINENT” WHICH MEANS ABSOLUTELY INCONTINENT ON JUST ABOUT EVERY OCCASION.

With the discussion of intemperance, it makes me wonder what the difference is between this concept and simply incontinence or being vicious?

THE INCONTINENT PERSON IS WEAK AND REGRETS THE ACTION, THE VICIOUS IS STRONG AND EMBRACES THE WRONG THING INTENTIONALLY AND WITHOUT REGRET.

It seems as a vice someone always pursues the wrong, and it is unclear whether there is regret or not. Can intemperance be the same thing as simple incontinence or being vicious? Why or why not?

INTEMPERANCE IS A VICE; IT IS VICIOUS.

Socrates, Aristotle's teacher, (NO, PLATO’S TEACHER WAS SOCRATES; ARISTOTLE’S TEACHER WAS PLATO) taught that nobody can knowingly do something wrong.

RIGHT, PLATO TAUGHT THAT.

Aristotle expands on this by explaining that there are three reasons that one would do something wrong which are, vice, incontinence, and brutishness. In the case of incontinence according to Aristotle, the person clearly knows what is good and bad, but continues with wrongdoing because they any lack self control.

RIGHT.

Where in vice the person is conditioned through habit and upbringing that a wrong act is not wrong.

Most recently in the news there is a story about a rape at Stanford university. The defendant claimed that he was not at fault because both parties were drunk. Regardless of the court case, when someone is in an inebriated state, are they considered an incontinent person, due to alcohol hindering inhibitions ie. lacking self control? or are they considered acting in vice because the alcohol fogs their judgement and conditions the person to believe they are not in the wrong?

ARISTOTLE HOLDS THAT, IF A PERSON VOLUNTARILY PUTS HIM/HERSELF INTO A STATE IN WHICH THEY CANNOT MAKE A PROPER JUDGEMENT, THAT PERSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHATEVER S/HE DOES WHILE DRUNK BECAUSE S/HE CHOSE TO BE IN THAT STATE WHERE ONE CAN BE IGNORANT, SUCH AS A DRUNK NOT SEEING A CHILD ON A BIKE ON THE ROAD AND HITS THE CHILD WITH A CAR.

IN THIS CASE THERE IS FULL RESPONSIBILITY.

Aristotle claims that those who act incontinently only have beliefs and no knowledge.

THAT IS NOT QUITE RIGHT. THE INCONTINENT PERSON MAY HAVE KNOWLEDGE BUT IT MAY NOT BE ACTIVE IN THEIR MINDS.

However, beliefs originate from someone else or something. Therefore if you are the only person who has control of what you do, you can not have someone else telling you what to do.

WELL, THEY CAN TELL YOU BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY.

How can beliefs that originated from someone or something else be the cause of your actions if you are the only one in control?

FOR ARISTOTLE THEY DO NOT CONTROL YOU SO YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR WRONG BELIEFS IF YOU DO NOT THINK IT THROUGH FOR YOURSELF.

Aristotle argues that a person who is licentious is more suitable for approach  than an incontinent person. He highlights that both are wicked, is Aristolte just admitting that sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of the two evils?

THIS SEEMS REASONABLE BECAUSE THE INCONTINENT PERSON IS JUST WEAK AND CAN CHANGE VIEWS OR NATURE OFTEN, THAT IS, IS INRELIABLE, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH.

THAT IS HOW I READ IT.

Phil 2310 Student questions 12 September 2016 with responses

Aristotle writes on page 67, "For if, for instance, the good state is evident, the bad state becomes evident too." In previous writings, Aristotle has suggested that we must follow the "good" in life to be virtuous. However, what if you cannot tell the difference between a good action or bad action? For example, I know nothing about cars so how do I know if putting a certain oil in my car is good, especially where the repercussions may occur after the fact of the action.

THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION. WE DID DISCUSS IT IN CLASS A BIT. THE KEY TO KNOWING IS LEARNING AND INVESTIGATION OR BEING GUIDED BY A RELIABLE EXPERT. THAT IS WHAT WE DO IN THE CASE OF CARS. IT IS ALSO WHAT WE DO IN THE CASE OF MORAL ACTIONS. WE OFTEN ENLIST THE HELP OF FRIENDS OR RELATIVES WHEN TRYING TO DECIDE ON SOMETHING IMPORTANT THAT INVOLVES MORAL ACTION. IT IS COMPLEX, PERHAPS, BUT KNOWLEDGE IS THE KEY. SO WE MUST EDUCATION OURSELVES AS WELL AS POSSIBLE. THAT IS WHAT A GOOD DOCTOR OR CAR MECHANIC DOES.

In regards to virtue of character, would prudence be possible without judgement or do they rely on each other to be relevant?

GOOD QUESTION. PRUDENCE IS EXCELLENCE IN MORAL MATTERS AND SO IT CLEARLY REQUIRES GOOD JUDGEMENT DEVELOPED BY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE, THAT IS, LEARNING OF THOSE TWO SORTS. PRUDENCE IS EXCELLENCE IN JUDGEMENT AND ACTION REGARDING MORAL MATTERS. IT IS A KIND OF VIRTUE AND YET NOT FULLY A VIRTUE IN ALL RESPECTS. ONE CANNOT BE VIRTUOUS IN CHARACTER WITHOUT IT.

Aristotle claims that injustice has no means between two extremes, but is an extreme itself. If this is so, how can justice treat different levels of crime. How can someone who committed a small petty crime be differentiated from someone who did something serious like murder?

YES, INJUSTICE IS EXTREMELY BAD OR WRONG AS A WAY OF ACTING HUMAN. YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS YOURSELF. SOMEONE WHO CROSSES AGAINST A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND GETS A TICKET DOES NOT COMPARE TO SOMEONE WHO MURDERS. BOTH ACTS ARE MATTERS OF ACTING AGAINST THE VALUABLE AND HELPFUL RULES OF SOCIETY AND GOOD LIVING BUT ONE IS MUCH WORST THAN THE OTHER. THAT IS REFLECTED IN LAWS, OF COURSE. WE GIVE TICKETS FOR JAYWALKING BUT NOT FOR MURDER.

In Book V of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that “one does injustices…whenever one does them willingly.” In Section 11, Aristotle takes this idea further when he says suicide is an injustice because it is voluntary and “in violation of correct reason.” Taking what we know now about mental health and depression, does Aristotle’s idea on the relation between suicide and justice still hold true? Does suicide still have a place in discussions of justice in general?

EXCELLENT QUESITION ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF HUMAN THINKING IN MATTERS OF ETHICS, PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW. NOT ALL SUICIDES ARE DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS. SOME EVEN TODAY CAN BE MORALLY WRONG AND SO CAN BE MATTERS OF JUSTICE. BUT MANY ARE DUE TO CHEMICAL DEPRESSION OR PSYCHOLOGICAL ILLNESS. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD THESE AND OUR USE OF EXPERTS AND COURTS TO SEE TO IT THAT DEFENDANTS OF VARIOUS SORTS BECAUSE OF VARIOUS CRIMES SHOWS OUR ADVANCEMENT. IN SUM, THE CONNECTION WOULD LARGELY NOT HOLD IN A VERY CLEAR WAY BUT THERE ARE CASES IN WHICH IT COULD STILL BE A MATTER OF JUSTICE, AS I SEE IT.

Since it is said that sometimes we praise decency, would it not be possible to only live a decent or mediocre life since this may be viewed by some as an acceptable life? Although it may not be viewed as excellent it still could be classified as a valuable life? 

GOOD QUESTION HERE TOO. BUT THIS ONE DEPENDS ON THE DEFINITION OF DECENCY. FOR ARISTOTLE IN BOOK 5 THE NOTION OF DECENCY INCLUDES JUSTICE AND MORE THAN JUSTICE IN A HIGHER WAY. IT IS BETTER THAT JUSTICE BECAUSE IT TAKES THE GOOD MORE INTO ACCOUNT THAN JUSTICE.

SO IN THIS CASE THE DEFINITION OF DECENCY IN ARISTOTLE IS NOT THE SAME AS OUR DEFINITION OF DECENCY AS MEDIOCRITY. "HE'S A DECENT GUY" AS IN HE IS OKAY.  BUT WE CAN SAY THAT SHE IS A TRULY DECENT HUMAN BEING. IN THIS CASE THE PERSON IS NOT MEDIOCRE BUT VERY, VERY GOOD, HONEST, FAIR AND SO FORTH, IN OUR LANGUAGE. 

SO OUR OWN LANGUAGE HAS TWO SENSES TO THE NOTION OF 'THE DECENT'.

Would Aristotle consider the best, most balanced way of life by both being just while also suffering from injustice? Of course, this does not have to be at the same time, but over the course of one's life.

NICE QUESTION. SOME CLARIFICATIONS ARE NEEDED HERE. ARISTOTLE SAYS IT IS WORSE TO DO INJUSTICE THAN TO SUFFER IT BECAUSE THE ONE DOING IT IS AN AGENT AND CHOOSING TO DO INJUSTICE. THE ONE WHO SUFFERS IS AN INNOCENT VICTIM AND DOES NOT DAMAGE HIS CHARACTER IN HIS ACTIONS BECAUSE HE TAKES NO UNJUST ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON. THE DOER MAKES HIMSELF A MORALLY WORSE PERSON.

WE SHOULD TRY TO AVOID BEING VICTIMS OF INJUSTICE. WHEN I WAS IN ISTANBUL TEACHING IN THE SUMMER, THREE OLD WOMEN PICKPOCKETS CORNERED ME AND TRIED TO DISTRACT ME WHILE ONE OF THEM PUT HER HAND IN MY POCKET AND TRIED TO GET MY WALLET. I THOUGHT THE SITUATION VERY ODD AND SUDDENLY IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT AN INJUSTICE WAS TAKING PLACE AND I WAS THE VICTIM. I REACHED INTO MY POCKET AND FOUND A HAND IN IT ON MY WALLET! I REMOVED THE HAND AND PUSHED AWAY FROM THE WOMEN. THEY WERE MAKING THEMSELVES MORALLY WORSE. I WAS AN INNOCENT VICTIM, YES, BUT IN THE END NOT A VICTIM.

Aristotle describes justice as being superior to other virtues. Someone who is just had a balance between all extremes and is virtuous. In his examples of the adulters, the individual who did not gain from committing adultery is not unjust. There is an argument that could be made that our justice system is broken. There are plenty of cases in which rulings appear unjust; is this the result of an unjust system or isolated acts of injustice on the part of the court officials?

I DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION BUT I CAN COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE LAST PART. YES, OF COURSE, THERE CAN BE SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. SOME SAY THAT WAS THE CASE WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT AND SIGNED A LAW FOCUSED ON PUNISHING THOSE WHO HAD EVEN A LITTLE AMONG OF ILLEGAL DRUGS. THOSE LAWS TURNED OUT TO PUNISH THE POOR AND BLACK MEN WITH LONG JAIL TERMS FOR OFFENCES WHICH NOW  WOULD BE A MATTER OF A TICKET, SUCH AS USING CERTAIN DRUGS. PRESIDENT OBAMA IS TRYING TO REMEDY THE INJUSTICE IN VARIOUS WAYS NOW, RELEASING SORE PRISONERS WHO COMMITTED ONLY SMALL OFFENCES. THIS WAS A SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE PERHAPS EVEN RACIST, THOUGH I CANNOT GET INTO ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS HERE. NOTE, HOWEVER, NOT ALL THAT APPEARS TO BE UNJUST IS UNJUST. WE HAVE TO HAVE COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

When Aristotle discusses prudence he mentions that it involves correct reasoning. Does this mean that someone can only be prudent if they make the right steps every single time towards their goal/the good? Or is there some room for error considering we are all human? What exactly does he imply by "correct reasoning"?

A GOOD, HUMAN, QUESTION.

YES, THAT IS THE PERFECTLY PRUDENT PERSON. BUT FEW PEOPLE ARE PERFECT AT EVERYTHING AND MOST MAKE VARIOUS MISTAKES ALONG THE WAY. SO THERE CAN BE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PRUDENT, SOME WHO ARE SELDOM PRUDENT, SOME WHO ARE OCCASIONALLY, SOME WHO ARE MOSTLY, AND SO FORTH.  

CORRECT REASONING MEANS USING KNOWLEDGE AND GETTING YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION CORRECT OR RIGHT. WRONG REASON INVOLVES MISSING KEY POINTS AND IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AND SO JUDGING WRONGLY.

Aristotle talks about justice in distribution, and he says that unequal people will not receive equal shares (Aristotle 71). He then goes on later to talk about worth. Is it possible for someone to be classified as having a lot of "worth" or owning a lot of potential, but be lower on the totem pole for society, hence, receiving a lower share then someone else? How would the distribution be broken up if this possibility arises, and how would one remeasure distribution?

BUT YOU ASK ABOUT WORTH. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? DOES A DOCTOR HAVE MORE WORTH TO SOCIETY THAN A PERSON WORKING GARBAGE COLLECTION? PERHAPS YES BECAUSE HE HAS MORE TO OFFER AND CAN SAVE LIVES. IS HE WORTH MORE AS A HUMAN BEING? NOT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION.  WE CAN MEASURE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PEOPLE TO THE GOOD OF SOCIETY AND DETERMINE SOME TO BE MAKING BETTER CONTRIBUTIONS THAN OTHERS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN IN CONTRAST TO THE DRUG DEALER OR DANGEROUS THIEF.

SHOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENTIAL IN SALARY OR BENEFITS FOR PEOPLE WHO DO DIFFERENT JOBS OR SHOULD ALL SALARIES AND BENEFITS BE THE SAME FOR ALL?

WHAT DO YOU THINK? AND WHAT REASONS DO YOU HAVE FOR YOUR VIEW?

 Aristotle says that, "If he does it in knowledge, but without previous deliberation , it is an act of injustice...but he is not thereby unjust or wicked since it is not vice that causes him to inflict the harm" (pg. 80). How can this be? If the person has knowledge about what they are doing, and even if they did not know what the outcome would be, but they still committed the act, shouldn't that person be considered unjust?

THE PERSON DESCRIBED DID THE ACTION WITHOUT FULLY THINKING ABOUT IT. HE DID NOT DO IT INTENTIONALLY TO DO WICKED OR UNJUST THINGS TO OTHERS. HE FAILED TO THINK AND TO CONTROL HIS FEELINGS IN THIS CASE. IF HE DOES IT ONCE OR TWICE OR JUST INFREQUENTLY, HE IS INCONTINENT. HE SLIPS UP AND FAILS TO BE CONSISTENTLY GOOD AND JUST. 

BUT THE PERSON WHO KNOWS THE ACTION IS UNJUST, IS FULLY AWARE OF WHAT HE IS DOING, HAS THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND DELIBERATED AND THEN DOES THE UNJUST ACTION IS A VICIOUS UNJUST PERSON WHO DOES DEEDS OF INJUSTICE. 

WE CANNOT BE FULLY VICIOUS OR VIRTUOUS UNLESS WE DELIBERATE AND IN THIS CASE THE PERSON FAILED TO DELIBERATE. 

SEE THIS WEBPAGE ON THE COURSE WEBSITE:

https://academic.mu.edu/taylorr/Theory_of_Ethics_Fall_2016/Aristotle__criteria_for_moral_responsibility_in_Aristotle.html

When Aristotle writes about the judge as a mediator, he talks about restoring the imbalance that has stemmed from the unjust action of one community member on another. Should there not be more than restoration? Should the harmed community member be offered more having to suffer this injustice? 

THERE ARE FOUR KINDS OF JUSTICE IN ARISTOTLE. JUSTICE IN ONE FORM IS RESTORATION OF WHAT HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM ANOTHER. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGDOING. IN SOME CASES THIS MIGHT BE GOOD, ESPECIALLY IF ONE WANTS TO CHANGE HABITS. BUT ONE SENSE OF THE FOUR KINDS OF INJUSTICE INVOLVES RIGHTING THE WRONG DONE. IF SOMEONE HITS YOUR CAR AND DAMAGES IT, SHOULD THAT PERSON BE JAILED AND PUNISHED BEYOND THE PAYMENT OF REPAIRS IN EVERY CASE OR ONLY IN SOME CASES? IF IN SOME CASES, WHICH AND WHY? PONDER IT.

Without the existence of laws, how would one determine if he/she is acting in a just or unjust manner? To what extent does law enforcement affect our actions to be either just or unjust?

SOCIETIES DEVELOP STANDARDS OF RIGHT AND WRONG BEHAVIOR AND THEN CODIFY SOME OF THESE INTO LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT. NOT ALL BEHAVIORS ARE MATTERS OF LAW. HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO DISTINGUISH THEM? 

OF COURSE, LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFECTS OUR ACTIONS. FEAR AND DISTASTE OF RECEIVING $40 OR $100 TICKETS KEEPS US FROM DRIVING TOO FAST, WHEN IN FACT THE DANGERS OF DRIVING SHOULD AFFECT US ENOUGH. SOME PEOPLE NEED TO BE TRAINED BY TICKETS AND BY LAW, IT SEEMS. LAWS KEEP US FROM DRIVING IN INTENTIONALLY BAD OR DANGEROUS WAYS.

How would you explain a criminal act in today's society using Aristotle's justice model?  Does that model adequately address society's concern for crime?

ARISTOTLE EXPLAINED WHAT JUSTICE IS, NOT WHY CRIMINAL ACTS HAPPEN.

BUT TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, IT IS AN INJUSTICE, A VIOLATION OF JUSTICE, WHEN SOMEONE STEALS YOUR PHONE. JUSTICE IS THAT PERSON GIVING THE PHONE BACK OR PAYING FOR A NEW ONE.

HE WAS NOT ADDRESSING ACTS OF CRIME AS SUCH. JUSTICE IS A SOCIAL VIRTUE AND HE WAS ADDRESSING WHAT WE DO TO MANIFEST JUSTICE IN OUR SOCIETY. ONE WAY IS TO BRING ABOUT JUSTICE BY MAKING AMENDS FOR A WRONG ACT, SUCH AS STEALING FROM ONE'S ROOMMATE. BUT THERE ARE FOUR KINDS OF JUSTICE AND THAT IS WHAT HE EXPLAINS. HE ALSO EXPLAINS THAT DOING RETURNING EVIL FOR EVIL JUST MAKES BOTH PARTIES EVIL IN CHARACTER. IT IS BETTER TO SUFFER INJUSTICE FOR YOUR SELF AND SOUL THAN TO DO INJUSTICE AS A PERPETRATOR OF EVIL OR INJUSTICE.  ALSO, NOTE WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT DECENCY.

NEXT CLASS WE WILL CONSIDER INCONTINENCE AND ALSO VICE OR VICIOUSNESS AND THOSE CONCERN CRIMINALITY. THAT IS WHERE I THINK WE WILL ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION MORE FULLY.

Is it necessarily to be just what it is proportioned? For example, is it just that we are all equally wealthy or those who work should be more wealthy than those who stay at home all they long?

Can someone act unjustly without being unjust? If someone lies one time, would he/she be a liar

NO, THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT KINDS OR FORMS OF JUSTICE. NOT ALL ARE PROPORTIONAL. 

AS FOR THE SECOND QUESTION, YES.  ONE ACT DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON UNJUST BECAUSE JUSTICE CONCERNS HABITUAL CHARACTER AND REPEATED ACTIONS. REMEMBER THE IMPORTANCE OF HABIT IN THE FORMATION OF CHARACTER? NEXT CLASS, ON THURSDAY, WE WILL CONSIDER HOW IT IS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE USUALLY VIRTUOUS CAN SCREW UP AND MAKE MISTAKES TO BE UNJUST AT TIMES.

Aristotle states "if A commits adultery for profit and makes a profit, but B commit adultery because of his appetite, and spends money on it to his own loss, B seems intemperate rather than overreaching, but A seems unjust, not intemperate. Clearly, then, this is because A acts to make a profit" I believe that even though B "committed adultery because of his appetite" he would still be unjust too. So does Aristotle think that those who lack self control are not able to be unjust as well as lacking self control? If that's the case then couldn't every argue that they are just people they just lack self control?

GOOD QUESTION. THE FIRST STEP IS TO READ THE TEXT MORE CAREFULLY. ARISTOTLE DOES NOT SAY ONE IS UNJUST AND THE OTHER JUST. HE SAYS THAT ONE DOES IT FOR A REASON (EVEN IF A BAD ONE) AND THE OTHER DOES IT OUT OF INTEMPERANCE (LACK OF SELF-CONTROL). THE VICIOUS ONE, THE ONE WHO IS WORST, IS THE PERSON WHO IS IN CONTROL AND INTENTIONALLY DOES THE IMMORAL ACT WITH FULL PURPOSE, HE SEEMS STRONGER BUT HE IS STRONGER IN INTENTION OF IMMORALITY AND SO HE IS THE WORST. THE OTHER IS WEAKER AND LACKS SELF-CONTROL, BUT HE IS NOT SO DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY IMMORAL, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE.

NOTICE THAT I DO NOT ACCEPT THE PREMISS OF YOUR LAST QUESTION. RATHER, IT IS NOT THE CASE.THEY ARE ABLE TO BE UNJUST. BUT THE WORST IS NOT THE WEAK PERSON BUT THE PERSON WHO IS STRONG AND DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY DOES THE WRONG THING.

Question 1: If a man commits lust and makes money by it, while another does the same to satiate his appetite though he loses money and is penalized for it, it is the same significance of injustice?

Answer: Although in both cases we are talking about injustice, the second case is thought to be self-indulgent rather than grasping, but the first one is unjust, but not self-indulgent. So all unjust acts are ascribed to some particular kind of wickedness, but if a man makes gain, his action is ascribed to no form of wickedness but injustice.

SEE MY RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION IMMEDIATELY ABOVE.

If health only makes us do healthy actions, then how can it be justified when someone has a bad back and isn't supposed to workout but does anyway because they want to be healthy?

THE EXPERIENCE OF HEALTH ENCOURAGES US TO DO HEALTHY ACTIONS AND WE DO HEALTY ACTIONS BECAUSE WE WANT THE EXPERIENCE OF HEALTH.

BUT WHEN I HAVE A BROKEN ARM AND WANT TO BE HEATHY AND TO HAVE TWO STRONG ARMS, I HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL I AM HEALED BEFORE I EXERCISE OR I WILL HURT MYSELF EVEN MORE AND BECOME MORE UNHEALTHY.

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD HAVE INDICATED PRECISELY WHAT PAGE OF ARISTOTLE YOU WERE LOOKING AT. THAT WAY I MIGHT BETTER UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF YOUR QUESTION. TRY THAT NEXT TIME.

Which one would Aristotle classify as a "decent" person?

A. Someone who is a "stickler" for justice.

B. Someone who is more lenient and considers the whole society.

C. Both. 

C

Aristotle has defined justice in chapter 5 as the mean between doing injustice and suffering injustice. He also goes on about reciprocity, and the importance of currency so that a farmer's product and a shoemaker's product can both be measured equally by some "pledge of need" that is money. Is it then unjust to sell a product for more than it is worth for the sake of generating some profit? If somebody were to buy something overpriced, then surely the scale of reciprocity tips in favor of the seller. Is the buyer experiencing injustice? Is the seller doing injustice?

BUT TO YOUR QUESTION: ARISTOTLE HAS A SENSE OF FAIRNESS IN EXCHANGE. THE FARMER IS PERMITTED TO MAKE A PROFIT SO HE CAN FEED HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY AND PERHAPS EVEN THROUGH HARD WORK EXPAND HIS BUSINESS AND TAKE A VACATION.

HIS DISCUSSION ABOUT MONEY IN JUSTICE IN EXCHANGE CONCERNS FAIR EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

TODAY WE EVEN HAVE LAWS ABOUT GAUGING CUSTOMERS IN TIMES OF DISASTERS.

REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID AND APPLY IT HERE: JUSTICE CAN BE SEEN AS A MEAN BETWEEN DOING INJUSTICE AND SUFFERING IT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE VICIOUS EXTREMES.

Aristotle says that the lawless are unjust and the lawful are just. And that this must mean the what is lawful, is also just. If this is true, then abortion in this country is just. And that the people who receive them are just because they are within the confines of the law. However, the catholic just does not feel the same way. I have been taught that the church disagrees with any form of abortion.  My question is in the case of abortion, how do we determine who is just? Because the "law" is different from entity to entity. The church believes it is unjust, yet the law in country suggests it is just.

THIS COUNTRY ONCE HAD RACIST LAWS THOUGH THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT ALL ARE BORN EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.

THE COUNTRY WAS MAKING LAWS AND ACTING ON LAWS CONTRARY TO ITS OWN LAWS AND PRINCIPLES BECAUSE OF RACISM.

RACISM WAS WRONG AND MORALLY UNLAWFUL AND IT WAS ALSO EVENTUALLY FOUND CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE.

IN THIS COUNTRY THE MORAL LAWS OF A RELIGION ARE NOT IMPOSED ON ALL THE CITIZENS. ABORTION IS LAWFUL IN THIS COUNTRY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OFTEN HOLDS THAT THIS IS MORLLY WRONG AND THAT THIS LAW SHOULD CHANGE. BUT THE CHURCH DOES NOT ENCOURAGE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT NOR VIOLENCE AGAINST CITIZENS WHO HOLD VIEWS THAT THE CHURCH OPPOSES. 

LEGALLY ABORTION IS A RIGHT UNDER LAW AND TO DENY A PERSON'S RIGHT IS A LEGAL INJUSTICE.

WHEN YOU SAY, "WHO IS JUST?" YOU NEED TO SPECIFY WHETHER YOU MEAN MORLLY JUST OR LEGALLY JUST UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO WORK THROUGH?

"For someone might lie with a woman and know who she is, but the principle might be feelings rather than decision. In that case he is not unjust though he does injustice-not a thief, or instance, though he stole, not an adulterer though he committed adultery, and so on in the other cases." How can a person not be unjust even if he clearly is doing injustice such as stealing or committing adultery?

VIRTUE AND VICE HAVE TO DO WITH HABITUAL AND CONSISTENT BEHAVIOR BECAUSE VIRTUE IS NOT AN ACTION OR TWO ACTIONS BUT A DEEP-SEATED DISPOSITION OR STATE. KEEP THAT IN MIND.

SO A PERSON DOES NOT BECOME VICIOUS BY ONE BAD ACT AND A PERSON DOES NOT BECOME VIRTUOUS BY ONE GOOD ACT. A STATE OF CHARACTER HAS TO BE CONDITIONED BY CONSISTENT LONG TERM BEHAVIOR. PEOPLE WHO ARE USUALLY VIRTIOUS OCCASIONALLY SLIP UP.

NOW HERE IS A QUESTION FOR YOU: IF A PERSON STEALS ONCE, THAT PERSON IS A THIEF, RIGHT? THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A THIEF, A PERSON WHO HAS STOLEN SOMETHING. THE SAME GOES FOR LIAR, SINCE THAT IS A PERSON WHO HAS LIED. WOULD YOU SAY ALL THE PEOPLE IN OUR CLASS ARE LIARS AND THIEVES IF THEY HAVE ONCE IN THEIR LIFETIME STOLEN A COOKIE AND ANOTHER TIME TOLD A SMALL LIKE JUST ONCE IN A LIFETIME? ARE WE A CLASS OF LIARS AND THIEVES?

HOW IS MY QUESTION RELEVANT TO YOUR QUESTION?

According to Aristotle, distributive justice deals with the gain of goods, such as wealth, proportional to one's merit.

NO, NOT ACCORDING TO ONE’S MERIT.

This leaves no room for excess or deficiency. However, he also states that commerce could be compared to assault in the way that both involve one gaining an unfair advantage over another.

JUSTICE IN DISTRIBUTION AND JUSTICE IN EXCHANGE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THIGNS IN ARISTOTLE. READ THE TEXT AGAIN TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE. WITHOUT SEEING THE DIFFERENCE YOUR QUESTION WILL NOT WORK THE WAY YOU PORTEND.

In today's world capitalism rules commerce and has created many billionares who could be considered to be living in excess. Aristotle states that greed is the result of wanting more than one's own share, which is an injustice. Are today's billionaires living unjustly because of their excess amounts of money?

YOU TELL ME BASED ON YOUR READING OF ARISTOTLE AND HIS DISCUSSION OF JUSTICE.

What would Aristotle have to say about today's capitalistic system?

HARD TO SAY IN A FEW WORDS. SEE ME DURING OFFICE HOURS IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT AND THE VARIOUS ALTERNATE RESPONSES POSSIBLE.

is it possible to be a decent person and make unjust decisions in a community that doesn't consider your actions unjust, or don your actions have to be considered universally just?

WHAT DEFINITION OF 'DECENT PERSON' ARE YOU USING?

FOR ARISTOTLE IN HIS DEFINITION TOWARD THE END OF THE DISCUSSION OF JUSTICE, YOUR QUESTION IS NOT POSSIBLE SINCE BY DEFINITION A DECENT PERSON IS JUST, EVEN BETTER THAN JUST OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.

Aristotle claims that it is impossible to willingly do an injustice to oneself, but what about, for example, suicide bombers or child soldiers?  Since in most cases, they are raised radically from a young age and are basically brainwashed into willingly harming themselves.  On the contrary, it could be said that suicide bombers and child soldiers are praised and honored for their violent actions by the radical community they grew up in, so they could actually be doing themselves a justice, but is it not possible that they are knowingly doing themselves an injustice because they think of themselves as inferior to some higher power?

JUSTICE IS A SOCIAL VIRTUE AND CONCERNS FAIRNESS AMONG 2 OR MORE PEOPLE. WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT SUICIDE?

WE KNOW IT IS A FACT THAT SOME THINK THEMSELVES TO BE DOING A DUTY TO GOD WHICH WILL RESULT IN A GOOD FOR THEM IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD.

"But the unfair is not the same as the lawless; it is related to it as part to whole, since whatever is unfair is lawless, but not everything lawless is unfair." Do you agree with the last part of this statement from Aristotle that not everything lawless is unfair? If so, give proof for your opinion and if not, give counter-examples. 

NOT EVERYTHING IS GOVERNED BY LAW.

THE QUESTIONS ARE NOT TEST QUESTIONS BUT QUESTIONS ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF A CHALLENGING TEXT. 

BUT GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE YOUR ANSWER TO THE LAST PART AND SEND IT TO ME AND WE CAN THEM DISCUSS IT DURING OFFICE HOURS IF YOU LIKE.

On page 68, there is an example of lawful and unlawful person.  When explaining this scenario they talk about justice in legal ways.  Can justice that comes from legislative laws and justice concerned with being a virtue and living a virtuous life (pg. 69) be correlated?  Is being an unjust person in life but a just person in following legal rules happen? Or is being a just person a combined form.

YES, USUALLY CIVIL LAW COMES ABOUT BECAUSE OF A DESIRE FOR GOOD BENEFICIAL MORAL ACTIONS.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THIS QUESTION:

Is being an unjust person in life but a just person in following legal rules happen?

CIVIL LAW AND MORAL LAW ARE NOT THE SAME THING. WE CAN HOLD PERSONAL MORAL BELIEFS AS MORAL LAWS RIGHT FOR ALL HUMANS WITHOUT OUR POLITICIANS MAKING THEM INTO CIVIL LAWS.

UNDER CIVIL LAW ( CALL IT JUSTICE 1) PERSONS WHO OBEY THE LAW AND SUPPORT ITS USE IN SOCIETY ARE PERSONS IN ACCORD WITH CIVIL JUSTICE. IN OUR COUNTRY ELECTIVE ABORTION IS A RIGHT UNDER CIVIL LAW BUT SOME PEOPLE HOLD THAT THIS CIVIL LAWFUL RIGHT IS MORALLY WRONG AS CONTRARY TO MORAL LAW. 

If justice is not always and eye for an eye, how can one know when justice has been served. If this rectification justice allows for just exchanges, who decides how things are valued and what is just for the individuals involved?

IF SOMEONE GOES THROUGH A RED LIGHT AND HITS YOUR CAR, WHO DECIDES WHICH PERSON WAS AT FAULT? CLEARLY, IF IT GOES TO COURT, THE COURT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES. AND THE JUDGE DECIDES WHEN JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED.

IT IS SIMILAR IN OTHER CASES. THE EXPERT WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE DECIDES ON THE VALUE OF THE ITEM AND WHAT IS JUSTLY TO BE PAID TO THE VICTIM OF THE AUTO ACCIDENT FOR REPAIR OF HER CAR.

Aristotle believes that in order to hold true justice the agent must be virtuous. Can someone who is defined as virtuous then never be unjust? Let's say someone who is usually virtuous commits the same crime that someone whom is not virtuous. Is the punishment/penalty the same, or because the virtuous person is "better" their penalty is lessened? Does it depend on the crime? 

CORRECT. THE PERFECTLY VIRTUOUS PERSON CAN NEVER BE UNJUST. THAT IS THE MEANING OF PERFECTLY VIRTUOUS.

IN THE CASE YOU GIVE, THE SUPPOSEDLY VIRTUOUS PERSON PROVES TO BE IMPERFECT AND ONLY SOMEWHAT VIRTUOUS, NOT PERFECTLY SO. THIS IS THE INCONTINENT PERSON WE WILL DISCUSS ON THURSDAY.

ARISTOTLE SAYS THAT INCONTINENCE IS WEAKNESS BUT IT IS BETTER THAN TO BE THE VICIOUS PERSON WHO IS IN CONTROL AND DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY CHOOSES TO BE VICIOUSLY IMMORAL. THE INCONTINENT PERSON THEN IS LESS BAD THAN THE VICIOUS PERSON WHO IS THE WORST.

According to Aristotle, "the unjust is divided into the lawless and the unfair, and the just into the lawful and fair." However, isn't justice up to one's perception at times? Can't one who thinks they are being just, and as a result lawful, actually be viewed as unjust to someone else? (example: some think the death penalty is a just punishment for murder; however others think it is unjust)

NO, JUSTICE IS NOT PERCEPTION. THERE ARE COURTS TO DECIDE THE OBJECTIVE REALITY OF JUSTICE AND THE COURTS USE KNOWLEDGE AND INVESTIGATION. THEY DO NOT USE JUST IMMEDIATE SENSE PERCEPTION. THESE ARE NOT MATTERS OF SIMPLE OPINION.

IF SOMEONE CRASHES INTO YOUR CAR BY GOING THROUGH A RED LIGHT, IS THIS JUST PERCEPTION AND WHATEVER THE PERSON THINKS OR WANTS IT TO BE? 

In Book V of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle talks mainly regarding justice. He defines one aspect of justice as something (goods, money, etc.) that can be divided whereas an individual’s gain is equivalent to another individual’s loss. He argues justice must be distributed proportionately, meaning the objects must be equal in value. To whose standards does the value suffice? Does Aristotle have a universal merit to which all things are measured against or is it left to the individuals themselves to determine the worth of the objects?

I REGRET TO HAVE TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ THE MATERIAL CAREFULLY ENOUGH BECAUSE YOU ARE CONFUSING THE SENSES OF THE NOTION OF JUSTICE AS DISCUSSED BY ARISTOTLE. YOU MADE AN EFFORT BUT YOU REALLY MUST GO BACK AND READ MORE CAREFULLY. I WILL DISCUSS THE SENSES OF JUSTICE IN CLASS TOMORROW.

Student Questions 7 September 2015

In the reading, Aristotle says on page 31 "It is sometimes difficult, however, to judge what [goods] should be chosen at the price of what [evils], and what [evils] should be endured as the price of what [goods]." Given that quote, does Aristotle believe that you can remain morally virtuous even if you perform an evil act? Or is the act of doing something evil change that? How would this affect the eternal "good" of your life?

EXCELLENT QUESTION. THE SENSE OF IT IS THAT WE SOMETIMES HAVE TO ENDURE UNPLEASANT THINGS FOR THE SAKE OF GOOD THINGS. THIS IS WHAT THE PHRASE, NECESSARY EVILS, DESCRIBES. HARD WORK IN TRAINING (IN ANY AREA OF THOUGHT, EXERCISE OR OTHER THINGS) IS A NECESSARY EVIL FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF EXCELLENCE. OF COURSE, SOMETIMES IN LIFE PEOPLE DECIDE TO DO EVILS TO GET SOMETHING WANTED, SO THE ROBBER WHO WANTS MONEY GETS IT BY THE EVIL MEANS OF PULLING A GUN OR THE LIKE.

Aristotle explains that some may may appear to have the disposition of bravery/courage but actually do not. What does it take for one to virtuously be brave? How can we truly define if someone has a virtuous disposition or if they only appear to have it?

TO BE BRAVE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT DISPOSITION. YOU HAVE TO DO THE BRAVE ACT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS FOR IT REALLY TO BE A MATTER OF BRAVERY. THIS IS WHAT HE HAS IN MIND. OF COURSE, SOMETIMES WE CAN BE DECEIVED WHEN SOMEONE SEEMS TO BE DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE RIGHT REASON BUT INSTEAD IS DOING IT FOR MONEY OR POWER OR PLEASURE. FOR A GOOD JUDGEMENT ON WHETHER SOMEONE IS BRAVE, WE NEED TO KNOW ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES. SOMEONE COULD BE FAKING IT TO LOOK GOOD TO OTHERS.

Does Aristotle's stance on distinguishing what seems to be good and what actually is good hold up in today's world or is it outdated?

YEP, IT DOES IN MANY CASES. BUT, ALAS, IT DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK THAT WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TWIZZLERS I BROUGHT TO CLASS SEEM GOOD AND SEEM TO HAVE STRAWBERRY IN THEM BUT IN FACT THEY DO NOT HAVE STRAWBERRY AND THEY ARE NOT GOOD AS A REGULARLY CONSUMED FOOD.  SO HOW DO WE KNOW? WE INVESTIGATE. WE READ THE LABEL BEFORE BUYING SOMETHING. WE USE OUR ABILITIES TO THINK AND TO JUDGE RIGHTLY AND DON’T JUST JUMP INTO DOING SOMETHING ASSUMING WE HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE.

How is wishing for something impossible different than wishing for something unachievable through our own agency? If wishing for the end of something and decide on things that promote that end, doesn't that make the wish achievable on our own? Or is this trying to take into account the things we cannot control as well as the things we can control? Is he saying that when we are wishing to be happy, we are really wishing for things that we know will make us happy not the actually happiness itself? 

IT IS ONE THING TO WISH TO WALK ON THE SUN AND ANOTHER THING TO WISH TO FLY. THE FIRST ARE CANNOT DO. THE SECOND WE CANNOT DO WITHOUT AN AIRPLANE.

When reading about involuntary and voluntary ignorance, there is the question of after feelings of guilt and repentance. When seeing a homeless guy in pain on the street and knowing the right thing would be to help him but possibly fearing him and so therefore not helping the homeless. Although you had the intention, would this be considered voluntary or involuntary because you are guilty you didn’t ask if they were okay but also feared for your safety.

ARISTOTLE THINKS THAT CERTAIN NONVOLUNTARY ACTS CAN INDICATE SOMETHING ABOUT THE PERSON’S CHARACTER EVEN IF THE ACT OR EVENT THAT HAPPENS WAS NOT CAUSED BY HIS OWN VOLUNTARY ACTION. IF SOMEONE HITS AND KILLS A CHILD WITH HER CAR, SHE SHOULD FEEL REGRET EVEN IF SHE WAS NOT AT FAULT. THE HITTING OF THE CHILD WAS NONVOLUNTARY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SHOW PROPER HUMAN REGRET THAT SHE WAS AN AGENT IN THE KILLING OF A CHILD. THAT IS WHAT HE HAS IN MIND.

IN YOUR EXAMPLE, THE PERSON DID NOT HELP THE HOMELESS PERSON IN PAIN BECAUSE OF A FEAR FOR PERSONAL SAFETY. THE ACTION WAS VOLUNTARY AND CLEARLY CHOSEN. IN THIS MIXED CASE, THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO CALL 911 FOR PROFESSIONAL HELP. BUT THE PERSON’S ACTION WAS NOT INVOLUNTARY.

In Book III Chapter 5, Aristotle defines a clear connection between character and virtue. He states that “we are…jointly responsible for our states of character, and the sort of character we have determines the sort of end we lay down.” As such, he concludes that that virtues “are up to us and are voluntary.” In Book IV Chapter VIII, Aristotle defines wit as a virtue and a mean between boorishness and buffoonery. He says that witty jokes are “movements of someone’s character.” If virtues and states of character are voluntary, and wit is a part of one’s character, then one can assume that Aristotle attributes wit to being a voluntary virtue.

YES

However, this conclusion prompts the questions: Can someone actually, voluntarily decide to be witty,

YES, WE CAN PRACTICE AT  TELLING JOKES

or are people born to be what Aristotle describes as “agile-witted?”

SOME PEOPLE HAVE MORE OF A NATURAL TALENT FOR IT THAN OTHERS.

If someone lacks a predisposition to wit, is that really a dilemma of the ethical?

IT WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT SOCIAL INTERACTIONI WITH OTHERS. THAT PERSON IS BOORISH.

Is the function of a human being any less fine if they are prone to solemnity rather than comedy?

YES, ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE. THIS PERSON NEVER GETS A JOKE, NEVER SEES ANYTHING TO BE HUMOROUS. BUT BEING HUMOROUS OR ‘GETTING IT’ WHEN SOMEONE TELLS A JOKE, IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF OURSELVES AS EXCELLENT INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIAL BEINGS.

Since nothing is wished for by nature, do we have the same idea of happiness, at a young age, that eventually gets changed by nature as we get older in the material world?

YES, ONCE WE LEARN WHAT REAL HAPPINESS IS (NOT JUST PLEASURE OR TEMPORARY FUN), WE CAN DELIBERATE ABOUT HOW TO ACHIEVE IT.

Aristotle explains that when a person has acquired a specific characteristic that "he is no longer free not to have it" (p. 38). Does this mean that a person can never change? Can a bad person never be a good person because they were once bad?

ARISTOTLE THINKS THAT IF SOMEONE IS VICIOUS IN THE FULLEST SENSE OF THE TERM, THAT PERSON CANNOT CHANGE.

Aristotle argues that ignorance can only excuse particular cases of certain behavior and we have discussed in class why ignorance is not indeed bliss. To what extent does Aristotle hold humans responsible for their ignorance? Can a child be virtuous in the state of their ignorance?

IF I WANT TO DRIVE DOWN WISCONSIN AVENUE AND I WANT TO DO IT WITH A BLINDFOLD ON, I WILL NOT SEE THE PEOPLE I HIT. BUT THAT IGNORANCE IS MY FAULT. IF I TRAVEL TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY BUT REFUSE TO LEARN ABOUT LAWS THERE, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY IGNORANCE.  IF I REFUSE TO READ TRAFFIC SIGNS HERE IN THE US, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN IGNORANCE.

A CHILD CANNOT BE VIRTUOUS BUT ONLY ON THE WAY TOWARD IT. REAL VIRTUE REQUIRES ONE BE AN ADULT AND FULLY ABLE TO CONTROL WANTS AND DESIRES IF ONE WISHES. CHILDREN OFTEN CANNOT CONTROL THEIR EMOTIONS, WANTS AND DESIRES AND ARE CONTROLLED BY THOSE INSTEAD.

Aristotle talks a lot about bravery as it pertains to death. He notes that someone who enters into war is very brave because the danger of death is so large and right in your face at all times of battle. Would someone still be brave if they chose a less dangerous occupation that still was put at risk of death at all times, such as being a police officer? How do we, or how does Aristotle, measure bravery?

YES, AT TIMES A POLICE OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO BE BRAVE. THAT IS IN THEIR TRAINING TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT VIOLENT ACTIONS IN PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IT.

TO MEASUE IT WE HAVE TO KNOW THE MIND AND EMOTIONAL STATE OF THE PERSON AND MUCH MORE. IT IS NOT SIMPLY BY LOOKING FROM A DISTANCE.

If, "it is not right to say that action caused by spirit or appetite is involuntary" then how can those actions be justified? For example, if someone sleep talks talking poorly about someone they love but they wake up and don't remember and feel terrible because that's not how they feel, how can that be justified as voluntary? 

BY SPIRIT ARISTOTLE IS REFERRING TO PLATO’S DISCUSSION IN THE REPUBLIC CONCERNING THE EMOTIONAL PART OF THE SOUL (THAT EXPRESSES ANGER, INTENSE LOVE OR DESIRE, AND OTHER STRONG EMOTIONS THAT WE SOMETIMES LET CONTROL OUR BEHAVIOR). BY APPETITE HE MEANS THE DESIRING PART FOR BASIC THINGS SUCH AS FOOD. YOU CANNOT SAY, THE ICE CREAM CONTROLLED ME BECAUSE I WANTED IT SO MUCH THAT I BECAME INVOLUNTARY AND COULD NOT RESIST IT. AS HUMANS, WE ARE IN CONTROL OF OURSELVES AND RESPONSIBLE FOR WHETHER WE FULFILL OUR APPETITES OR RESTRAIN OURSELVES FOR REASONS OF HEALTH.

If some one were to act cowardly in an voluntary way would we consider that action to be of lesser moral virtue than someone that seems to act cowardly in a voluntary, but different way?

WHAT IS THIS  ‘DIFFERENT WAY’? I CANNOT RESPOND SINCE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

Or would they both be considered at the same level of moral virtue? Say a soldier abandons a post in battle for fear of life. Compare this soldier’s actions to another soldier that also abandoned a post in battle, but for fear of their child's life (life with a parent), would this second soldier's actions be deemed of more moral virtue? Possibly one could argue that the second soldier was being brave.

IN NEITHER CASE IS THERE BRAVERY. BRAVERY MEANS TO STAND UP IN TIMES OF DIFFICULTY AND TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT. THE PERSON WITH THE CHILD WAS PERHAPS WISE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD BUT S/HE WAS NOT STANDING UP TO A SITUATION DANGEROUS TO HIM/HERSELF. THE DEFINITION DOES NOT FIT THE TWO CASES YOU PROVIDE.

In Book III, Chapter 1, Aristotle makes a distinction between actions caused by ignorance and actions done in ignorance. Which action is classified as a voluntary action? Which action is classified as an involuntary action? What must you know in order for an action to be considered involuntary? 

ACTIONS DONE IN IGNORANCE CAN  BE VOLUNTARY IF WE PUT OURSELVES IN THE STATE OF IGNORANCE. TO CHOOSE TO DRIVE WITH A BLINDFOLD ON OR WHILE DRUNK (THROUGH ONE’S OWN VOLUNTARY DRINKING) IS TO CHOOSE TO PUT OURSELVES IN A STATE OF IGNORANCE.

ACTIONS CAUSED BY IGNORANCE WHICH IGNORANCE IS NOT OUR OWN FAULT CAN BE INVOLUNTARY.

ARISTOTLE SAYS IT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS OR PARTICULARS OF A SITUATION.

According to Aristotle, "Certainly, they choose what is pleasant because they assume it is good, and avoid pain because they assume it is evil."

THIS IS COMMON TO HUMANS BUT MANY TIMES FALSE.

In other cases, are there those that choose what is unpleasant because they assume or were taught it was good?

YES, YOUNG MEN DEALING DRUGS FOR MONEY.

What if someone who was considered "excellent" chooses something incorrectly once, does this no longer make him excellent?

A PERSON IS JUDGED VIRTIOUS BECAUSE S/HE ALWAS MAKES THE RIGHT CHOICE. IF ONE FAILS ONCE, ONE DOES NOT BECOME VICIOUS. RATHER, THE PERSON WHO FAILS OR FAILS OCCASIONALLY IS CALLED INCONTINENT.

Or can a person who is excellent make an unjust decision and still be excellent?

NO.

If duress and ignorance does not make an action involuntary, then what makes an action to be involuntary? THESE: FORCE, THE ACTION IS NOT UP TO YOU, AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTICULARS, THAT IS, NOT REALLY KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. THESE MAKE IT INVOLUNTARY.

What makes something right to be afraid of and wrong to be afraid of? How can a coward be afraid of the wrong things if you don't know what the wrong things are?

BE AFRAID OF TIGERS WHO ARE ABLE TO REACH OR TOUCH YOU. THAT IS A RIGHT THING TO BE AFRAID OF. ALSO BE AFRAID OF HEROIN.

THESE ARE PROVEN BAD THINGS FOR HUMANS.

WE ARE CLEARLY ABLE IN MANY CASES TO KNOW WHAT TO FEAR.

BUT IF THERE IS MORE TO YOUR QUESTION, SEE ME DURING OFFICE HOURS.

. . . . .

Why does Aristotle assume that it is in our power not to be ignorant?

SIMPLY BECAUSE HUMAN BEINGS ARE LEARNING ANIMALS AND VERY GOOD AT IT, MORE SO THAT OTHER ANIMALS.

Why are we punished if we do things in the wrong way although we were ignorants and we had not done it voluntarily wicked?

SOMETIMES WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT LEARNING, FOR KEEPING OURSELVES IGNORANT. THE POLICE OFFICE GIVES YOU A TICKET EVEN IF YOU SAY, BUT I WAS SO DRUNK I COULD NOT READ THE SIGN.

Why cannont a young man with practical wisdom be found?

IT TAKES EXPERIENCE OVER YEARS AND MANY SITUATIONS.

Can an old man with no practical wisdom be found?

YES, HE IS A STUPID NEGLIGENT OLD MAN WHO SHOULD HAVE DONE BETTER WITH HIS LIFE BY USING AND DEVELOPING HIS INTELIGENCE.

Is it just the years what makes you acquire experience or can a young man have experienced more things in his life which will give him more practical wisdom than an old man?

IT TAKES YEARS FOR EXPERIENCE BUT SOME PEOPLE LEARN QUICKLY AND SOME SLOWLY OR NEVER. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF YEARS ONLY BUT OF SERIOUSNESS ABOUT THE MEANING AND VALUE OF LIFE.

In Book III, Aristotle speaks plenty of intemperate people who delve into the excess in terms of bodily pleasures, most notably the acts of consumption and sex. However, he does little to elaborate on the opposite side of the spectrum containing those push their bodies past a state that would be considered intermediate and temperate. Take for example a person with anorexia, in a way they may be experiencing the pain of forgoing their natural appetite in favor of the ultimately greater pleasure of a slimmer physique.

THE MODEL WHO ABUSES HIS/HER BODY TO BE THIN IS TOO MUCH CONSUMED BY IMAGE AND DOES NOT TAKE PROPER CARE OF HIM/HERSELF. THIS PERSON CHOOSES BADLY.

THIS IS SELF ABUSE.

Or take a body builder who pushes their body past what would be considered natural or healthy.

AGAIN, SELF ABUSE.

Aristotle says that a temperate person likes these pleasures "As correct reason prescribes", but who is to say what "correct reason" entails?

IN FOOD, NUTRITION AND HEALTH, IT IS YOUR WELL TRAINED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE DOCTOR. SO TOO IN OTHER AREAS THERE ARE EDUCATED AND TRAINED PROFESSIONALS.

In a society that glorifies slim women and muscular men, is it intemperate to pursue these goals?

YES. BUT IT IS MORE COMPLICATED BECAUSE SOCIETY DETERMINES FOR EACH CULTURE JUST WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES FOR HUMANS.

Would these actions not fall under the scope of temperance given that the satisfaction is more mental than physical "touch"?

I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE LAST PART OF THE QUESTION, BUT GENERALLY THIS IS A MATTER OF TEMPERANCE, YES.

When Aristotle discusses bravery he mentions "for fear of some bad things, such as bad reputation, is actually right and fine", so he explains that fear of a bad reputation is actually in the right for a brave person.  

WE SHOULD FEAR TO BE DESERVING OF A BAD REPUTATION.

So is it not possible to be considered brave for not fearing a bad reputation?  

IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION AND CULTURE. 50 YEARS AGO IN THE U.S. CAITLYN WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED HONORABLE OR COURAGEOUS.

Take for example, the awarding of the Arthur Ash Courage Award to Caitlyn Jenner, and accept that now in days the two words courage and bravery are often used interchangeably.  Would Aristotle agree that she should have been given the award?

ARISTOTLE IN HIS DAY WOULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS AT ALL, AS I SEE IT.

Aristotle wrote that it even in cases of extreme duress individuals are not excused from the responsibilities of their actions. Are there any exceptions made to this idea such as life or death matters?

YES, IN CASES OF EXTREME FORCE BUT STILL THESE ARE COMPLICATED. IF SOMEONE HOLDS A GUN TO MY HEAD AND TELLS ME I MUST USE ANOTHER GUN TO KILL A CHILD OR HE WILL KILL ME, ARISTOTLE WOULD MIGHT SAY THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE KILLED RATHER THAN TO PERMIT OURSELVES TO MURDER A CHILD. ARISTOTLE IS PRETTY TOUGH ON THE ISSUE OF RESPONSIBILTY.

Aristotle believes that we find something painful if we are forced to do it,

YES, WE PREFER TO BE FREE TO ACT AND RESENT COMPULSION.

however what about things such as eating vegetables? Could they potentially bring us pain in the moment but pleasure in the end?

THAT IS WHAT PARENTS ACROSS THE WORLD TEACH TO DIFFICULT CHILDREN.

Or since the original act was considered painful would the whole thing be considered painful? PERHAPS UNTIL THE CHILD GETS USED TO DOING WHAT IS RIGHT.

Aristotle highlights THAT we follow a process before making an action. Deliberation is initial, as it directs towards means in which the answer is not always the obvious one.

DELIBERATION IS NOT FIRST. FIRST WE HAVE TO HAVE REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION AND POSSIBLE FORMS OF ACTION. WHEN WE HAVE THAT, WE CAN PROCEED TO DELIBERATION ABOUT WHAT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS FOR US TO TAKE.

He also argues that our choices hold the greatest moral good.

THEY CAN IF WE CHOOSE RIGHTLY.

Choices are ideal, because unlike acting upon something, a choice is always a singular action, a voluntary decision. If an individual is unsure of a situation and relies upon their instinct instead of deliberation as Aristotle suggests, can the choice still be considered a good?

NOT REALLY. RATHER, IT IS LUCKY OR UNLUCKY. IT IS SIMILAR TO NOT KNOWING WHAT EXIT TO TAKE TO LEAVE THE HIGHWAY AND CHOOSING ONE EXIT RATHER THAN ANOTHER WHEN YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE WHICH ONE IS THE CORRECT ONE. LUCKY OR UNLUCKY.