?????????

Discussion Questions

6 December 2018

1. 1)Donagon says many times rational nature is not to be produce but is self existent— I’m having trouble understanding this, as I am under the impression that you can learn how to be rational and rationalized; how is it not produced? 
   

2. 2)On page 239 Donagan says "esteem is proportional to success". This doesn't seem right because someone can be very successful and have little self-esteem or have high self-esteem and not succeed in something. Why is it that esteem and success are related at all? Can't the two be independent of one another?
   

3. 3)On page 231, Donagan discusses the difference between human beings and brute animals. Could you provide some more clarification on the distinction between humans and animals as moral beings? How do other philosophers look at this topic? 
   

4. 4)How would Donagan apply his ideas about killing/murder to that of capital punishment? Because this is not directly in defense of a human life, would this be considered murder by him? 
   

5. 5)Donagan agrees with Kant that humans are an end, and never a means, because of rational nature and respect. My question is does Utilitarianism view humans always as an end as well, or can they be seen as means. Utilitarianism is an opposite of Kant and Donagan, in regards to means and ends, so does that opposing stance extend to humans?
   

6. 6)Kant believes rational nature exists as an end. With this, Kant expresses that an individual should never be used as a mean and always must be treated as an end. Is Kant saying that humans must respect other humans because they are rational creatures?
   

7. 7)What is the human condition and how does one reject it? On the last page it says that it may take the form of rebellion or "of treating the task of respecting every rational creature as such as an impossible one". Is this saying that rejecting the human condition is rejecting the fact that everyone is a rational creature that should be respected and acting out against it?
   

8. 8)In this section Donagan says, "The theory of traditional morality is inevitably moralistic; and that distracts attention from the fact that its foundation is not moralistic at all" (240). What does he mean here by moralistic? In the context of what follows in his explanation, it seems as if 'moralistic' refers to the idea of attributing value to beings that act morally. Is this an incorrect understanding of what he is trying to say?
   

Moreover, regarding the explanation that follows Nietzche's views on this topic, is Donagan saying that while traditional Christian morality recognizes the inherent value and worthiness of respect of all rational beings, while Nietzche, in contrast, resented this idea of respect and only saw respect as a value which man confers on something by choice?

9. 9)At the bottom of 239, Donagan says that esteem is proportional to success. Isn't the definition of success different for every person? Some people might not view having a high self-esteem as being successful. How does esteem effect success?
   

10. 10) While reading Donagan in section 7.5 when he talks about how: “Although, in extorting services from their slaves, they show that they need them, they themselves recognize no rational purpose in their extortions,” (Page 241). I do no understand the second part of this question, because isn’t their rational purpose for having slaves is for profit? Depending on one’s culture/ upbringing couldn’t the slave owner view this situation as rational? Would this transfer to modern times of a business owner?
    

4 December 2018

1. 1)Donagan had said that the theory of the double effect becomes controversial when situations where the actions of causing the bad effect is held to be impermissible when taken by itself. Does he mean that when situations occurs by themselves can make the effects be impermissible? In which to then makes it a controversial theory?
   

2. 2)On the bottom of page 147, Peter Geach said that some of the major precepts of morality are prohibition of murder, stealing and lying, which are exceptionless. Aren't there some situations where you have to lie to make someone feel better? And can't you sometimes steal something without realizing it? Such as, taking a pen from someone without realizing it. If the person didn't notice and you didn't have the intention or even realization you stole it is it okay?
   

3. 3)Donagan in this chapter uses the example of a physician and it's putting themselves at risk to get the infection that they are treating. Is this not the concept of the greater good for greatest many? Because a physician may treat and cure very many people before catching the disease if they catch it all?
   

4. 4)In simple terms, does "perplexity simpliciter" refer to the idea that that the specific structure of a moral system can result in its own inconsistency through situations in which two precepts end up contradicting each other, thus leaving a person with no choice but to do wrong? And is Donagan's conclusion that a moral system can indeed be consistent, or that it cannot?
   

5. 5)Could you further explain "secundum quid"? 
   

On page 152, the quote is " it is possible, I breaking one more prohibition, two entangle yourself in a situation in which, whatever you do, you must break another: that is, in which you are perplexed secundum Quid. Can come and morality provide consistent country – to – duty prescriptions for such cases?“ 

6. 6)While reading Donagan, in section 5.2 he states: “A fundamental principle which categorically forbids violating the respect owed to human beings as rational must condemn any plan for promoting human well-being by which that respect would be violated,” (Page 154). My question that rises while reading this is how does this tie into religion? Depending on one’s culture and religion, a certain action can violate another’s well-being. (i.e. One’s religious/ cultural traditions/ ceremonies.)
   

7. 7)Throughout chapter 5, Donagan explains different forms of contraceptives/abortions and the morality of each form. It seems as though there were a few instances in which a contraceptive or an abortion is okay morally. However, at the very end of the chapter, it says that abortion is "not a possible solution of Malthusian problems within common morality". Does this mean that he is saying abortion is not morally right in any situation or it is just not a morally right solution for Malthusian problems?
   

8. 8)It is said that it "is impermissible for one man not to go to the help of another in serious distress, when it is in his power,"
   

In moral aspects, I believe in this concept, however, what is the circumstances are blurred? What if, in the circumstance of a murderer being hunted by a vengeful vigilante, would this case still stand? Say, you are watching the chase and you know you can prevent the murder of the murderer, would it still be your moral duty?

9) How can one take the life of some living being without their approval? It is just a brutal as murder by taking the life of an unborn child, when it has the right to life, as it was created by God.

28 November

1. 1)Donogan says actions are intentional if they are contemplated against. How can we know what people think? How can we truly determine responsibility? 
   

2. 2)Donogan elaborates about the theory of synderesis that directs humans to do good and be restrained from evil. If human beings still commit evil acts, is synderesis then a failed principle?
   

3. 3)I'm confused by the end of the second paragraph on page 118 because Donagan said a man is not an agent and isn't capable of voluntary actions. Aren't all humans agents and capable of their own independent actions that they control?
   

4. 4)Donagan is saying that we are to blame if we were negligent voluntarily. He is also saying that we are to blame for any wrong doings that were not voluntarily because our ignorance is to blame. Regardless, he seems to say that we must take responsibility aware or not aware. But what if, for example, I were to go out to eat and somehow the food that was cooked for me altered my state of mind, which then caused me to perform some act of maleficence, then how am I to blame when I didn't know something was possibly put into the food?
   

5. 5)Donagan argues that it is immoral to attempt or plan disrespectful acts against humans, even if the plan established failed. In Donogans view, would thinking about inflicting damage on an individual still be considered immoral/impermissible, although there was no plan set in action? In addition, if this harmful action was to inflict harm on oneself, is that still considered impermissible? 
   

6. 6)On page 129, it says "Such acts are not culpable, because they are not voluntary; and so the doer's culpability is a matter of his for their cause. Was his madness, or his intoxication, or his rage, voluntary?" Does this mean that the person would not have complete control? What about a doers intentions- are those not considered? 
   

7. 7)Is Donagan's ignorance the same as Aristotle's incontinence? Donagan explains that a person cannot be culpable for an act if they are ignorant about what they are doing and even uses Aristotle's ways of distinguishing when an act may be done ignorantly to prove his argument. This seems like Donagan's belief is the same as Aristotle's belief that a person is not morally responsible for their actions if they are incontinent.
   

8. 8)There is a lot of focus on intention and how it holds all moral responsibility, even if there is a lack of extension. I just wonder if someone can say that a another person is morally responsible for something. If they cant entirely know another person's intentions, could they really have the authority to say if someone is guilty? Can only the person themselves say if they are morally responsible or not? 
   

9. 9)Donagan believes something is voluntary if the person understands exactly what he/she is doing, and can describe it. Intension is the meaning we think our action has and the extension is what happens out in the world.  Donagan seems Kantian in his thinking. Outcome is not all that matters. But say if you know you will injure someone driving home, but you also know you will save someone else's life, what should you do? How do you decide what is morally right? 
   

10. 10) He says, "a motive is not a causal determinant of an action but rather a circumstance because of which a man may take action." I'm not exactly sure what he means by this but it does seem a bit like what we studied before that about definitely the motive having an impact on whether it was good or not? So then would he agree more with Mill on this or with Kant? Would he think if the motive was good then the action was good? because he says the motive is not a causal determinant of the action I think not? but then would he think if the action was good the motive doesn't matter? I'm thinking more towards this but I am not sure. 
    

11. 11)Donagan states that an action without deliberation causes the agent to not be aware of one’s consequences. Is there significance in whether or not the deliberation occurs prior to or after the act has been done- is there a difference in moral capacities or responsibility if one deliberates only after the act is done? 
    

12. 12)Since synderesis is innate, and it also varies in degree for each person, is synderesis something that can be improved upon for a person? When compared to prudence, Aristotle thought prudence took time and effort to develop, does synderesis work similarly in this manner?
    

13. 13)If a man's synderesis can fail (in that the verdicts of his conscience can be defective) how can the rule that "an action done against conscience is always culpable" still hold? (cf. 134-136)
    

14. 14)While reading Chapter 4.3 of The Theory of Ethics, I came upon a question in regard to the military. In the text it states: “he is culpable for any wrong he voluntarily did; and for any wrong he did that was not voluntary, he is culpable in a measure as his ignorance was culpable,” (Pg. 131). What would Donagan believe for one who serves active duty in a war zone? A soldier is voluntarily fighting for his country, unless there is a draft, but what if he takes someone’s life while in a firefight?
    

26 November

1. 1)I'm confused why Donagan says killing oneself is permissible but killing another is not. He said that when someone kills oneself they decide what is right for them and pursue it. If someone is not in a good state mentally can they really decide what is best for themselves and take their own life?
   

2. 2)During WW2 when Nazis were captured they would take a cyanide pill to kill themselves to protect their fellow Nazis.  Would this suicide be permissible? They were protecting the well-being of others (Nazis) but also endangering countless lives through the Holocaust.
   

3. 3)Donogan says  "It is impermissible not to promote the
   

well-being of others by actions in

themselves permissible, inasmuch as one

can do so without proportionate

inconvenience.” p.85.

Does this mean we are to promote the well-being of others over ourselves? What if it id detrimental to our own well-being? Is there a difference between the well-being of a stranger vs. of a close family member? 

4. 4)Donagan says that we must promote the well being of others as that is the principle of beneficence. He also believes that it is permissible to use force on others to defend us rational beings from violence. Does that mean that we are obligated because of beneficence to defend individuals with force when we see violence used towards them?
   

5. 5)Donogan states that there are a series of first order principles that are in correlation with morality. If human institutions, are inherently flawed, how can participation within them count as a principle?
   

6. 6)In the discussion of force and duty there seemed to be a gap between what is not allowed and what should be done. If one is expected to not force anything on someone, is there a duty to prevent anyone else from forcing something on another person? For example, if someone believes that abortion is wrong, is it their duty to prevent abortion?
   

7. 7)How do we know beforehand if a rebellion is just and if it will right the wrongs committed by the civil society? Is this something we can only no after the fact, it seems difficult to be able to accurately predict if the positives of a rebellion outweigh the negatives. 
   

8. 8)It says, "The duties of human beings to others are duties to them as human beings, that is, as rational creatures of a certain kind." Seems very Kant like where it is to respect every human being. This also very much differs from Aristotle because he did not view women or slaves as human or rational creatures. He also states that, "just as it is legitimate to use force on children for purposes for which it would not be legitimate to use it on adults....it is legitimate to use force upon the unborn child." Does this part mean that he agrees with abortion within reason? because he says earlier it is legitimate to use force "to prevent them from harming themselves or others." This seemingly shows that he is open to abortion within reason. This then raises the question as to what exactly he means by harming themselves or others because this could be taken in many different ways. 
   

9. 9)Donagan mentions Kant’s take whay may be deemed permissible in terms of suicide and one’s reasoning - on top of a release from the unbearable, he argues that dehumanization must be partnered with such to be deemed a rational reason for suicide. My question is, would one’s reason be objective or subjective? Say, if suicide were legal, would the government deem what is legal objectively based on presenting of rationale? 
   

10. 10)One of the issues covered in this chapter is the issue of suicide. Donagan concludes that although suicide is generally impermissible, there are certain situations in which it is indeed permissible. He makes a few distinctions, some of which seem to be incorrect. For instance, he confuses martyrdom with suicide. Suicide is the denial of the intrinsic, unconditional value of human life in itself. Martyrdom, on the other hand, is the affirmation of life as an offering to an ideal of good of special significance for that life as such (cf. E. Lugo). This key distinction makes martyrdom permissible and suicide impermissible.
    

Moreover, Donagan claims that suicide is permissible when it is sought to escape a condition of natural dehumanization and/or is meant to spare others of excessive burdens. In Christian tradition - which is the ground upon which Donagan builds his philosophy - suicide is not permissible in these circumstances. "Suicide disregards the inner resources in man as rational to confront the vicissitudes and challenges and likewise the relational character of his being in interaction with a community in solidarity" (cf. E. Lugo). Human dignity is intrinsic and the value of human nature is unconditional. How can Donagan then make the claims he makes when the tradition from which he arrives at these claims contradicts them?

11. 11)What determines if a contract is binding and to what extent it is binding? In 3.4, it gives the examples of the man accepting a dinner invitation and the pirate capturing a trader. In the example of the man accepting the dinner invitation, it explains that he does not need to fulfill the invitation if it "is outweighed by a heavier responsibility". In the example of the pirate capturing a trader, it explains that "a forced contract is morally void". Does that mean that a contract is only fully binding if it is not forced, both people accept the conditions and intend on fulfilling the conditions, and nothing comes up that is more important?
    

12. 12)In Donagan Chapter 3, First-Order Precepts, what would he say in regards to adultery? It is clear that he believes that human relations among and between individuals has a certain "liberal" character and that he identifies that family and moral obligations to children. Where would adultery land in his observations and belief?\
    

13. 13)Common beneficent actions include charity, scholarships for students in need, social welfare programs. These all include a sense of mercy and kindness which promote good for others. A principle of beneficence refers to a normative statement of moral obligation to act for others benefit. And sometimes helping people avoid pain. My question asks are these beneficent acts obligatory or merely the pursuit of optional moral ideals? And does beneficence have any place in the world of business? As the business world seems like a very harsh industry. 
    

15 November

1. 1)When it is mentioned that "actions of certain kinds are unconditionally contrary to reason... implies that reason is practical as well as theoretical," what does he mean by 'actions that are unconditionally contrary to reason'? Does that phrase mean things that are not logically thought through? As in actions that are morally wrong? If so, is Donagan saying that because there are actions that can be done wrong, reason is practical for us to use?
   

2. 2)Donagan says it is impermissible as a rational being not to treat every person with respect, so what makes people disrespect others? Does that mean they are not rational? 
   

3. 3)Donagan believes that we need more from Kant's categorical imperative- that it is not enough. Love your neighbor as yourself and treat everyone with respect. Actions cannot be contrary to reason. Its unacceptable to treat any other human being poorly because we all have rationality. But how exactly does Donagan react to people that do not follow this? What are his views on punishment and how to deal with evil? 
   

4. 4)Donogan argues that human beings are rational animals. If that is the case, then why do humans act immoral, if rationally it doesn't give long term benefit?
   

5. 5)"There are also actions which are extraordinary, in that the agent meets extraordinary demands, but in which the end, while recognized as good either by individuals or by societies, is one it is permissible but not obligatory to pursue"
   

6. 6)What does this mean in terms of dictation in what is considered extraordinary - does society dictate this and is this quantitative? Or is it based on moral judgement and how one would perceive this act and deem it extraordinary?
   

7. 7)Donagan says "an action which materially is stealing may not be so formally, because the stealer may honestly believe that what he is taking is his own property." Why is this an acceptable way out? He may believe he is taking is own property, but he is still stealing. Just because he believes it to be his own property does not rid him of any guilt in stealing the property.
   

8. 8)The first order is about the rightness or wrongness of an action. At the bottom of page 55, Donagan said, "An action which materially is stealing may not be so formally, because the stealer may honestly believe what he is taking his own property." How can this be a material action when you're taking something that is not yours? Even if you did accidentally steal something wouldn't it still be a formal action because you took something that is not yours?
   

9. 9)I think that it really interesting that the idea of love s first mentioned in this course in the writing of Donagan. In the past we have equated love with respect, as with Kant. Donagan also recognizes love as an action and not a feeling on page 65. Is it ever acceptable to physically hurt another human being and love them? Would the physical and mental types of love be separated here?
   

10. 10)Donagan expresses that it is universally accepted to do an action of the kind K. you gave the example of murdering as one of these common laws. Although all moders civilizations would agree with you would Donagan hold this precept despite ancient civilizations in south america and others around the globe deemed this to be a permissible act. Would donagan just dismiss this as a fringe case of a foundationally corrupt society or would murdering no longer be a precept of common morality?
    

11. 11)Donagan compares Hebrew-Christian morality to Kant's moral theory a lot throughout this chapter, but does not really differentiate them. Besides having a basis in religion, is there really a stark difference between the Hebrew-Christian morality and Kant's theory of morality?
    

12. 12)In Chapter 2.2, the consequences of human action are discussed. In part of the section when talking about the forest fire, it seems as though Donagan is saying that the consequences of human actions cannot be blamed on the human as long as the consequence was not intended by the human. However, later in the section is seems as though Donagan is saying the opposite. Does he believe that the consequences of human action should always be blamed on the human that caused the consequence, or does it depend on the situation?
    

13. 13)How does Donagan's first and second order questions differ from Kant's theory of categorical imperative?
    

14. 14)He says, " good is to be done and sought, and evil avoided is not primarily moral. It defines the fundamental condition that any movement or abstention from movement must satisfy if it is to be accounted an action at all." Is he saying here that a movement is only an action if it is has the attention of bringing good or shunning evil? So does all actions need an intention? 
    

15. 15)Donagan states "Do not do to your fellow what you hate to have done to you" (pg. 57) which makes me think what if i hate the idea of someone doing good for me and the greatest good of others, but your "fellow" might like to do good? would that not contradict his belief in the Golden Rule that Kant believes in?
    

16. 16)In order to respect a rational individual, one must reflect what the individuals wants and needs are. Also, one must consider an individual's ability to make moral judgements based on the notion of right and wrong and to hold themselves accountable for their actions. Resulting in humans being a rational animal.  Donagan views humans living in a community where one is morally neutral due to natural law. Does this mean nature is not responsible for the punishment one can face for being morally wrong?
    

17. 17)While reading the text a question arose on page 72 of chapter 2. In the previous pages, Donagan talks about first order questions regarding the rightness or wrongness of an action; and second order questions which concern intentions and culpability or responsibility for actions what he would say in regard to video games and virtual reality? Donagan explains that “A natural approach is to begin by showing that it is impermissible to perform actions of that kind at will, and then to go on to determine the kinds of cases in which it is permissible,” (Pg. 72). When he says this what would he say to killing and wrongful actions in video games / virtual reality?
    

13 November 2018

1. 1)Does Donagan believe morality is innate or learned? He says "cannot be utterly ignorant of the concepts that underlie it" making me believe it is innate
   

2. 2)Since Donagan seems to find that institutionalism is flawed due to the fact that institutionalists are faced with how truths are not always accompanied by factual knowledge, how can he feel that the Hebrew Christian moral tradition is more of a foundational way to go about doing the right thing? I see that because there is a lot of rational study done due to how long this tradition has been around, but at the end of the day, how can we know this moral tradition consists of hard knowledge and truth?
   

3. 3)In ch. 1, Donagan develops the concept of what a theory of morality is. One of the distinctions he makes is that of "Moralitat and Sittlichkeit." He clearly rejects the Sittlichkeit notion that Hegel believed in, namely, that truth and right are constantly changing according to time, culture, and feelings. Instead, Donagan believes in Moralitat in the way that Kant proposed it - as something universal and unchanging, which includes inherent value in all human beings. Does Donagan then believe in the categorical imperative in the same way as Kant understood it, or does his application of it differ?
   

4. 4)Donogan states that Americans follow capitalism as an economic system as they morally believe business is morally correct. Is this due to social engineering or is this an intrinsic value that is innate with humanity?
   

5. 5)On the bottom of page 6, Donagon said that the conception of morality as a law by virtue of rationality is not itself religious, but he later said that common morality is upheld by God and that violating it violates human rationality. Don't those two statements contradict each other?
   

6. 6)Why is this changing of values throughout time okay to Donagan? Would he then think that at the time of slavery that it was okay? And at the time of Jim Crowe that it was okay because overall it was okay thought to be okay in that time?
   

7. 7)How is it that Stoics, Jews, nor Christians find it necessary to resort to premises about the existence and nature of God when these religions are constantly following rules and making decisions based of of their beliefs?  
   

8. 8)"Stoic, Jewish, and Christian thought are therefore substantially agreed in this: that there is a set of rules or precepts of conduct, constituting a divine law, which is binding upon all rational creatures as such, and which in principle can be ascertained by human reason."
   

9. 9)My question is, to what degree does human reason play into the divine law - and what part is ascertained by religious affiliation into creating the universal/common code that is so accepted among people?
   

10. 10) Intuitionism is summed up in two different sections, uncivilized and civilized societies. Why is it that the moral thinking among civilized societies is the same but the same cannot be said for uncivilized societies? Is it society itself that brings it upon its members or is it that these members (of civilized societies) bring it into fruition?
    

11. 11)The stoic thought believes that natural law should be laws set out by the "fire" of God. This fire is ignited by individuals that have a "spark" of rationality of their own. They also believed that this natural law should be carried out by God's followers. While we individuals have our own natural law mixed with Gods, does this mean that us individuals and god co-rule over our actions,decision, moral reasoning?
    

12. 12)Donagan seems to equate common morality and Hebrew-Christian morality and almost uses them interchangeably, but where exactly do theological components come into play in common morality/Hebrew-Christian morality?
    

13. 13)Did Donagan follow the exact moral issues of Hebrew & Christian traditions, or did he follow the traditions solely because of how they dealt with moral issues? With a monotheistic god being central to both religions, what is the motivation for following the moral issues of the religion, without believing in that god? 
    

14. 14)Is intuitionism similar to Kant's ethical theory? Intuitionism is the theory that moral truths are intuitive so they are already known without any sort of outside knowledge or experience. This seems to be very similar to Kant's belief that moral laws come from a priori knowledge and do not require outside knowledge or experience. What is the difference between intuitionism and Kant's ethical theory?
    

15. 15)To the stoics, god is the beggining of everything. He is the energy that drives all things. They also are concerned heavily about natural law. If God is the beggining of everything and all things behave according to these natural law, is there any free will? If stoics don't believe in free will, how is there any purpose in understanding morality if it is all based upon God's will? 
    

16. 16)Can you clarify why Donagan does not assume that god exists? He believes/follows the hebrew-christian ways though? 
    

17. 17)Ethical intuitionism is the thesis that our intuitive awareness of value, or intuitive knowledge of a valued of facts. It is a view that some moral truths can be known non inferentially (known without one needing to infer them from other truths) It implies cognitivism. Ethical intuitionism is often found with significant variation within philosophical texts. Would reasonable inferences have to be explicit if they were drawn, or could they be implicit? 
    

18. 18)On page 26, Donagan asserts that, to understand the morality of western society, one must investigate the religious foundations. Would this concept become less true as western society becomes more secular? What about societies that are considered "post-christian?"
    

19. 19)While reading The Theory of Morality I do not understand the statement that Alan Donagan makes when he talks about how “Ever since the middle of the nineteenth century, most academic philosophers in the English-speaking world have been unwilling to do,” (Pg. 26) investigate the philosophical and religious foundations of traditional morality. Why would people in the western world be unwilling to investigate and understand traditional morality? In addition later in the paragraph he says that utilitarianism is incompatible with traditional morality, why is this?
    

6 November

1. 1)Besides facilitating trade and acceptance of cultural and religious/philosophical differences, was there any other significance of the Hajj? It seems that it was also important that it cultivated the sharing of ideas, items, movement; what economical and cultural importance does it implement?
   

2. 2)With Baghdad being the learning center for Islam, why was there such a large emphasis on the sciences compared to some of the other important areas of learning? In the video it says that the need for science stemmed from the need to run that empire. However there are so many other areas that are needed to run an empire- why weren't those highlighted as much as science? 
   

3. 3)The reading states that the counterpart to universal knowledge of divine law is universal guilt. How is this possible, if one does not feel guilty for their actions or does not see the wrong in their actions?
   

4. 4)What differences in Islamic and Christian ideologies caused for Muslims too not see contradictions between faith and the natural world, and for the Christians to see a contradiction? Allowing Muslims to embrace Plato and Aristotle, while Christians rejected their teachings as blasphemous. 
   

5. 5)If Judaism, christianity, and Islam are so similar and based on such similar things why do most people in the western world view Islam so badly? Is there not calls to somewhat violent action in each's book? If christians want so badly to be distinguish from the crusaders and other so called christian terroists, saying that they aren't truly christian, why then must people of the islam religion be punished for those who are jihadist? At one point in history christians used the bible to support slavery how ever now they pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow, why can't that same principle be applied to the islam faith with christians looking at it?
   

6. 6)It seems as though Plato and Aristotle were important to the Islamic faith, because according to the documentary, Muslims embraced Plato and Aristotle. However, the only thing said about the philosophers was that they saw no difference between faith and natural law. When we talked about natural law it was in relation to Aquinas, but the documentary later said the Aquinas believed in a separation between faith and natural law. In the documentary it seems as though Aquinas changed the views of the Muslims. Did Muslims disagree with Aquinas' beliefs and continue embracing the teachings of Plato and Aristotle or did Aquinas change their belief in the relationship between faith and natural law?
   

7. 7)To what degree would geographic location and its circumstances (near Mediterranian Sea, Indian Ocean), or places or "hubs" of trade and exchange play on one's religious affiliation - is it possible that the basis of one's ethics and religious faith has due in part to their chance of birth?
   

8. 8)One of the points mentioned in the video is the fact that in Islam, the Koran is seen as the only valid representation of God. In order not to objectify or apply anthropomorphism, Muslims therefore avoid all images or sculptures of God. So I wonder: beyond the fact that the Koran, as God's word is considered his representation, are there are characteristics that Muslims attribute to God? As in, for instance, do they see him as a powerful, or loving, or all-knowing God or anything like that, or is it a more abstract understanding of a mysterious deity?
   

9. 9)Why does the Islam religion have women fully clothed not allowing them so show basically any skin but men are allowed to. From a Universal standpoint is seems as if it is segregating women which a large portion of the world has adapted to and allowed for equal rights of women. 
   

10. 10)Is the Kaaba similar to church for Christians? Because the video said it is a sacred place that offers peace from the outside world which reminds me of going to church.
    

11. 11)Donagan brings up Stoic thought and how it pertains to God giving humans a Spark of rationality for their own natures; however, it seems that this natural law given to us is governed by God. Because god governs natural law, does this mean God controls our natural law, resulting in us not being free willed individuals?
    

12. 12)While watching Part 1 and Part 2 of "Islam. Empire of Faith," a few questions arose. One of my questions is can the modern day radical Islam's who have raided and destroyed artifacts in ancients cities like Nineveh be similar to how Mohammad destroyed the Pagan Idols in the shrine located in Mecca? Could this be them trying to abolish the tribal system, other religions not similar to Islam, but if so didn't Mohammad say that you can not force one to think in one way? Another question that I have was when the video was explaining the Quran. Has the Quran ever been translated from Arabic or would it change the meanings too much? My final question is about the image of Mohammad. Throughout the videos Mohammad is explained to be not pictured, but when he is his face is covered by a white cloth. Has there and is there an image of Mohammad?
    

13. 13)In part one of the video series, the narrator discusses that the Bedouins controlled Mecca. I am unfamiliar with the early history of the holy wars but why did the Bedouins and not the Jews control Mecca. This was an important place to their religion that they did not control. Was there a war that the Bedouins won to maintain control of this area or was there not enough influence for those who follow Judaism to control the area?
    

14. 14)Muhammad was parentless prophet. Poetry was very important to the culture of tribes that was passed on generation to generation. Water scarcity in their environments caused major conflicts. This caused the people to believe in nature gods. Muhammad had a revelation where he saw an angle that told him to recite in the name of God almighty. He told the people "There is only one God" this stopped the conflicts between tribes. How did he get people to follow him? Why would they believe him? Were people desperate for help and answers in such a harsh world? 
    

30 October

The reading states that it is sometimes claimed that the values of a group defined by one of these criteria have authority for members of the group, such claims are often challenged. This is reference that different social groups have different criteria for morality. 

Can it be said that social and economic factors affect the definition of morality for people, instead of their being a universal code for morality?

Rational egoism "claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be rational that it maximize its own self-interest." How would those who support this notion explain the teleology of life? If life is all about the self, why are we social beings? It seems contradictory to human nature to claim that our morality hinges on our personal welfare alone.

Ethical egoism is said that you should act only out of self interest. They seem to see that it is not wrong with being selfish because you are nurturing your own wants. Although I do not agree with that since what comes to mind is, for example, it being permissible to lie or cheat to get what one may want, is it possible that ethical egoists be people that are morally good? Can a person with self interested reasons for wanting to be kind, honest, and trustworthy be a morally good person despite wanting to do it for themselves and not others? 

How can egoism be considered a form of moral theory? Or is it totally separate from moral theory? Egoism covers almost nothing about doing anything out of morality or where morality comes from. It is one hundred percent doing what is best for you, so where does morality even come in?

Egoism is based on self-interest. How does duty fit into egoism? In the reading, it gave the examples of the soldier and the bomb, saving a drowning person, and sacrificing oneself for family or friends. It seems as if these people are doing something for others, but then it wouldn't be egoism because they aren't acting in self-interest. Is duty only egoism if the person is expecting to get something from the situation (i.e. pride, lack of guilt, expectation of a sacrifice in return)?

"The justification principle" is saying, we should not interfere with people unless we can justify this interference to them. Wong adds the qualifier (if they were rational and well-informed in relevant respects). When we try to interfere with people's morals, is it usually because our moral claims are so different? If this is the case, one person or the other is likely not rational or well-informed in this respect of moral interference. If so, is the justification principle ultimately unusable, with a certainty of uncompromising descriptive relativism? 

According to the definition of egoism I think Kant's philosophy would side more towards egoism where as Mills "Greatest good for greatest number" would be more on the opposite end. I think aristotle would fit somewhat in the middle. Is this assumption correct? For Moral Relativism they are saying that though some philosophers say do the right thing or whats morally right, the argument here is that for most things two different sides could be right depending on the culture? So that its hard to agree upon what's morally right? that what's morally right could be different for different people and so disagreements aren't able to come up with one answer?

According to the definition of egoism I think Kant's philosophy would side more towards egoism where as Mills "Greatest good for greatest number" would be more on the opposite end. I think aristotle would fit somewhat in the middle. Is this assumption correct? For Moral Relativism they are saying that though some philosophers say do the right thing or whats morally right, the argument here is that for most things two different sides could be right depending on the culture? So that its hard to agree upon what's morally right? that what's morally right could be different for different people and so disagreements aren't able to come up with one answer?

Ethical egoism "sometimes require uncompensated sacrifices, particularly when the loss to the agent is small and the gain to others it large". What happens when there is a disagreement on whether the loss/gain is large/small? Who is the moral authority?

If people judge one another on their moral beliefs can we truly assume that their is a moral universality? If so what what would be considered the proper morals universally? Is there any? 

if a soldier that jumped onto a grenade might still be considered to act on their own self interest by considering they might have not been able to live with themself had they not protected their fellow soldiers, is there any actual existi g action that could not be perceived as acting on one's own welfare? based on this, does Kant's idea of pure good will exist/is it possible?

Descriptive Moral Relativism is the observation that different cultures appear to have different moral standards and beliefs. An example would be some cultures do not eat pork because to them, it would deemed morally wrong to consume pork, while other cultures eat pork with no remorse. Would it be considered ignorant to think that there are no universal morals for every culture? Take the example of honesty and respect towards elders, to me, it seems like every culture values this principle.  

While reading Chris Gowans’ Moral Relativism, I do not understand when he says “the proponent of MMR is inconsistent. The relativist argument is that we should reject moral objectivism because there is little prospect of rationally resolving fundamental moral disagreements. However, it may be pointed out, the relativist should acknowledge that there is no more prospect of rationally resolving disagreements about MMR.” Is he trying to say that Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR) has no object truth to us as individuals because of its reasoning or is it due to our social groups?

22 October

1) In this chapter, the idea of "just" and "unjust" are discussed. One of the ways that something can be "unjust" is if someone is not able to have the legal rights that every human has. However, if someone were to do something wrong, like steal money from a bank, is it still considered unjust to deprive the person their right of personal space? Is it unjust to monitor their actions afterwards to ensure they don't do anything wrong again? JORDAN BERGE

2) Mill seems to think that a person should receive what he "deserves" because that is just and that it would be unjust to receive something they do not deserve. I agree with that sentiment but do not agree with his notion that people deserve good things if they have done right. Why should one be rewarded with doing what is right? Isn't that what should be done so why does the right action merit some sort of reward? GABBI JUNG

3) How is just punishment decided? On page 45, it says that "each person should obtain that...which he deserves". Then, on page 57, the eye for an eye punishment is brought up. Even though it says that the principle has been generally abandoned, it explains that "there is...a secret hankering after it". Then on page 61 it talks about good for good and evil for evil. What determines what someone "deserves" or what the "good" and "evil" are? Is a just punishment given based off of the utilitarian view of greatest good for greatest number of people or is it based off of the specific situation? MARIA VAN THIENEN

4) Injustices occurs when someone's rights have been violated.  Mill has stated that the person who has suffered injustice has  "a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law, or by that of education and opinion." . When opposite sides both stake this claim, how can one possibly determine who has the "valid claim"? DANIELLE ZIMNY

15 October 2018

1) Mill seems to say that to strengthen the utilitarian morality, we must recognize that happiness is the ethical standard, in which he also says that it is the only thing "desirable as an end." For those who can't seem to find true happiness, but rather temporary happiness, such as being happy only when good things come their way and only for themselves, does that mean they will never understand how to follow the utilitarian notion? 

2. 2)Mill argues that there is protection to an individual in a society, and individual rights do exist with for an individual.  Thus, in order for there to be general security for the public, there must be individual security as well. But to what extent? Does mill argue that protection of an individual is useless if it does not benefit the greater good? 
   

3. 3)Mill proposes the idea of a conscience, a pain in the mind, as an internal sanction of duty in the 3rd chapter. This seems to reflect a sort of a priori structure, as Kant would say. Would Mill agree and would he say that the conscience is outside of external influence?
   

4. 4)Mill talks about the greatest good for the greatest number. Does this greatest number only take into consideration those it will impact immediately or does it consider how that action will impact those who may not currently be affected by the action? An example being going to war. One may say going to war will solve the problem now but in fact it takes much longer than expected and the original plan failed causing more people to be affected.
   

10 October 2018: Mill

1. 1)Mill identifies utilitarianism as finding the value of something in its effect not in the intention. Oddly enough, he applies this concept to the gospel in the same way Kant does his idea of good will. He says that “in the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. “To do as you would be done by,” and “To love your neighbor as yourself” constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” How would each Kant and Mill defend their interpretation of this?
   

2. 2)Mill believes that happiness is pleasure and free from pain and when he describes that there are higher and lower pleasures, one for the body and the other for the mind, how can he say that that is the case for everyone? He describes higher pleasures as more elevated, which I assume is better for us than lower pleasures. But what if someone finds that eating is just as pleasurable as what is fed to the mind?
   

3. 3)While reading Mill’s, Utilitarianism, I am confused when reading the quote: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig think otherwise, that is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.” Chapter 2 Pg.7 Is Mill trying to say that people best qualified to judge a pleasure's quality are people who have experienced both sides? Or is this talking about how morality is the greatest happiness principle rather than pursing one’s own social happiness?
   

2 October 2018

1) Immanuel Kant states securing one's happiness is a duty and moral inclination. Is Kant then justifying the use of immortality to achieve happinesss, due to the goal of achieving happiness being that of good will?

2) Kant determines that knowledge can come from both experience, and reasoning without experience. I was wondering about the concepts that we know are true but neither experience or reason about before we know they are true. For example, we are instinctively aware of the distance between objects or the idea of time before we can reason about it. How would Kant categorize this knowledge? In addition, how do we ever know what the world is really like if our experience of the world is only our perception of it.

3. 3)Kant argues that moral principles must be based on a priori concepts of reason, rather than circumstances, traditions, needs, desires, or other factors. Why is this the case? Why can't moral principles be based on these other concepts?
   

4) If good will is not measured by efficacy and outcome but rather the good in itself, and even if the good does not accomplish anything, the good itself will shine on its own, what is to be dealt with when there is still disappointment in the failed attempt? For example, a father tried his absolute best to drive through the snow and sleet to be able to make his daughter's ballet recital, yet even through his goodness and attempt, he fails to show up and misses her shining moment. What good is the attempt in appeasing her disappointment? And how can one determine the trueness of the intent without the accomplishment of it?

25 Sept 2018

1) We discussed in class how stubborn Aristotle can be. If Aristotle were to see today's women in the world, would he change his mind? In addition, although Aristotle claims that women are somewhat free, are they really though? They weren't allowed to go to school, and they were forced to work at the house all day; they would work with the slaves as well.  So what makes women and slaves different? That a man simply guides them to moral excellence?

2) In many ways, the basis of Aristotle's reasoning for free women and slaves being on equal levels of lowness are reasoned with lack of intellectual capacity. However, he never substantiates his claims with scientific reasoning; also, it is pointed out that the continuous, arduous labor that free women and slaves do are beneficial to the societal standpoints today. My question is, are women really "free" in this day and age when limited to this extent and this kind of derogatory viewpoint in a male dominated era? It seems to me that the equity in value between women and slaves are so comparable that their roles overlap and are similar in which they serve the patriarichal society

3)  My question is regarding this statement: "This emphasis pulls in the exact opposite direction from the emphasis in men's ethical lives on freedom from toil, on leisure, on distancing oneself from slaves as far as possible." Is this saying that men are not trying to be near slaves, so it goes the same for women? Men are trying to distance themselves from women as well? How would that make sense? 

4) Cole mentions that in the Rhetoric, Aristotle says that, "male and female alike must have this critical virtue which entails moderation, self-control, a certain sober and balanced view of what is important in life, an avoidance of excesses." Since Aristotle here uses the word 'alike' and then explaining what men and women both must possess, how can he possibly feel that women are more meant for hard work and men for courage and political activity? 

5) It is clear that women and slaves are marginalized Aristotle's times. They live under free men in every aspect of living. Men's virtue is about keeping him and his friends safe, and managing public affairs. Women are to work with delight (love of toil) and submit to their husbands. They can deliberate but without authority. Slaves function are merely to work, and they cannot deliberate. Both women and slaves are to be guided by men's counseling. I found the relationship between women and slaves interesting. How the two groups worked so closely together. Both if their types of work represents his or hers function. Even high statuses women had to work. This is a deep rooted concept that is old in nature. But why hadn't it been discussed much? And why does Aristotle think that men should not work? Why does he think leisure is more important for men?

6) Since Aristotle saw women as only being able to partially partake in ethics, does he then only view them as partial people? 

7) Aristotle says a woman's virtue as delight in hard work and men must display courage (pg. 131). If women are just seen as to care for their families inside their homes and men are the ones that are supposed work hard in their jobs to provide for their families, why is the mans virtue not to delight in hard work?

8) In the reading it is quite clear that the reason Aristotle saw women and slaves as less than men, stemmed from a lack of educational opportunities for women and slaves. They were not given the resource of education, and instead were used as tools of labor, allowing the free men to have time to study and indulge in pleasure. We see this as wrong today, but it draws a question for me, why do we still allow it to happen? How similar are the marginalized groups of slaves and women in Ancient Greece, to the marginalized groups of impoverished people in America today? With quality of public education being a product of how wealthy the surrounding community is, and further education still being financially implausible for many, education is keeping impoverished people in a cycle of marginalized treatment similar to that of Ancient Greece's treatment of women and slaves. 

9)  Aristotle states that women, slaves, and children must be trained for virtue, and that the well-being of the state depends on their own excellence. If virtue is to be determined, by the man, then is virtue then not subjective instead of universal, because what if said man is not virtuous himself?

10) In this article it states that women and slaves need practical reasoning, and practical reasoning comes from education. During this era women weren't allowed in educational institutions so then how must they become educated and developed practical reasoning? Can't one say that they practiced education and training through learning house work? Maybe they were educated in a different way but they can still develop practical reasoning through other means besides education?

11) In the section I of the article, it explains that Aristotle presented a "three-level moral typology corresponding to men, women, and slaves" where slaves are treated as genderless. Then, on page 136, it says that "slaves worked alongside the free women of the household" and "there are several important ways in which slaves and free women resemble one another, both politically and morally". So if women and slaves are so similar politically and morally, why does Aristotle consider women and slaves to be on different moral levels?

12) Why is Aristotle saying that women love to be slaves of hard work, but then contradicts himself to say that women show great initiative? Would that not be considered the opposite or is it something that plays into the hands of what can help to be a slave?

13) While reading Eve Browning Cole's, "Women, Slaves and 'Love of Toil' in Aristotle's Moral Philosophy," I am finding myself to struggle understanding the quote: "If women are typified morally by a fondness for labor, and if labor is inimical to the good life, then woman are excluded from the good life by a well-ordered syllogism" - Section 2 Pg134. I do not understand if when saying the quote above is she is saying that since women are hardworking and giving that labor is inimical (harmful) to the good life, then women are excluded from living the good life. Or is this simply saying that in Aristotle's ideal state men do not work thus they live the good life and since woman do work they can not live the good life?

14) In her article, Eve Browning Cole reasons that Aristotle’s argument about the irrationality of slaves and women, is compatible with a view of rationality coming from education. It seems as if Browning Cole may have misconstrued Aristotle’s point about why women and slaves are inferior. I believe this because of Aristotle’s idea of the natural slave. Not every slave is a natural slave (naturally filling the position of a slave well and lacking all reasoning), but if this idea is applied to women, as Browning Cole does on page 38, it seems as if being a natural woman (or natural slave) occurs during fetal development. With this idea in mind, it seems as if a slave would have a better chance of gaining reasoning capabilities from education. Is this consistent with what Aristotle wrote?

15) I am struggling to understand how women's virtues could be defined by male human existence. How is this possible? If a man a woman is associated with is not virtuous, does that automatically make her not virtuous in the eyes of Aristotle even though she has nothing to do with the man's actions?

16) Browning Cole's Article reminded me of Modrak's comment that Aristotle's views of human essence - particularly in the physical and moral differentiation he makes between males, females, and slaves, are "morally repugnant." The economic and social advantages that seem to have driven his statements make sense. It makes me question, though, the integrity of his philosophy as a whole. How can we accept and understand his views on some aspects of human nature when other aspects are so tainted by selfish motives and fallacies?

Beyond this question, I would be really interested in learning what Thomas Aquinas thought about Aristotle's teachings - since I believe it is your area of expertise. I am really curious to know how Aquinas received his teachings and what he took from them - was is only Aristotle's style (logic, argumentation, etc.) or did Aquinas actually build up on Aristotle's views? If you could answer this question in class, that would be great!

20 Sept 2018

1) Aristotle's contradictory views on the superiority of men over women and slaves is very confusing. If Aristotle believes that women can be virtuous, than why do they not have the same rationality as men? Because Aristotle certainly believes that men can be virtuous. I am curious to see what philosopher flips the switch on Aristotle and gives a new prospective to his social ideas of women and slaves. 

2)Why does Aristotle think that women are less than men? On page 209, it explains that according to Aristotle "gender differentiation is not a proper part of the essence or form of a living creature". This makes it seem like there should be little to no differentiation between men and women. Then on page 210, it explains that Aristotle says "differences between male and female" are differences "in the composite of form and matter". On page 211, it explains that women lack "the ability to recognize the connection between general principles and particular cases". It then goes on about how Aristotle thinks women are soft and weak. On page 216, it says a women's virtue "is not the virtue proper to a man". How does Aristotle determine these weaknesses of women? At the end it states that Aristotle's problem is his empiricism. Is this saying that because women can't have the same experiences as men that Aristotle determined that that makes them less than men?

3)Modrak explains that Aristotle claims if the foundations of family and state are secured by a difference in character between men and women, then it is in the interest of the species as a whole. What specifically does he mean by 'interest of the species'? How is it in the interest of everybody and human beings as a whole?

4)It is stated that Aristotle believes all forms of science should be based on observation and experience. Is this not flawed, as even though observation is necessary to formulate conclusions, oneś observations and experiences would have to be omnipresent to reach the necessary assertion? And if so flawed, is this then based on Aristotleś own biases towards Athenian society, or patriarchy?

5)The world has clearly changed a lot since Aristotle. Most of what he said with regards to the differences between men and women goes back to some biological reason for men being superior to women. Society does not necessarily view a powerful person as having strength physically but instead having intellectual and psychological strength. Given the change in our world would Aristotle still fall back on men being superior just for biological reasons?

6)In the reading it says "So male and female alike must have this critical virtue which entails moderation, self-control, a certain sober and balanced view of what is important in life, an avoidance of excesses. In addition, females must delight in hard work and males must display courage."- this is more of a general question but what did aristotle think of the role of the children, grandparents, etc. 

7)Are those who have experience and education more equipped to provide a morally sound environment, such as what Aristotle believes, than those lacking experience and education?

8)Since it takes a man and a woman to create another man, why does Aristotle find women as defective human beings? There would be no men on their earth if it weren't for women. Also, if Aristotle knows that the only differences between men and women in anatomy are sexual organs, why does he think men are superior to women?

9)Much of Aristotle's work is still so relevant today and part of philosophical discussions today, yet his views on women are so off. What happened here? What was his thought process for thinking women were morally weak? He says women buy into their pleasures more and are tempted by things like sweets but I would argue the opposite to be true. 

10)Modrak mentions that, "Aristotle believes all areas of science, theoretical as well as practical, should be based on observation and experience." So maybe Aristotle's views on women and slaves were very off and definitely did not age well but it was based on his observations. Because of the repression and views at the time, maybe that effected Aristotle's logic?

11)Modrak discusses on page 218 and 219 that Aristotles mistake was assuming that the norms of his society were mostly good. Is Modrak trying to imply that this was the onpy major flaw in Aristotles thinking of women? 

12)Modrak's conclusion about Aristotle's views on women is that his philosophy is consistent with itself, and yet seen from a modern perspective, it is morally repugnant. Modrak claims that "what went wrong in his thinking about these matters" originated in his empiricism. Did his "empiricism" consist in relying solely on aristocratic males for judging the ideal of a virtuous life? How exactly did his empiricism lead him to misunderstand the nature and capacity of woman?

13)While reading Eve Browning Cole's, “Women, Slaves and ‘Love of Toil’ in Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy,” on page 134 Section 3, on the topic of slavery I was wondering if Aristotle would agree with the theory of Natural selection? My question arises when I read "they lack the deliberative capacity, there are only scattered comments and implications concerning the slave's potential for achieving a form of goodness." How different is this from natural selection?

18 Sept 2018

1) What does Aristotle mean when he says that 'because activities differ, pleasures do too?' He continues to say that sight differs from touch, and so do the pleasures that come along with it. Is he saying that there are different types of pleasures (that bring out different types of positive emotions) or is he reiterating what he mentioned earlier that there are activities that appeal to us in varying degrees, hence varying degrees of pleasure?  Ann Hui

2) Aristotle says philosophic wisdom is the most pleasant virtue, and the supreme achievement of happiness. He also talks about that for each man the activity in accordance with his own disposition is most pleasant. Based on these two statements it leads me to ask is philosophic contemplation really the highest good of happiness? Or is it what Aristotle found the most pleasure from in his life, and if it was the activity that he liked doing the most then he thought it must be the highest intellectual achievement of happiness for everyone? Jared Schwartz

13 Sept 2018

1) Aristotle explains that incontinence comes from not having knowledge on particulars due to being overcome by passions felt, so does this make incontinent acts involuntary? Bri

2) Aristotle shares various ideas about the steadfast, those lacking self-restraint (the licentious), and the prudent. Can we lack self-restraint generally, or only toward specific things? What level of awareness do those who act without self-restraint have? Do they make a conscious decision to act this way?  CONNOR

11 Sept 2018

1) Is the soul, since it is a reasoning thing, really any different than the mind? It is called the life principle, which seems life a bodily thing. But he also distinguishes it from the body when he says that doing injustice to others causes harm to the soul, but not bodily harm. I am not denying that the soul and body are interconnected, but could you clarify their differences for me?

2) How do voluntary action/willingness and ignorance affect justice? In section 8, it states that one can only do justice or do injustice when the action is done willingly. It also states that "actions are involuntary...if they are done in ignorance". Does that mean that one cannot do justice or injustice in ignorance? Then it explains that "if someone is under compulsion and unwilling when he fails to return the deposit, we should say that he coincidentally does injustice". This makes is seem like someone can do injustice unwillingly even though, a few paragraphs before, it is said that one can only do injustice when the action is done willingly. Is it possible that justice and injustice can be done both willingly and unwillingly? Also, can someone do justice or injustice in ignorance?

6 Sept 2018

1. 1)My question after this reading is regarding the types of actions: voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. They are laid out pretty specifically but let's say there was a situation where there is a mom who's family got kidnapped. The kidnappers told the mom that she has to go rob a bank and kill everyone in it. At this point, would it be a voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary action? Can it be a combination of multiple?
   

2. 2)If choices are the best measure of moral goodness, and it deliberation comes prior to the choices we make – what If what we deliberate considers immoral activity and shows a desire towards immoral actions, though they do not act on it? Does it still make a good person?
   

4 Sept 2018

1) In the third chapter, the text says, "They seem also to remember any service they have done, but not those they have received (for he who receives a service is inferior to him who has done it, but the proud man wishes to be superior)." If a man is proud, why does he wish to be seen as superior? If a man if proud and feels greatness why does he need to feel like he is above someone else?

THIS IS A COMMON GREEK AND CLASSICAL NOTION (EVEN CONTINUING TODAY), THE NOTION THAT ONE WHO GIVES IS MORE NOBLE AND GIVES TO THE INFERIOR. (IT IS GREATER TO GIVE THAN TO RECEIVE) WITH A REAL NOTION OF SUPERIORITY. HE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PROUD THAT HE DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANOTHER, DOES NOT SERVE ANOTHER.

BUT I CANNOT FIND THIS TEXT. ARE YOU USING THE IRWIN TRANSLATION? AT ANY RATE YOU WILL HAVE TO GIVE ME PAGE NUMBERS OR SECTION NUMBERS IN THE FUTURE SO I CAN CHECK THE TEXT TO THINK ABOUT MY RESPONSE.

2) You notice that someone is acting virtuously but you do not think they are acting virtuous on purpose. Should you question them on their intentions or allow them act virtuously even if it is not their intention?

"DID YOU MEAN TO HELP OUT IN THAT SITUATION?" WELL, I WOULD NOT QUESTION ANYONE UNLESS THERE WERE SOME IMPORTANT CAUSE.  BUT YOU ARE ON TRACK THAT WE NEED TO KNOW THE INTENTION OF A PERSON'S ACT TO JUDGE IT.

3) If virtue lies somewhere between deficiency and excess, how do we properly analyze where the middle ground is? Is it purely situational?

WE NEED PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES THAT APPLY TO SITUATIONS. THERE IS NO MIDDLE IN ADULTERY AND NO MIDDLE IN MURDER. THESE ARE ALWAYS WRONG. BUT COURAGE IS THE MIDDLE BETWEEN COWARDICE AND RASHNESS. ONE MUST FIGURE OUT THE SITUATION AND ITS PARAMETERS, AND THEN ASK, WHAT IS THE MIDDLE WAY IF THE EXTREMES ARE BOTH WRONG?

4) If virtue is the mean of an excessive vice and a deficient vice, where do you draw the line between a vice and a virtue? In the last section of the book, it explains that we have to do the opposite of what we are naturally inclined to do in order to try to reach the intermediate. However, wouldn’t there be a point of overcompensation?When do you reach extreme excessiveness or deficiency?

IT IS A MEAN BETWEEN THE TWO.

YES, IN SOME CASES WE MUST DO THE CONTRARY OF OUR INCLINATION, BUT THE MIDDLE POINT IS DETERMINED BY OUR REASONING AND THINKING.

RASHNESS IS OVERDOING IT, COWARDICE IS UNDERDOING.

5) If the mean can be viewed as excessive on the deficient end and vice versa, who is to say what the mean is? Who is to say what the right extent, motive, or time is? 

I NEED MORE EXPLANATION TO RESPOND TO THIS.

6) What exactly is a mean and if a moral virtue between deficiency and excess isn't that an intermediate? or is it the choice between the two, deficiency and excess?

MEAN MEANS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN TWO THINGS. 

NO, THE MIDDLE POINT IS NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN TOO MUCH AND TOO LITTLE, IN FOOD OR IN COURAGE. THINK ABOUT IT.

7) Why is there such a defined and stark line of good and bad as pondered by Aristotle? (i.e. good and bad luTe players, good or bad builders, virtuous and non-virtuous, good-tempered vs self-indulgent and irascible. There seems to be a recurring comparison between good and bad, and never a consideration of a spectrum and variability – it seems to lack a deeper and wider view of a person in a realistic sense. I think it’s far more true to truth to consider the aspects of people in linear deliberation. I think considering this would add depth and dimension to his ponderings of nature and how humans tend to teeter one way or another and that these actions and tendencies make up the holistic human person and its authenticity. Overall, however, a bigger question would be why is there such striving effort towards absoluteness, when there are places in between absolute virtue and absolute badness that offer a far more attainable goal, where the intentions and the placement of heart per action is considered.

MORAL VIRTUE OR EXCELLENCE IS HARD AND THERE IS A RIGHT WAY AND SEVERAL WRONG WAYS TO LIVE. MOREOVER, IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT INTENTION BUT ACTION AS WELL SINCE THIS IS ETHICS.

8) Aristotle’s interest is solely in when and how to assign praise and blame.

YES.

He is not concerned with the metaphysical or psychological questions of what motivates blameworthy action or to what extent it is preventable.

NO, THAT IS NOT RIGHT.

This leaves me to question why does he not define free will or how might he define free will?

HE DOES NOT THINK THERE IS FREE WILL. IT IS NOT PART OF HIS ANALYSIS AND APPROACH AT ALL. BUT THERE IS RESPONSIBILITY AND ALSO NEGATIVE FREEDOM.

9) Aristotle notes that the value of a craft is different from that of a virtue. This is because the value of a craft is solely dependent on the product it produces, while an action can be called virtuous apart from the person who performed it. He also asserts that a person gradually becomes good or just through doing good or just actions. It is common to see people in power now do many things that are considered “good” with the intention of only moving themselves forward. Would Aristotle also consider them an exception to the rule, still on their way to becoming virtuous, or virtuous? If they are not virtuous, would they have to be willing to be taught to attain their virtue?

ALAS, FOR ARISTOTLE IN HIS DAY THAT WAS COMMON ESPECIALLY IN POLITICS, AS IT IS TODAY.

AND SUCH PEOPLE ARE WILLIN TO LEARN FOR THE MOST PART ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AND PUNISHED.

10) In Book II of Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops the concept of virtue of character and how it can be acquired. He claims that the answer is habituation. Although habits include action, they must also meet certain criteria in order to be considered virtuous: the person must know that he is doing virtuous actions, he must decide on them for himself, and he must do these from a firm and unchanging state (cf. p. 22). In other words, excellence, according to Aristotle, implies a free decision to permanently seek just actions. If this is true, then, does Aristotle believe that every human being can achieve excellence if he pursues it? And in order to pursue it, does he have to be taught to do so, or does every human being have an innate desire to seek excellence?

NATURE, TEACHING AND PRACTICE REQUIRE OPPORTUNITY AND NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION, TIME TO THINK, AND THE LIKE.

11) If a person was to tell someone that he/she I.e. wants to be a school shooter or a serial killer, wouldn't that person be considered a harmful "bad" person? And if not, why?
HAVING THE INTENTION TO DO WRONG DOES AFFECT THE EVALUATION OF PEOPLE.
It is stated in the 5th Chapter that we can not be called good or bad on the ground of our passions? I realize that this is an extreme, but I am having trouble understanding this quote, "for the man who feels fear or anger is not praised, nor is the man who simply feels anger blamed, but the man who feels it in a certain way."

DEVELOPMENT OF CHARACTER THROUGH HABITUATION IS THE KEY.