For Aristotle a virtue is what makes a thing perform its function well, therefore it is what helps man in his pursuit of happiness by getting him accustomed to something from which he becomes good over time. For him ethical values are acquired by habituation. To be called a virtuous act, a person must know and intend to do what he/she is doing; his/her intention must be to do it for its own sake and he/she must act with certainty and firmness. Virtues are the mean that lies between two extremes. In the case of temperance, it represents the reasonable mean between pain and pleasure. Aristotle explains to us that temperance is the mean of the bodily pleasures that we share with the animals. Animals’ desires are regulated by instincts, which is not the case for humans. Humans have to voluntarily decide to adhere to the principle of acting in a reasonable way. They are not supposed to follow blindly their desires for pleasures or completely deny themselves these pleasures. He lets us know that most natural desires don’t err, but the mistake occurs when a person is too much pained by the fact that the desire cannot be fulfilled. He recommends that the individual should accustom him/herself to attain a balance between reason and the desiring part of the soul. If the desire is to take over a human being than there cannot be virtue with the intention to be virtuous. The desire is like a child that needs to be controlled. A life example would be the pleasure to eat: If a junk-food loving person follows his/her preferences in the relevant food choices without consideration for his/her health than he/she might end up overweight and ultimately fall sick from this condition. As reasonable person will examine the foods for dangers and make healthier –even if it seems to mean less tasty- choices for the sake of a healthy body and a life with a certain quality.
whether ethics is a practical science ?
Ethics is a practical science because it busies itself not just with knowing the status quo of a society or an individual, but actually offers ways to help the individual or the society to improve itself and to achieve a higher state of living. This becomes very clear when reading Aristotle. He not only explains where the greatest good of humankind lies and how it is defined but designs an exact path showing how to achieve this “ultimate happiness” he is talking about. He emphasizes the importance of a life aimed to commit as many virtuous acts as possible. He explains that through habituation and by following his lists of virtuous he identified for us, a contemplative and reasonable individual can reach a higher state of his/her being. In short, he is offering the practical know how in how to get there. Another example is Mill. However, he differs from Aristotle in so far, that he is more concerned with the happiness of the community or society than with the one of the individual. He explains to us the necessary principles and the resulting mechanisms that should lead our society to an overall happier state by following the needs of the majority. Over time, so he states, individual happiness will result from this path and the society as a result will be even more content. His philosophical direction “utilitarianism” delivers the help to individuals on how to make their decisions and how to act on them and can also be called very practical in its approach. As much as I believe that ethics is a practical science, I also think that it is a very unpractical one. Unfortunately, all these different concept of thinkers only cover fragments of the practical approach needed to really function in a complete and changing life and environment. Many questions stay unanswered and this is proof for me, that none of these systems found a conclusive answer to life’s most important questions.
A brief dialogue/exchange between Mill and Nietzsche on whether human nature is too weak.
Mill: A human being would rather be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Man aspires to rise over his low nature to a higher state.
Nietzsche: I don’t agree. The majority of human beings are weak and they know they are. They even find justifications for their state of weakness from which they know they cannot escape. Next, they create their own morality to fit their circumstances and make them feel better about them.
Mill: As long as they don’t hurt anyone they should be free to do what they desire.
Nietzsche: The weak (like unhealthy, ugly, suffering, fearful, poor, impure, conquered)) are the majority and they are out there to overthrow the few human beings that are strong (like nobles, happy, powerful, beautiful, favored by God, conquerors, warriors) because they consider them their oppressors. However, those are the ones that deserve complete freedom because of their strength no limits whatsoever should apply to them.
Mill: It is important to follow the will of the majority, as this is the only way to a satisfied society. Once we begin to follow this path, individual happiness in such a society will follow automatically.
Nietzsche: That is the worst idea. The weak are the majority and they will always desire to overthrow the strong ones. They turn good into evil and evil into good, because of their state of weakness. They develop a slave morality and apply it on the strong ones so they can submit them to guilt and shame about being superior.
Mill: I believe that when a society grows in a healthy way and social bonds become more important, people will automatically choose their actions with consideration to the welfare of their fellow citizens.
Nietzsche: I don’t believe that, as people are born weak or strong and there is no subject behind their acts, it’s their nature to act according to their level of strength/weakness.
An action that is right that I also wish to do; I am explaining why this is neither a good test case for ethical duty nor even the best action, according to Kant; and conclude by personally evaluating the Kantian explanation.
I want to donate money for a local foundation that takes care of stray animals in our neighborhood. They take them in and feed them and leave them for adoption. My intention is to help the poor animals I feel sorry for, as well as to making our neighborhood cleaner and safer.
In today’s world, this is an example of a good deed, but not so for Kant. First of all, a right action according to him is only right if done out of the sense of duty (categorical imperative) and not to gain some pleasure or satisfaction out of it. In my example, the pleasure of my motivation would be that I make myself feel better, because I contribute to the end of the suffering of these creatures. The fact that I am doing this fills me with a sense of satisfaction for myself. I love animals and therefore I am happy to help them. But according to Kant, this should not be my motivation and therefore this deed cannot approve to my righteousness as a person. It is most certainly not my best action. The best actions are the actions that are done because they are necessary, despite the dislike for them. So paradoxically, my action would qualify as a “best action” if in reality I was someone who hated animals, but still decided to help them and clean up the neighborhood in a way that is not cruel or demeaning to them. Personally, I wouldn’t agree with Kant here. My motivation of helping an animal would be that I learned that it is the right thing to do and I therefore follow up on it. However, I will not reflect on my righteousness as a person over this or even proclaim it, as I consider that this would diminish my reward.
While the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes is allowed in 18 states plus Washington, D.C., this month,( 2013 ) voters in Washington and Colorado approved measures legalizing its recreational use. Under federal law, cultivation, sale and possession of marijuana for any purpose are illegal. Formulate your ethical judgment on the legalization of pot for recreational use using textual detail from any thinker studied this semester.
Mill believes that the individual should have the right to freely chose to as he/she wishes and should not be held accountable for his/her actions as long as these choices only affect them and do not hurt anyone else. He also states that people should have the right to have a say in their government decisions. For him the best is what the majority agrees on and votes for as this is the way to a higher form of society where the good of the majority is the measurement. “The great pleasures are good for others not just for us” and “the greatest benefit for the greatest number”. If the marijuana would be legalized under these assumptions, than the individual has the liberty to assert him/herself and show his disapproval through persuasion or avoidance, if one feels that this action is wrong, he. With marijuana as a recreational drug, people would be free to make the personal choice to use it or not according to their convictions. Also, Mill believes in the ability of individuals to distinguish between higher and lower forms of happiness and he therefore puts the trust into them to make the right decisions on an individual basis. He believes that any human is rather a dissatisfied human than a satisfied pig or fool. Therefore the individual will ponder upon his or her decisions and strive for a better and higher form of live and happiness where pleasure is not the ultimate goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment