WHAT IS JUSTICE?
At this point, Thrasymachus enters the conversation and we witness the
Context of Justice
The dialogues of Socrates begins in a discussion of the concept of what
is just inside Polemarchus house.
Socrates was invited to join a group in a party, celebrating a deitys
festival (Bendis), and begins a light conversation about old age with
Polymarchus and Cephalus.
Cephalus, the father of Polymarchus, begins to talk about old age and
how it affects their sense of pleasure, the serenity of age, and the
freedom experienced as age calms the passions down.
Socrates then steers the conversation towards the idea of interest, and
how these interests are able to secure Cephalus life into comfort.
Is justice a matter of giving one what is due? If you owe money, paying
what you is considered as justice.
If Justice is a matter of giving what is right to someone, then what about
giving back a weapon to a friend who has clearly lost his mind? But then,
giving the weapon back to its owner might cause further injustice?
At this point, Cephalus excuses himself to continue ministering his
sacrifices to the deity and leaves Socrates with Polemarchus.
At this point, they consider the idea of justice in the context of restoring
what is proper to what is ought to be.
They also turn towards the discussion of what is ought to be given to
friends and what is ought to be delivered to their enemies: good and
evil.
This means to say that good is seen when a man is sick and a physician is
able to heal that man, or steer a vessel in the sea, or perhaps even bring
harm to enemies in times of war.
At this point the discussion moves on to the idea of usefulness, is justice
a matter of usefulness or uselessness?
In the cases presented earlier, it seems that justice is problematic
because it begged the question of restoring something that was broken
into its right order. If a man had to repay his debt to bring justice to his
debtor, would it not be much more simpler to not have had the need to
borrow in the first place?
If war causes injuries and a healer or physician had to mend to injuries,
would it not be much more just if there were no war to begin with?
poverty of Socrates.
Thrasymachus entrance leads to a discussion of ends that are intended
by justice. For example, a government or a ruler is ought to dispense
justice to serve the interest of politics, namely, the interest of the strong
or the rulers.
On this note however, Thrasymachus also argues that in some cases the
ruler makes mistakes, and errs because he is not fit to rule.
At this point Socrates argues that the mistake is only committed when
the ruler does not act as a ruler; in as much as a physician errs too in his
diagnoses because he forgets what his title implies.
In other words, a ruler that is not acting on the idea of being a ruler, is
an incompetent ruler.
The suitability of the task itself is dependent on the role that is being
played out by its actor. When the actor forgets his role or is distracted
by unnecessary, that is where injustice begins to rear its ugly head.
Thus, justice is served, when people are put in their right place and
nothing else but their right roles. A soldier whose task is to protect and
expand the territory of the state has no business in instructing the
people in the fine arts nor do they have the business of establishing the
law.
Another question is raised in the course of the heated discussion with
an upset and sarcastic Thrasymachus, what does one gain in the pursuit
of justice?
To this Socrates replies that justice in itself is a virtue. If you are paid to
dispense justice, then you are corrupting justice.
This discussion turns to the idea of intentionality and purposes in the
state. Just like the organs of the body, the state is ought to function by
complimenting one another into an organic unity.
For example, the tongue is the organ responsible for taste, if we use our
eyes to taste food, it will not function the way that it is intended to be.
(Think of other silly uses for your sensory organs)
Likewise, a citizen that is assigned to a task that is beyond his capacity
or capability, will not function properly in the republic. Hence, the idea
of injustice revolves around the idea that every citizen should function
in their appropriate places.
 This brings into the discussion the issue of motivation. Is the ruler Citizens are trained according to the virtues that they possess.
motivated to rule because of money, honor, and power? Rulers are considered as the head of the Republic, they are
The matter of compensation is considered irrelevant in the Ideal charged with the task of creating laws and governing the citizens.
Republic that they are trying to construct. Since citizens compliment The Guardians or the Soldiers are the heart of the state, they
each others role in society, the element of earning or profiting from defend and expand the territory of the state.
their role is dismissed. The workers and traders are in charge of providing for the needs of the
To answer the issue of ruling, Socrates provides the consequences of citizens. They are considered as the stomach of the state.
dismissing the roles assigned to them, specifically that of ruling. The Ideal Republic thrives on fixed social roles and the lack of social
A ruler is not motivated by the amount of wealth, honor, or power mobility.
bestowed upon the position, but rather, rules voluntarily because of the Once a citizen is assigned to a task or a role, the citizen serves that
fear that someone else that is worse than him takes the place. role for the rest of his or her life.
In this sense, justice is considered as a virtue and the unjust is a vice. Interestingly enough, women are considered as equals in the
The unjust is a state wherein something or someone inappropriate is Republic.
placed within society. In other words, it is the equivalent of placing into For the purpose of equality and fairness, the practice of having
power a man that is incapable of ruling. individual family units is abolished. This is to eliminate nepotism in
Justice for Socrates then relies on the idea of order. the Republic. The republic is in itself a single family unit.
In a society where everyone is put in the right place, order prevails, and
justice is served.
Thus, in the Ideal Republic, the concept of justice is established when
citizens perfect themselves in their assigned roles and function.
On the contrary, injustice is seen when something is out of order in
terms of their ends and purposes. For example, an actor assigned as a
ruler, is a form of injustice because they have not been trained to rule.
Justice according to Socrates relies on the simplicity of social roles,
meaning that by focusing the energy of its citizens to a goal or an end
that they were made for, they are able to contribute to the harmony of
the state and are free from vices.
The Ideal Republic
Composition:
The Ideal Republic consists of Citizens and Slaves.
Citizens are trained at an early age to serve three roles in the state: the
ruler, the soldier, and the trader.
Slaves are given the task of providing labour, specifically, producing raw
materials and servicing the citizens.
The three types of citizens are selected at a very early age. Children are
then segregated to their training facilities where they are taught for the
rest of their life how to perform their duties.
 Reproduction is regulated by the Republic. Men and women are allowed
to have intercourse during festivals. In the event of pregnancy, the
woman is taken care of the state and the child is taken from the mother
as soon as it is born.
The biological parents and children will not know their biological
relations.
Deformed children (as with the practice in Ancient Greece) are cast out
to die in the wilderness.
Social mobility is prohibited, the reason behind this is that the role is
ought to be perfected and served in the entirety of ones lifetime.
The life of the Republic is highly controlled, excesses are often
discouraged. The arts are only allowed if it serves a utilitarian purpose
of motivating the citizens to focus on their assigned roles.
Problematique
The Ideal Republic thrives on social order, hence there is a very strong
emphasis on control and regulation.
The division of labour might serve the purpose of the state, however, it
might run into conflict with individual freedom and desires.
In line with the context of social order, the sacrifices that must be made
may appear undesirable due to the highly regulated nature of the
government.
Despite this, some of the points of the Ideal Republic are useful in the
assessment of current societies. Social order has a price, and that is
usually payed in terms of freedom.
Also, considering the circumstances of the Republic, without slavery, the
entire social organization of the citizens is impossible. Someone, will
have to tend to manual labor in order for the republic to work.
Kohlberg and Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg
Lawrence Kohlberg (1927 1987) was an American psychologist focused
on the research concerning moral reasoning.
Kohlberg was a professor of psychology in both the University of
Chicago and Harvard University.
Kohlberg followed the stages of human development through Jean
Piagets research and added the component of moral judgment to the
process.
* Conducted his research mostly with schools and communities by
providing them with moral dilemmas and classifying the responses with
the level of moral development from each respondent.
* Kohlbergs goal is to study how communities create a socialised form
of developing moral reasoning.
* Kohlberg asserts that the development of moral reasoning is
dependent on the social complexity of a persons environment.
* Kohlberg is one of the most cited psychologists in research and
textbooks.
* In one his field research, Kohlberg became infected with an abdominal
parasite, causing him extreme and consistent pain. In 1987, he
committed suicide by drowning himself on a harbour during winter.
Stages of Moral Development
Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development works under the premise that
all moral decisions are guided by a form of reasoning .
These stages are guided by the persons interest, foresight into
consequences, and sense of ethics.
A child, for example, may act on the basis of obtaining reward (i.e.
Chickenjoy for good grades) or by punishment (i.e. poor grades equates
to a Playstation ban).
The Stages of Moral Development are divided into three Levels:
Level 1: Pre-Conventional Morality The person acts only on the
individual gain and loss due to moral choices.
Level 2: Conventional Morality The Person acts on the basis of social
relations and possible effects of their actions to the people around
them.
Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality The Person acts on moral
principles that are self-determined and are rationally conceivable by
others.
These levels are also divided into six stages
Level 1
Stage 1 Obedience
Stage 2 Reward / Self-Interest
Level 2
Stage 3 Conformity
Stage 4 Social Order
Level 3
 Stage 5 Social Contract
Stage 6 Universalist
Obedience
The childs primary concern for this stage is: how can I avoid getting
punished?
A certain act is deemed to be good insofar as an authority figure does
not punish the child/person.
The personal code of morality is guided by an atavistic or primal instinct
involving pain aversion.
Moral decisions in this stage are guided by immediate personal and
physical consequences to the person.
While this is the first developmental stage in moral decision making, it is
notable that there are adults that are unable to progress beyond the
first two stages.
Reward Self-Interest
The child at this level learns that by sticking with the rules he or she gets
an advantageous status.
The child learns that by obedience it is able to satisfy its own self-
interest.
The main motivation for an act is: What is in it for me?
Also at this stage, the child realises that the views of authorities varies.
This variety will be instrumental in the childs understanding of
perspective (i.e. Conflicting parental or guardian rewards)
Conformity
This level is mostly observed and developed in adolescents and adults.
In most cases, this is the most common level of moral development in
most cultures.
This is the stage wherein an individual begins to understand social roles
and tries to fit in their own respective role.
An act is moral depending on societys norms and conventions.
At this stage the person learns how to evaluate the effects of their
action towards their relationship with others.
In this level and also at the next level, the authority figure is internalised
based on common actions and group values.
Social Order
* Individuals at this point learns that it is important to follow certain
rules and norms because it fulfils certain needs in society.
* They learn moral obligations are not merely fulfilled because of
punishment and reward.
* Acts are done morally because of the belief that it is necessary and
beneficial for society as a whole.
* The person at this stage becomes more cognizant of broader rules
and their intention of bringing order to society.
Social Contract
The last two stages of moral development are rarely achieved by most
people. There is as low as 5-10% of the population that could create
moral reasons at this level.
The motivation for the Social Contract level is the idea of general good
and welfare for everyone.
Individuals at this point learn that ideals that do not promote the
greatest good for the greatest number are ought to be changed or
modified..
The idea of compromise and negotiations become the hallmark of moral
development at this stage. This leads to a democratic acceptance of
varying opinions and ideals in society.
Rules at this level may or may not work for the benefit of the greater
number. Thus, this stage goes beyond the demand of the law or social
conventions.
Universalism
At this level, the individual would opt to answer moral dilemmas
through rational and self-made choices.
An act is considered moral insofar as it is in agreement with universality
(i.e. act only on the maxim where you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.)
This is in line with Kants categorical imperative.
Moral guidelines at this stage are not merely derived from law or
normative practices, they are derived from a universal principle that
applies to everyone.
This also involves the capacity of a person to create his or her own
moral principles that are independent from conventions, and yet at the
same time applicable to everyone without any exceptions.
The Heinz Dilemma
To test the level or stages of moral development for Kohlbergs subjects,
he conducted a series of experiments with different respondents.
His method was to categorise the responses of the subjects into the six
stages based on a certain type of moral dilemma.
The most common dilemma is the story of Heinz and his need to acquire
cancer medicine for his wife.
A woman was near death. There was one drug that the doctors thought
might save her. It was a form of radium that the druggist in the same
town has recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the
druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He
paid 200 dollars for the radium and charged 2000 dollars for a small
dose of the drug. The sick womans husband Heinz, went to everyone he
knew to borrow the money, but could only gather 1000 dollars. He told
the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or
let him pay the rest of the price at a later date. The druggist declined
this offer on the basis that he wants to profit from the hard work and
research that he put into the development of the drug. Heinz got
desperate and broke into the mans laboratory. Should he steal the
medicine? Why or why not?
Level One
Obedience
Heinz should not steal the medicine because he should fear the
punishment of being put into prison.
Or
Heinz is justified in stealing the medicine because it is only worth 200
dollars. Also since Heinz offered to pay for 1000 dollars and was not
taking anything else from the druggist, he has the right to steal it.
Reward / Self Interest
Heinz must steal the medicine because saving his wife will bring him so
much happiness, even at the cost of suffering the consequences of a
crime.
Or
Heinz should not steal the medicine because the consequences are
unpleasant. In other words, Heinz would suffer more in prison as
opposed to seeing his wife die.
Level Two
Conformity
As a good husband, Heinz should steal the medicine. His wife expects it
and his family will expect him to acquire the medicine at all cost.
Or
Heinz should not steal the medicine because that would make him a
criminal. His wife would feel bad about the theft as well as the other
members of his family and community.
Social Order
Heinz should not steal the medicine because stealing is illegal.
Or
Should Heinz steal the drug for his wife, Heinz should submit himself to the
punishment for his crime and pay the druggist with what is due.
Level Three
Social Contract
Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has the right to life
regardless of the law.
Or
Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist deserves the
right to earn from the product of his labour. Despite the noble reasons
of saving a life, the act of stealing the medicine is not justified in any
way.
Universalist
Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more
fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
Or
Heinz should not steal the medicine because there are other that who
also need the medicine badly and are not resorting to theft. Their lives
are equally significant.
Other Dilemmas
Joe is a fourteen-year-old boy who wanted to go to camp very much. His
father promised him he could go if he saved up the money for it himself.
So Joe worked hard at his paper route and saved up the forty dollars it
cost to go to camp, and a little more besides. But just before camp was
going to start, his father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided
to go on a special fishing trip, and Joe's father was short of the money it
would cost. So he told Joe to give him the money he had saved from the
paper route. Joe didn't want to give up going to camp, so he thinks of
 refusing to give his father the money.Should Joe refust to give his father
the money? Why or why not?
Judy was a twelve-year-old girl. Her mother promised her that she could
go to a special rock concert coming to their town if she saved up from
baby-sitting and lunch money to buy a ticket to the concert. She
managed to save up the fifteen dollars the ticket cost plus another five
dollars. But then her mother changed her mind and told Judy that she
had to spend the money on new clothes for school. Judy was
disappointed and decided to go to the concert anyway. She bought a
ticket and told her mother that she had only been able to save five
dollars. That Saturday she went to the performance and told her mother
that she was spending the day with a friend. A week passed without her
mother finding out. Judy then told her older sister, Louise, that she had
gone to the performance and had lied to her mother about it. Louise
wonders whether to tell their mother what Judy did. Should Louise, the
older sister, tell their mother that Judy lied about the money or should
she keep quiet? Why?
Two young men, brothers, had got into serious trouble. They were
secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money. Karl, the older one,
broke into a store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one,
went to a retired old man who was known to help people in town. He
told the man that he was very sick and that he needed a thousand
dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the old man to lend him the
money and promised that he would pay him back when he recovered.
Really Bob wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the man
back. Although the old man didn't know Bob very well, he lent him the
money. So Bob and Karl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.
Which is worse, stealing like Karl or cheating like Bob? Why is your
choice worse compared to the other?
Hobbes Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes is a 17th Century English Philosopher known for his moral and
social philosophy.
Hobbes established the idea of a social contract before Jean-Jacques
Rousseau.
Hobbes wrote the Leviathan in his 60s, before this work, Hobbes was
a polymath and was interested with a lot of diverse topics such as
optics, physics, philosophy, and politics.
Hobbes was born on the 5th of April, 1588. He was a contemporary of
prominent thinkers such as Rene Descartes.
Hobbes was critical of Scholastic philosophy and in turn favoured the
new scientific methods and trends that came out in his time.
Hobbes was a closet atheist.
Hobbes served as a tutor for King Charles II.
In Hobbes time, the English Civil War rose out of a political conflict
between Parliamentarians and Royalists. This conflict marked the
tension between the right of the people to rule and the right of the king
to rule. This was Hobbes inspiration for his book The Leviathan.
Historical Context
The leadership of a state often falls under the responsibility of a
monarch who was put into power because of his or her right to rule.
This right to rule was both taken through birth right and the
affirmation of a religious institution in conferring sovereignty to the
monarch through gods will.
Often times, this has been a source of conflict for rulers, the aristocracy,
and the religious institution that vests the title of the monarch.
During the English civil war, this has been the contention of the royalists
and the parliamentarians.
The parliamentarians opted that the aristocracy has the right to
influence governance. The royalist argued on the side of the monarchs
divine right.
The execution of Charles I was the result of the power struggle between
the parliament and the monarch.
Charles I, to the ire of the parliament raised taxes and persecuted tax
evaders.
The parliament, saw the act as unjust, and decided to overthrow the
monarch and had him publicly executed by beheading.
Moreover, Charles I also had plenty of religious policies that angered the
parliaments of England, specifically when he married a Catholic French
princess.
Hobbes premise in the Leviathan is a critique of ascendancy and
political power in the practice of governing states in his time.
 Hobbes was very critical of the parliamentary procedure and at the
same time the religious intervention of churches in granting the right of
monarchs to rule.
The point of Hobbes criticism was to create an argument that would
justify the rule of leader figure that is neither taken from the divine right
principle nor from the populist movement found in democracy.
Hobbes work had a certain similarity with an earlier political theorist
Niccolo Machiavelli.
Hobbes sought to justify the rule of a leader to maintain social order.
In contrast with Hobbes, Machiavellis work (which is somewhat
satirical), serves as guide for a leader to maintain power amidst social,
political, and economic intrigue.
What makes Hobbes unique is his justification of the idea of social
contract that is divorced from both religion and popular politics.
Machiavelli on the other hand was guided by the principle that the end
justifies the means, insofar as the result or decisions of the ruler are
only evaluated with the output of his actions.
For example, Machiavelli justified that if one has to eliminate political
rivals, one has to do it in one quick and sweeping action.
Moreover, using techniques of flattery and appearances of benevolence
when needed and violence when necessary placed Machiavellis work as
a manual for statesmanship as opposed to a justification of a social
contract.
The Leviathan works under the premise that there must be a leader or
an institution that is capable of instilling order in the state.
Contrary to the idea of the Leviathan as a single entity; Hobbes looked
at the leadership as an institution. Either in the form of a monarch or a
parliament.
The state under the rule of the Leviathan considers the ascendancy of
the Leviathan, not in the form of a popular vote or divine right. The
Leviathan rules as a recognition of the need for social order.
With this in mind, the Leviathan gains his power from the people, and is
at the same time protected by the people.
Hobbes on Human Nature
For Hobbes, human life is defined with the following characteristics:
Solitary
Poor
Nasty
Brutish
Short
SPooN BruSH
These characteristics of human nature leads to excesses in behaviour.
Contrary to the idea of mere brutishness, humans also practice the
excesses of behaviour in the form of altruism.
We often desire things in excess, we want more and sometimes we give
too much.
This behaviour creates an imbalance of expectations with social
interactions.
State of War
The premise of human nature implies that there is a common state of
war within society.
We inherently distrust each other and yet expect kindness and
sympathy at the same time.
If given a free reign over the issues of the state and society, humans are
most likely to deplete their resources either by taking from another or
by giving it to an excess.
Social institutions, therefore, must work to even out these tendencies.
With the events that led to the English Revolution in Hobbes time, he
saw that the monarch in his entitlement from the divine right can cause
as much imbalance as the parliament.
The parliament, on the other hand, despite its political assent from the
people also suffers an issue of imbalance inasmuch as they are
susceptible to taking personal interests over the interest of the state.
Political affiliations and aspirations can overcome the need to keep the
state in order.
Despite this, Hobbes finds the necessity of power in maintaining social
order within the state.
If the leader is weak, the leader would be overcome by the influence of
the people and other institutions (i.e. religion).
Thus, the Leviathan, must be strong enough to overcome all the factors
that can influence state. (i.e. media, people, landowners, economics,
etc.)
In the end, Hobbes insists that the Leviathan must be able to hold these
sources of power in check.
 To do this, the Leviathan must work out a principle or a way to unite The Many are seen but not known, and the ideas are known but not
these forces to a goal or objective that would benefit society as a whole. seen. S
With this, Hobbes is able to argue the necessity of a social contract. Analogy between sight and knowledge.
The Social Contract Neither Sight, nor the eye in which sight resides is the sun.
The Social Contract is a principle that people follow and recognise when Sight requires not simply the object of its perception, it requires the
they become aware that they interact with society as a whole. mediation of light in order to make the object visible.
We recognise the social contract because it is the very principle that The mediation of light affects the gradation of the vision that we obtain
made us who we are. from sight. The stronger the light, the more visible the object becomes.
The social contract allows us to become more than beasts that are The fainter it is, the less we are able to see.
governed by excesses of behaviour. The Divided Line
Without the social contract, things like commerce, education, The soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truth and
interaction, and property would not exist because everything else would being shine, the soul perceives and understands and is radiant with
be a matter of violent struggles for survival. intelligence; but when turned towards the twilight of becoming and
In other words, the social contract is a principle that serves the interest perishing, then she has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is first
of the people by maintaining the possibility of social order within the of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no intelligence?
state. The Sun is not sight, but the author of sight who is recognised by sight.
The Social Contract is an implicit agreement, it is a responsibility that we The gradation of knowledge is how we are able to distinguish between
learn and must practice immediately when we are introduced to truth and opinion. The latter is nearer to the origin or the author of
society. knowledge, the latter is farther from the source.
It is not a formal contract that we agree upon when we interact with Orhanoz intellectual Rational (Ideal)
others. It is a contract that makes socialisation possible. Orhatoz Visible Sensible (Phenomenal)
The problem with the social contract is that its goals and parameters are
not fixed. It is subject to the changing needs of the people and the state.
As such, the same dilemma is met with Machiavelli. Since the ends or
the goals of state are not immediately clear, we can only hope that
whatever design that the Leviathan has for the state, will in the end
justify the means that was made to reach it.
Plato: Overview and Context of his Texts
Real Name: Aristocles
Was nicknamed Platon because of his broad and sturdy build, and also,
because his wrestling prowess.
Served in the Peloponnesian war.
Died of old age after a drinking wine on a wedding party.
Plato claimed that he was a student of Socrates.
However, the existence of Socrates is difficult to prove. Most likely,
Plato used Socrates as a mouth-piece for his thoughts.
The Dividing Line
 A Images Imprints left by the senses. They are copies of the
sensible.
B Phenomena The immediate sense perception.
C - Hypothesis Contemplation of Perception
Ideas Reason The source of knowledge

Ancient Greek Culture

Ancient Greek Culture is very dependent on social orders and

hierarchies.
 One of the prominent features of this culture is the division of tasks in a
household (hence the concept of economics or oikonomos) and the use
of slavery.
Citizens enjoy a life of luxury and wealth, the men spend their time
either by going to war, the fine arts, learning, and participation in
politics.
Women, despite being distinct from slaves, are not given the
entitlement to vote. They do however, enjoy the control of the estates
of their husbands.
Men and Women are mostly segregated in their activities and interests.
Men often spend most of their time with other men, the same is true
also with women.
Homosexuality is common, it is practiced in the military by men who
acquires their pages or trainees (pederasty) and is passed on as a
tradition. Women, are also engaged in this act due to the need to be
trained in the island of Lesbos.
That is why gymnasiums and the island of Lesbos are exclusive to either
men or women respectively.
Ancient Greeks are fundamentally guided by their social roles. Going
against the norm is considered as taboo for the Ancient Greeks.
Ethics, Virtue and Happiness: Aristotle
Aristotle
Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher born in Stagira on 384 BC.
He was a student of Plato, and was considered as one of his best pupils.
He was supposed to take over Platos Academy, but was superseded by
one of Platos relative.
Aristotle instead opted to tutor Alexander the Great in 343 BC; after this
he opened his own school called the Lyceum.
Aristotle is one of the thinkers that laid the foundation for the scientific
method, he was also responsible for logic, aesthetic theory, psychology,
and political theory.
Aristotles teaching style was peripatetic, he wandered around with
his students during his lectures.
Aristotles death was due to a stomach disorder.
Aristotle Ethical Systems
Aristotle conceives ethics as a body of objective knowledge. It is a
systematic organisation of concepts and principles or laws. He considers
ethics as a science.
Ethics is a practical science and is concerned with correct conduct that
guides man toward a life of excellence.
Like Plato, he argues that happiness is the end of human desires.
He regards ethical virtues as complex rational, emotional, and social
skills.
Unlike Plato, Aristotle thinks that training in the sciences and
metaphysics (i.e. essences) is the only necessary pre-requisite for a full
understanding of the idea of a good.
Aristotle insists that in order to apply general understanding to
particular cases (deduction), we must acquire, through proper
upbringing and habits, the ability to see, on each occasion which course
of action is best supported by reasons.
Ethics requires practical wisdom, and practical wisdom cannot be
acquired solely by learning general rules.
Aristotles ethics could be found in two works: (1) The Nicomachean
Ethics and (2) Eudemian Ethics.
Both starts with the discussion of eudaimonia or happiness and move
on to the examination of the nature of arte or virtue.
While Plato claims that the form of the moral good is independent
of experience, Aristotle on the other hand rejects this idea and
insists that the basic moral principle is immanent in the activities of
daily lives.
By studying these activities, the idea of a good is known through
practical means, rather than transcendental or abstract means that
are supposedly permanent or unchanging.
Eudaimonia: Happiness
For Aristotle, all human actions aim at some end, while they are often
fuelled by desires, these desires are merely intermediate. Meaning that
these desires are just simply means to a greater end. An ultimate end
(or purpose/telos) means that:
(1) self-sufficient even in itself makes it desirable and lacking nothing.
(2) final that is in itself desirable and never desired for the sake of
something else.
 (3) attainability that the desired object/goal can be achieved or
acquired.
For Aristotle, this goal is achieved by eudaimonia or happiness.
Happiness contains two vital concepts: reason and virtue.
Happiness is related to the highest activity of the soul which is reason.
This entails a life lived according to certain plan or purpose furnished
by reason. The good life is involves both thinking and doing.
Virtue is an active performance of an activity and becomes a
disposition that is effective and proper.
Virtues
Virtues are subdivided into two types: Moral and Intellectual.
Intellectual virtues could either be philosophic or practical wisdom.
Philosophic Intellectual virtues are purely theoretical and is achieved by
understanding the unchanging structure of reality.
Practical Wisdom is the rational understanding of how to conduct ones
daily life.
Intellectual virtue is thus the product of the contemplation of
theoretical truths and the discovery of rational principles which ought to
guide everyday actions.
Moral virtues is the habitual choice of actions in accordance to rational
principles.
To balance our desires and emotions, we need more than intellectual
virtues, we also need moral virtues.
The wise individual personifies the intellectual virtues. This is attained
via instruction and knowledge.
The continent one, personifies the moral virtues. This is attained by
habits of choice expressed in practical actions tempered by the
circumstances and the person itself.
Virtue as a State of Character
Aristotle distinguishes three elements of human personality, passions,
faculties, and states of character.
Passions like anger and fear, and the faculties like the ability to feel
anger and fear, are not in and of themselves good or bad.
They must, however, be disciplined to follow the rational rules.
By virtue as a state of character, Aristotle means that a morally good
person is not just one who performs morally right actions, but one who
has developed a habit or disposition to do what is right.
The state of character which enables the person to fulfil his or her
proper function aim at an intermediary point between the opposite
extremes of excess and deficiency.
Virtue and the Mean
Virtue is the state of character concerned with choice in between a
mean.
It is relative to us and determined by a rational principle that is
determined by practical wisdom.
A moral disposition is connected with choice, lying in a mean relative to
us.
Every ethical virtue is a condition intermediate between two extreme
state: excess and deficiency.
Too much and too little are always wrong; the right kind of action
always lies in the mean.
A virtuous person is able to avoid these extremes and is always in a
situation of condition intermediate between the two.
A courageous person judges that some dangers are worth facing and
others are not and experiences fear to a degree that is appropriate to
his circumstances.
The virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate state between the
opposed vices of excess and deficiency.
With respect to acting in the face of danger, courage is a mean between
the excess of rashness and the deficiency of cowardice.
With respect to the enjoyment of pleasure, temperance is a mean
between the excess of self-indulgence and the deficiency of
insensibility.
With respect to spending money, generosity is a mean between the
excess of wastefulness and the deficiency of stinginess.
With respect to relations with strangers, being friendly is a mean
between the excess of being ingratiating (a sycophant) and the
deficiency of being surly.
With respect to self-esteem, magnanimity or self honesty is a mean
between the excess of vanity or boastfulness and the deficiency of
pusillanimity or self-deprecation.
Voluntary Action and Moral Responsibility
Moral evaluation of an action presupposes the attribution of
responsibility to the human agent.
 Human actions are involuntary under two distinct conditions: First,
actions that are produced by some external force. Second, actions
performed out of ignorance are also involuntary.
The sort of ignorance that Aristotle regards as excusable is always
the lack of awareness of relevant particulars. Hurting other people
while claiming to be ignorant of the moral rule under which it is
wrong is not excusable.
Decisions to act voluntarily rely upon deliberation about the choice
among alternative actions that the individual could perform.
Aristotle supposes that moral actions are within our power to be
performed or be avoided or even restrained.
Thus, we are reasonably held responsible for these actions and their
consequences.
Although the virtues are habits of acting or dispositions to act in
certain ways, Aristotle maintains that these habits are acquired by
engaging in proper conduct on specific occasions and that doing so
requires thinking about what one does in a specific way.
Neither demonstrative knowledge of the sort employed in science
nor aesthetic judgment of the sort applied in crafts are relevant to
morality.
Knowledge or understanding can only explore the nature of origins
of things, and wisdom can only trace the demonstrable connections
among them.
We need practical intelligence or prudence for morality.
Practical intelligence or prudence is the faculty that comprehends
the true character of individual and community welfare. It applies
its results to the guidance of human action
Deliberative reasoning allows us to consider each of the many
actions that are within ones power to perform, considering the
extent to which each of them would contribute to the attainment of
the appropriate goal or end, making a deliberate choice to act in the
way that best fits that end, and then voluntarily engaging in the
action itself.
Akrasia or Incontinence: Weakness of the Will
Aristotle rejects Platos argument that knowing something always
results in to the right action.
The great enemy of moral conduct is the failure to behave well even
on those occasions when ones deliberation has resulted to the
clear knowledge of what is right.
Incontinent agents suffer from a sort of weakness of the will and
this prevents them from carrying out actions in conformity with
what they have reasoned.
The Akratic individuals lack the mastery of their feelings, and are
unable to draw the appropriate connection between general moral
rule and the particular case to which it applies.
Great pleasure can obscure ones perception of what is truly good.
Incontinence is not genuinely moral, neither is it truly vicious.
There is a difference between an incontinent person, who knows
what is right and aims for it but is sometimes overcome by pleasure
and a self-indulgent person, who purposefully seeks excessive
pleasure.
The vice of self-indulgence is incurable because it destroys the
principle of related virtue, which is temperance.
Incontinence is curable because the respect for virtue remains.
A clumsy archer may get better with practice, while a skilled archer
who chooses not to aim for the target will not hit the target.
Happiness and the Moral Person
Pleasure is not a good in itself, since it is by nature incomplete.
We are rightly guided in life by our natural preference for engaging
in pleasant activities.
Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue, since this alone
provides true value and not just amusement.
Contemplation is the highest form of moral activity because it is
continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and complete intellectual
activity.
The morally good person could be the one who carefully follows
reason, desires to do the right thing, has a well formed character.
Much of this is learned through experience.
Humes Ethics
David Hume
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, and economist.
He was born on 1711 and is best known for his empiricist and
sceptic position in the theory of knowledge.
 Hume wants to establish the science of human nature so as to
create a foundation for understanding experience and observation.
For Hume, ideas are not real in the sense that they are just merely
impressions created by the mind.
Impressions are our original experience, they may either be
sensations or the immediate and original contents of our own
psychological states.
The more vivacious or lively these impressions are, the more that
they are ought to be considered true.
Like Aristotle, Hume died of a stomach disease. (and perhaps, of
obesity)
Epistemic Ethics
Hume provides a descriptive ethics rather than a prescriptive ethics.
His moral philosophy provides a description of moral assertions and
evaluations rather than giving a standard or norm of moral evaluation.
Morality for him is tied with psychology or the nature of the mind.
He demonstrates that reason cannot provide us with knowledge about
the world, so he argues that reason plays a very limited role in our
moral life.
Moral assertions are always contingent to matters of fact. They are
contingent to reality and may not always be necessarily true.
While matters of fact lie on the object itself, moral assertions are rooted
in human feelings.
Moral assertions are always contingent to matters of fact. They are
contingent to reality and may not always be necessarily true.
While matters of fact lie on the object itself, moral assertions are rooted
in human feelings.
Moral assertion is based on the conjunction of experienced events, one
of which is an external behavioural event, and the other is the internal
mental event.
One is voluntary action (Behavioural event), and the other is a feeling of
either approval or disapproval (Internal Mental Event).
While reason provides information to our will, reason cannot compel us
to act, it is the passion that drives man to act, ethically or unethically.
Ethics, thus is a study of how we act according to the conflict of reason
and human passions.
The Rules of Passion and the Role of Reason
For Hume, morality is practical. It influences and regulates our conduct.
The fact that reason itself does not provide a spring of action means
that it cannot be a source of moral conduct.
Reason is used to discover truth and falsehood.
However, when it comes to moral issues, one cannot just be concerned
with what is true to necessary because morality is concerned with what
one ought to do.
Right or wrong action cannot be discerned by the relations of ideas nor
appreciation of facts
Rightness and wrongness is a matter of sentiments or passion.
Hence sentiments or passions are the ultimate source of morality,
despite this, reason plays a role in rendering moral decisions.
Passions are impressions rather than ideas. The direct passions, which
include desire, aversion, hope, fear, grief, and joy are those that arise
immediately from good or evil, or from pain or pleasure.
Indirect passions, primarily, pride, humility, love, and hatred are
generated in a more complex way, but still one involving either the
thought or experience of pain or pleasure.
Hume is against the idea that reason and passions are opposed.
He claims that reason alone cannot motivate action, the impulse to act
itself must come from passion. Reason is merely the slave of the
passions.
When we anticipate pain or pleasure from some source, we are
compelled naturally to either embrace or avoid these feelings.
Reason allows us to direct ourselves in terms of our pursuit or aversion
of either pain or pleasure.
Likewise, reason alone cannot prevent volition or resist passion in
controlling the will.
Reason cannot in itself impede or allow these volitions, it can however,
project these volitions that can motivate us towards an end.
Morality Based Sentiments
Sentiments are natural psychological givens. It is a moral feeling
common to everyone.
The human community can survive because we have some kind of
moral feelings that tend to lead us to work for the good of the
community.
Morality is thus, more properly felt than judged.
 We discover good and evil through reasoning by showing that
neither demonstrative nor causal reasoning has vice and virtue as its
proper object.
Causal reasoning is the manner in which the sentiments of the
observer is able to observe causes and effects of vice and virtue of
the action. In other words, it determines the mean.
The Moral Evaluation of Character Traits: Virtue and Vice
Our moral evaluations of persons and their character traits arise
from our sentiments.
Virtues and vices are those traits the disinterested contemplation of
which produces approval or disapproval.
The approval or disapproval of the traits that are produced in the
disinterested individual are expressions of moral sentiments are
emotions.
They are caused by contemplating on the person or action, without
regard for ones self-interest, and is based on a common or general
perspective that compensates for any distortion in the observer.
Moral sentiments are typically calm rather than violent. They can be
intensified by the moral responses of others.
We distinguish which traits are virtuous and which are vicious based
on our feelings.
We determine our feeling of approval of the virtues based on these
characteristics: it is either immediately agreeable to the person who
has it or to others, or it is useful to its possessor or to others.
Vices are parallel features, they are either immediately disagreeable
or disadvantageous to the person or to the others.
These are not definitions of virtue and vice, they are empirical
generalizations of the traits according to their effects on moral
sentiments.
The Nature of Sympathy
Approval or disapproval are products of the operation of sympathy.
It is the psychological mechanism that allows one to receive the
sentiments of another.
They function as follows:
First, it observes the effects of another persons affection and its
outward expression.
Through association, the images or impressions of the operation is
automatically transferred to those others that are related to it.
Because of the resemblance and my contiguity to the observed
person, the idea of his or her passion is associated in my mind.
Sympathy can take the form of a general benevolence for all
humanity as a sentiment which is a feeling for the happiness of
mankind and resentment for its misery.
This is our moral bedrock.
The Approval of Natural and Artificial Virtues
Hume divides the virtues into those that are natural and artificial.
It is natural when it is immediate and independent of cultural and
social conventions.
It is artificial when they depend on character traits, social practices,
and common goods.
Our sense of every kind of virtue is not natural; but there are some
virtues that produce pleasure and approbation by means of an
artifice or contrivance that comes from the circumstances and
necessities of mankind.
The natural virtues are more refined and completed forms of those
human sentiments we could find even in people who belonged to
no society but cooperated within small familial groups.
The artificial are the ones we need for successful impersonal
cooperation, our natural sentiments are too partial to give rise to
these without intervention.
Among the artificial virtues, honesty with respect to property;
fidelity to promises; allegiance to ones government; conformity to
the laws of the nation; chastity; good manners; and faithfulness to
promises and contracts, are among the useful artificial virtues.
The fact that we approve the natural and artificial virtues even
when our own interest is not at stake, confirms that through
reflection on the tendency of characters and mental qualities, it is
sufficient to give us the sentiments of approbation and blame.