Moral Character: Aristotle

Aristotle believes that all actions and questions are done for the purpose of some sort of good. If there is something that we desire something that fulfills itself, an ultimate end, then this thing must be good and the chief good. This chief good should have an influence on the rest of how we live our lives as we aim for this target. Politics, ethics and social philosophy, should have this quality. Aristotle also believes that reaching this good for a nation or state is greater than reaching it for an individual - I assume because it will positively impact the whole nation of people rather than just the individual. 

Aristotle believes that good and just actions, guided by politics, are achieved through convention rather than by nature. This causes him to conclude that the best people for politics are those who are educated about them and have the most experience with them. Having a less experienced person create ideals is foolish as they are more likely to be flawed. People are good judges of what they know - making the young bad to get political advice from.

Aristotle says that most people hold the opinion that happiness is the chief good that people aim for. Aristotle identifies a person's chief good as the single end result that we pursue. We must remember that ends are not always final ends. One end often leads to another and then another, therefore there can only be one final end - something that is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Happiness is the end and final result of many of the virtues we have. Aristotle says the final good should also be self-sufficient - fulfilling when isolated and lacking nothing.

Aristotle defines happiness as coming from a complete life full of activity of the soul, a rational principle, in accordance with virtue (the best virtue possible). This must be throughout the entire life, not just one day, hence the use of "complete life." Human virtue, that of the soul, depends on the structure of the soul. Each soul is made of two different parts, the irrational and the rational principle.

Aristotle says that two virtues, intellect and morality, correspond to reason. One of the reasons that he says virtues can't be created by nature is that our virtues tend to come from habits, and we cannot create a habit that is contrary to our nature making the source of morality convention. The only way we an become skilled in an area is by performing that medium, moral actions being performed leads to better moral actions/behavior (habits).

Aristotle breaks the human personality into three elements: passions, faculties, and sates of character. He believes that morality comes from states of character as passions and faculties are not, in themselves, worthy of praise. Being a state of character it makes man good and makes his work good too. For us to do this we must seek the intermediate that is correct for what is right.

He finally defines virtue as a state of character concerned with choice involving a mean between excess and defect in what is right. We use rational principle to help us decide. When there is excess fearlessness (a mean) we get rashness, but under doing it and we get a coward. Temperance can become self-indulgence and lacking, a person could be called "insensible." Liberality becomes prodigality or meanness.

The intellectual virtues, ones that exercise reason, have the task of give us knowledge of the world around us and to help provide a rational guide for action throughout our day. Virtues show that we have practical wisdom, not forms of practical wisdom as Socrates would have us believe.

Aristotle wishes people choose activities based on how good they are not based on the amount of pleasure that they produce. A good activity will have pleasure, but pleasure does not necessarily produce goodness - making the good activity better than the pleasurable one.

Happiness aligns with virtue, so we should seek the highest of virtues. If our activity is in accordance with this highest virtue than we should find the perfect happiness. Aristotle believes that philosophic wisdom is the pleasant of virtuous activities. A man who seeks and contemplates truth becomes self-sufficient. We work so that we may have free time and we make war so that we may have peace.

If we live lives that are full of reason that is best and pleasantest we will live the happiest of lives, as reason is human.

Discussion Questions/Comments

I find it interesting that Aristotle believe that "true student of politics wishes to make his fellow citizens good and obedient to the laws." I want to know how he is defining laws. Is he talking virtue? If he is I feel that "obedient" is an odd word choice as you should want people to adopt virtues and make them their own, not follow because they must be "obedient."

I didn't really follow what Aristotle was trying to say about the rational and irrational principles of the soul in #7. Could you clear that up please?

What is he talking about with picking the "intermediate?" I understand what he is saying...just not why he is talking about it. Was it only so he could connect it to the 'mean of character?'

Can you have excess "right"? Wouldn't that just be a more moral, just, and good world? Or are we talking about when a virtue becomes a vice?

I don't understand what he means when he says that "philosophic wisdom is the pleasant of virtuous activities." Does he mean virtuous actions or the process of thinking about/creating morals?

Key Terms/Definitions

Teleology: the explaining of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by the postulated causes
Politics (Aristotle): ethics and social philosophy
Self-sufficient (Aristotle): fulfilling when isolated and lacking nothing


Analogous: comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared
Defect: a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack
Prodigality: spending money and resources freely and recklessly 

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Duped by Morality: John K. Roth

Roth claims our own plans, dispositions, and actions as the biggest culprits to why we get deceived so often. Morality though is not something we usually think as being misleading, rather we believe that it leads us in the right direction all the time. The holocaust showed how much we had actually ben duped by morality.

There are three clear examples in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

1. "Never again!" is deceptively reassuring as it only shows a desire to prevent ones own destruction
2. "The killing will stop" shows that we only hope we value life enough killings will stop, not actual results
3. Retribution, it is mistaken as a form that will teach a lesson. Winning a fight does not mean peace, just the end of the current fight

Roth feels that Christians owe Jews a debt we can never repay, because Christians took part in isolating Jews over centuries, helping the holocaust to happen in the end. Roth believes that a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would only bring a short term solution to the conflict, believe otherwise people would be duping themselves.


Discussion Questions/Comments

So is the PCUSA saying they want to support Palestinians financially? Or was the divestment creating more capital for...what?

So I was confused what the PCUSA story of divestment had to do with duped morality. I just saw that they changed their stance on the value of investing money into Israel. What morality were they duped by?



Key Terms/Definitions

Divestment: the action or process of selling off subsidiary business interests or investments

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Grey Zones and Double-Binds: Holocaust challenges to ethics: John K. Roth

Roth mentions that Kant asked three questions: What can I know, what should I do, and what may I hope? The second is the one focused on ethics and morals, a question that makes ethics as old as human existence. Our actions force us to face what is just or unjust, right or wrong, and good or evil - forcing ethics into play. Ethics are also influenced by our value judgements and institutions. This brings up the question of objective vs. subjective ethics. Are there ones that are universal or will culture influence a person's decision? Ethics would not be ethics if they didn't force us to have critical inquiry, which is good because judgments can be mistaken.

Roth worries that we as people won't take ethics serious enough in the future. He brings up John Rawls and the "Vail of Ignorance." When placed behind the vail, we don't know our role in the world. This forces us to make decisions not based on ourselves but how we would want the situation to be if we were any other person in the situation. Right and wrong would be easier to establish as it would have to be considered reasonable from every party or at least as many as possible.

If humans knew everything then we wouldn't need critical ethical reflection and thought. Often conflict is caused by people disagreeing with what is right and what is wrong. The Grey Zone, as defined by Primo Levi, is where there is no complete clarity in ethics despite efforts to remove ambiguity. When ethics face the grey zone and come out with less "appeal" then trust in the moral world is lost. This grey zone helps to show that failure.

Roth believes that the conscious plays a huge role in ethics, but each individuals is not the same. We each possess the ability to think but the judgements and values we use are different. This is evident through the Nazi conscience, as they all acted in ways they thought were right and good. Racial hygiene was one such example, protecting the German Genetic Stream

Nazi conscience and ethics can be condensed into three main pieces.

1. Germans are different from every other group of people
2. German purity is the most important of issues and leads to prosperity
3. Germans should put German people's interests before self interest

These three parts lead to a nationalism that moved for ethnic cleaning, violence for the sake of the nation, and progress to prevent the nation from decay. It was a code of ethics because they called for integrity, communal solidarity, self-sacrifice, loyalty, courage, patritism and hardness - values and virtues that are good in themselves. (There was also the unwillingness to feel for enemies as a value) These virtues helped to justify the horrible actions in the holocaust. This is problematic, as we traditionally see ethics as things that produce good not evil.

Roth says that there are "ethical pit falls" when it comes to saying we study the holocaust for ethical reasons. The first is that triviality and banality must be avoided! The second part is that the holocaust can't be preempted, rather it must be accepted as what is and the full extent of what happened. This means avoiding ethical judgements that can't stand the questioning of the shadow of the Birkenau. The Birkenau was the "final solution" killing machine used to mass murder jews.

Roth brings up Sarah Kofman, who induced the idea of knotted words. These are words that want out but that are suppressed because of being forced to be contained for so long. They are painful and difficult to start or continue. Roth states that these are what Double-binds are - a duty to speak and yet the almost physical impossibility of speaking, words choked off.

The holocaust has created an obligation for ethics to be spoken about, but a double-bind is created by the horrible fear that too much damage has been done for recovery - ethics are overwhelmed with no chance.

Despite the nazi attempt to destroy humanity, it showed that there is an "indestructible unity." You can kill a person but that does not change that they are still a person. What we can take is that it is important to support the community of people who don't have a community.

Discussion Questions/Comments

I love how thoughtful inquiry is part of our mission statement

I like Rawls vail of ignorance, but I feel like it would be really hard to follow. Throughout the ethical decision making process you would still be subconsciously influenced by your own situation.

I find it really interesting how the "ten commandments for pick a spouse" was designed to act much like the real ten commandments or bible, both in form, order, and feel of content.

It is scary that these writers killed themselves (Pg. 90) after making it out of such a horrible experience, the world in my mind would be so much better. Did they lose all hope in the world for good, despite the improvement of their lives?

Key Terms/Definitions

Institution: a society or organization founded for a religions, educational, social, or similar purpose
The Grey Zone:
Decalogue: the ten commandments
Banality: so lacking in originality it is obvious

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Why Study the Holocaust?: John K. Roth

Roth asks the question of why we study the holocaust. Despite sixty years having passed we still see genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder. Begs the most difficult of possibilities - maybe, despite all our efforts and the good they could potentially produce, learning about the holocaust is a waste of resources and time. Facing this question, he asks us to look deeper at the ethical yearnings and aspirations that stand at the core of holocaust studies.

Roth labels the holocaust as an "immense human failure." Ethics were harmed because it was shown that ethical teaching could be overridden or subverted to unethical ends. Many stood as bystanders while many more participated despite the unethical treatment of fellow humans. The status of moral norms were skewed by how so many people let these deaths happened. We have placed more importance on human rights and stopping crimes against humanity. Sharing the words and of ideas of Amery Maier, Roth shows us that the experience of help is a fundamental experience of being human - when help wasn't given we damaged the trust in the world that help would come.

Even one of the basic needs, Home, was destroyed for millions of people in the holocaust. Not just the places we live, but also the relationships, the safety, and the love we possess. It is true that homes recover in a sense, never the same as before but they still recover. Morals have continued to exist despite human's destructive power against its own kind but power has and clearly can be misused.

Genocide in some shape or form has always targeted children in some shape or form. Killing off children stops a people from growing both in population and culturally. Destroy those children, or totally ruin the culture and the existence of a people will disappear. If we would instead care for the world's children, not just our own, then Roth believes that we could overcome all genocide. The quality of human life depends on putting children first. Holocaust education reminds us to do just that. Roth asked the question of why we should study the holocaust. The answer is to teach that we should put children first, the priority of our existence.

Roth begs us to remember, take nothing good for granted.


Discussion Questions/Comments

What is moral relativism exactly?

One of the scariest parts for me is that the best way to destroy a people is to attack its weakest and brightest future - children.



Key Terms/Definitions

Impugned: despite the truth, validity, or honestly of (a statement or motive); call into question

The Transvaluation of Values: Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche claims that there are two types of morality exists - master-morality and slave-morality, the foremost found in the ruling class while the ruled posses the latter. Master-morality is where the master is the judge and creator of values - a morality that is self-glorification. Slave-morality refines the values of the masters with a filter of distrust while any virtues that remove or alleviate the pains of life are valued. Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. These two types of morality have led to the "famous antithesis of good and evil" where power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in evil. Slave-morality believes that the evil man arouses fear while master-morality believes that it is the good man who arouses fear, and actively does so. Master-morality looks at good vs. bad while slave-morality looks at good vs. evil. In slave-morality resentment plays a role in the creation of its values, creating hatred changing the master's idea of bad into evil.

Nietzsche believes that the more barbarian of man, the more noble, is the cause for greater creativity and intelligence, even though they prey on the weaker more civilized and moral people. The barbarian (noble) superiority is not just about their physical power but their psychical power, making a more complete man (and beasts). Slave-moralism values disapprove of creative egoism that is the core of master-moralism. This can be seen in how they value altruism, which devalues the person for the safety of another, showing the unimportance of the first individual.

Nietzsche then claims that the suppression of violence, mutual pain, and exploitation is a Will to the denial of life. Nietzsche claims that this is the principle, of denial of life, leads to "decay and dissolution."
Nietzsche claims that the definition of life is: stealing, injury, the strong beating the weak, suppression, bad experiences, incorporation, and exploitation. Those that survive become stronger and grow from the Will of Power - the essence of what life really is.

Nietzsche regards Christianity to be the most fatal and seductive lie ever created - he would have man attack it in open war. He believes that Christianity creates the "morality of paltry people." Paltry people destroy life. Judaism is no better. Both these faiths enable people to further weaken themselves. Nature is removed from morality when people are told to "love your enemies." God removes utility from morals. The origin of morality (nature) is removed by faith - the destruction of a natural (inborn?) morality.

Because of the destruction of the Will of Power and egoism by these faiths, they destroy the evolutionary power of people.

Nietzsche believes that moral philosophers also call for the destruction of life. He believes that philosophers who say people seek happiness are unwilling to answer the truth, power, because that would be an immoral answer. Moral philosophers call for virtues to reach happiness. Nietzsche claims that pleasure is a sensation of power - and if passions are excluded, you prevent the greatest sensations of power and therefore pleasure. For this reason Nietzsche says that consciousness is not the highest state supreme state of mind, but the opposite is - I presume he refers to the natural instinct of barbarianism within people.

Nietzsche promotes cruelty, which he says in rooted in our "high culture." In fact, he promotes anything horrible motives to human kind, as he believes that they help raise humanity - the exact opposite of all modern ideology.

Nietzsche believes that the philosophers of the future will better understand that appealing to people is not necessary and that all forms of human misery are necessary to promote. "Common Good" will not be sought, as common things have little value.

Nietzsche hopes there will be a transvaluation of values, so that the Will of Power will take prominence.


Discussion Questions/Comments

What does Nietzsche mean by the pathos of distance?

Does Nietzsche really mean "psychical power" or does he actually mean mental/intellectual power? In #4 he uses psychical alone - does he mean psychology now?

Can you explain Nietzsche's use of capital "Will"?

Is Nietzsche's definition of Utility his own or the same as Mill's or Sidgwick's?

By nature morality, does he mean natural or intuitive/inborn morality?

In #8 is Nietzsche talking about physical sensations when talking about "passions?"

Key Terms/Definitions

Juxtapose: place or deal with close together for contrasting effect
Antithesis: a person or thing that is the direct opposite of someone or something else
Pathos: Feelings
Altruism: the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others
Egoism: an ethical theory that treats self-interest as the foundation of morality
Emasculate: make weaker or less effective
Transvaluation: to alter someone's judgement or reactions

Appropriation: the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owners permission
Paltry: small or meager
Dialectics: the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions
Dogmatism: the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others

Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_nietzsche.pdf

Duty and Reason: Immanuel Kant

According to Kant, nothing is wholly good because they can always be attached to some bad or be misused for bad. Be it mental talents, character or gifts of good fortune they, in themselves, are not good. The only thing that can be called good is good will. Good will is not good because of what it achieves, although it can produce results of good. good will is good by virtue of its existence, the sole purpose to produce good. Whether it produces that good or not, it in itself is good.

Kant says that happiness is not a product of reason but rather reason actually reduces peoples happiness. Reason instead must help people to produce good will. Kant says that this will, produced through reason, "must be the supreme good and the condition of every other", including the desire of happiness.

To better explain good will, Kant takes the "notion of duty" into his explanation. A good will is a will that acts for duty and actions are only moral if they are drivin by duty, good will in turn. Acting when duty is the only reason to act is morally right. Duty does not have to be pleasant, just morally right. Just because a behavior is praiseworthy does not mean that it is a moral action. We have many inclinations that drive us to do praiseworthy actions, those good actions aren't moral unless they are driven by duty alone.

Again, Kant reinforces that moral worth, like good will, is not judged by the product of actions but rather  by the principles that guided the actions - duty. He defines duty as "the necessity of acting from respect for the law." Inclinations, at best, may be approved, but Kant does not believe that they can be respected. Actions done by duty exclude inclinations, leaving only the law which has pure respect. Morals must lie in the "conception of the law, which is only possible in a reasonable being."

Kant believes that the supreme principle or law of morality is the "categorical imperative." Imperatives are things that people ought to do, which shows the connection of reason to a will. Hypothetically imperatives are ones that have a practical necessity of a possible action as a means to something that is willed. Categorical imperatives are where the actions are necessary in themselves - not for another mean to an end. Categorical are good in themselves (if will and reason are connected) while Hypothetical are means to other ends.

Kant believes that there is only one categorical imperative that we should follow: Act only on a maxim that you can will to be a universal law. These maxims for moral action must have no contradictions and should maintain the purity of its purpose/will.

Kant's ideas of categorical imperative have social implications. We must treat people as a end in themselves not a means to an end outside of the relationship that you have. "Things" are means to an end while "persons" are means to themselves.

When the principle is complete, it must follow two rules: First, people should be respected as ends in themselves and second, any moral maxim followed must be universally followable.



Discussion Questions/Comments

Can a person's "good will" be caused by an inclination? Isn't good will an inclination in itself?

I really liked Kant's definition of happiness! It mades a lot of sense to me.

I have become confused (starting in #9) if Kant means good will every time he says will. Is all will produced by reason good will, since reason was used to create it?

With the one categorical imperative that we should follow, does Kant mean that we should only act on moral maxims that are reasoned with good will and should be law?

Key Terms/Definitions

Inclination: a person's tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity
Happiness: contentment with one's condition
Maxim: a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct (ex: actions speak louder than words)



Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_kant.pdf