I hope that I-spy was as helpful to you guys as it was to me. Every now and then I have a good idea... and you asked excellent questions.
Mari asked another great question after class: which is more "important," a car or a tree? Perhaps the tree because it has an organic soul that seeks nutrition, perhaps the car because it has a very useful function and has been actualized by the souls of human craftsmen. But we have to leave aside the question of utility, because we're being teleologists and not utilitarians. Which is more wonderful, shall we say. Which is more substantial Aristotle might say. And there is a single test you can always apply in Aristotle, whether you're talking about ethics, politics, physics, metaphysics, logic, or whatever. The test is which thing is more self-sufficient? Which thing is more of a mover and less of a move-d. (Catholic Aristotleans would say, which is a creator and which is a created thing, though A. himself believes the universe has always existed and therefore wasn't "created.") Which is more actualized, and actualizing of other things? By this test it's the tree, since the tree can live and reproduce on its own whereas the car must be maintained, serviced, driven by people.
REMINDERS... write a dialogue on ontology, ethics, or both. At least two characters representing different philosophical positions. At least 15-20 lines of dialogue, but the more you do, the more you're preparing for your mid-term.
The major positions on ontology are:
-Plato (dualism shading into pure idealism)
-Aristotle (hylomorphism / teleology)
-Democritus (materialism... you could also use any modern scientist)
-Gorgias (nihilism / skepticism)
-I guess common sense or craft could be considered ontological theories, albeit ones with obvious defects
The major positions on ethics are:
-Kant (deontology, often via categorical imperative)
-Aristotle (individual teleology -> eudaemonianism / cultivation of virtue, often via golden mean)
-Epicurus (individual teleology -> hedonism)
-Mill (social teleology -> universal hedonism)
-Iannucci (164 miles per hour -ism???, via non-golden mean / golden non-mean... by the way, this is a very apt statement of the ethics of capitalism)
-I guess a conventional ethics, what Schwab called normative, is an ethical position, albeit a pre-philosophical one... following the letter of the law or following social custom)
IF YOU WANT A HEAD START... the ideas draft for paper 2 (due Monday at 11 a.m. to the EEE dropbox) will be answering the "four tasks" of this prompt in any way you find useful. We'll probably start task 1 in class on Friday. I may also add another not-essay component, like doing a Theophrastian character sketch of the courageous man (or alternately the cowardly man or the rash man.)
Oh, and the prompt recommends you read the Course Guide chapters 4, 6, and 10. Which would be quite helpful for you to read in general, so I highly recommend doing that sometime before Monday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Oliver and Andrew come across a random suitcase in the park. Oliver seems to take on hedonistic ethical stand point where he is only self-interested in what is in the suitcase and what it can do for him. Andrew, on the other hand, believes that no matter what is inside the suitcase (money), it isn’t right to keep it and it should be returned to the rightful owner, taking on a deontological stand point as well as an Aristotelian stand point of cultivating his honesty, whether intentional or not.
O: Look at this suite case I just found! It’s locked but I bet you we could get it opened if we used a screwdriver or something.
A: We don’t even know what’s in there plus there’s a name and address on it see, Nicholas Lam, we should just go to his house and return it to him.
O: **Opens suite case**
A: Dude! Are you crazy that doesn’t belong to you and you damaged it!
O: LOOK! A thousand dollars!! What should we do with it?
A: We should bring it back to Nicholas Lam, THE OWNER!! I can’t believe you opened it! Put the money back into the suitcase and let’s go return it!
O: No! Why would we do that?! Do you know how much this could buy?? I could finally get that skateboard I wanted, I could buy tons of them!! I’m not going to
return it!
A: How would you like it if that was your suitcase that you lost and someone didn’t return it to you?
O: Common man. If someone just carries a thousand dollars around in a suitcase I’m sure they have plenty stored away somewhere, like an offshore bank account. They won’t miss it one bit.
A: It isn’t right to keep it! By keeping it we wouldn’t be being honest and taking something that doesn’t belong to us is considered stealing.
O: We didn’t steal anything, we found it. It was his fault to lose it. Finders keepers, losers weepers. All the better for me.
A: It doesn’t matter if you took it from his house or whether you found it on the street. You know who it belongs to and it is your responsibility to bring it back to the rightful owner. Be honest and do the right thing.
lliM, tnaK, and eltotsirA are each enjoying a beer.
lliM: Yup
tnaK: Yup
eltotsirA: Mmhmm
lliM: So...What would you guys do if you found a stray dog in the street right now?
tnaK: If the tags give an address, I'd return the dog. What kind of question was that?
lliM: What if you got to the house and the neighbors told you that the owner was really abusive to his pet?
tnaK: I'd return the dog.
lliM: What if the dog itself told you that it's owner was abusive and that its life depended on you not returning it?
tnaK: I'd return the dog.
lliM: But what if...
tnaK: Before you ask another question, let me tell you my answer stays the same. If I found the dog, I'd return it to who lost it. That would be the right thing to do. Regardless of situation or consequence the isolated problem is that something was lost, found, and now must be returned. So...I'd return the dog.
lliM: I can't believe you can justify being an accessory to animal cruelty as a "right" thing to do. Yes, you are returning the dog, but at what cost?
tnaK: What would you do, genius?
lliM: I would have listened to the neighbors and handed the dog over to them, since they showed the most concern for this pet. Then I'd report the owner to authorities for being abusive. With that I certainly would have accomplished more good than you. The neighbors would be relieved and happy that the dog is safe and their new pet. The dog itself will be happier. And in a sense the neighborhood is happier as well since an animal abuser is off their streets. I'm clearly more good than you are.
[fist fight ensues]
eltotsirA: SILENCE! You are both wrong. What we have here is very interesting, very interesting indeed. We have one who cares for no one, nothing, nada, zip when deciding what to do and we have one who cares for far too many people in making his own ethical decision. You guys have to be a little more selfish, really (but not too selfish).
lliM&tnaK: Explain yourself.
eltotsirA: To lead the good life, you must deal with just that, YOUR life. We're all striving to reach our telos. In whatever we do, it should be for virtue. This case is very touchy however. We must determine which action would help us advance further in virtue, to return, or not to return? Because animals have souls, it would clearly be wrong to deliver it into danger, they do have feelings after all. The only option then is to either keep it yourself or turn the dog in to a shelter. Animals' souls are obviously lesser than that of humans, but still. You practice an excellence, develop habit, and work your way up to complete virtue.
tnaK: I think he's drunk.
lliM: Yup
eltotsirA: Mmhmm
Dialogue on ontology
Democritus: What in the world is “paperness?”
Plato: It is the concept in which paper comes from.
Democritus: No, paper comes from wood.
Plato: Ahhh…but you are mistaken, the paper is just an illusion and so is the wood.
Democritus: What are you talking about!?
Plato: The paper you speak of is just an illusion. If it were truly paper, it would stay constant. Paper would never tear, crumple up, or fade. Thus, paper comes from “paperness.”
Democritus: Paper is paper. You can feel, see, and taste paper. Paper is no illusion.
Plato: The senses are not to be relied on.
Democritus: The senses are what gives us perception.
Plato: The senses are lies. They are not to be trusted. What you know as paper, the way it feels, see it as and tastes as can change. What you know as paper is no longer paper.
Democritus: So you are saying that nothing is real. Everything people know as real is a lie.
Plato: Basically, yes.
Democritus: Ok……I still don’t believe you. Things have mass, that’s why they exist.
Plato: Fine, don’t believe me. Carry on with your materialism.
Democritus: I will, thank you very much and you can carry on thinking the world is an illusion. Yeah…because that’s not crazy.
You guys are doing great so far... this was always my favorite homework assignment when I took Philosophy 101 in college.
Democritus and Aristotle are having lunch one afternoon and Democritus spots a poster about a fair put up on a brick wall.
Democritus: Hey Aristotle, look at that poster. What do you think about that poster?
Aristotle: Well, first of all, it’s made out of paper, which comes from a tree.
Democritus: What? No, that poster is made up of atoms that came together to form it.
Aristotle: No, that poster is a manmade object.
Democritus: No, the atoms come together to form its shape and color and density. It’s all due to atoms.
Aristotle: Don’t be silly Democritus. A poster has four causes. The material cause is paper and markers. The formal cause is a tree, colors, and the artistic style. The efficient cause is a machine, which made the poster and the person who created the poster by hand. Its final cause is to promote the fair going on next week.
Aristotle: How would you explain if I see that poster from a far and it looks like different lettering to me than it does to another person?
Democritus: Well, the movement of atoms sometimes causes a slight change in color or style, so it could look different at times.
Aristotle: The changing of color would have to be due to the fact that that poster has motion. Objects get their color by turning or moving. Atoms have nothing to do with color.
Democritus: You have everything completely wrong Aristotle. If you were to say that that poster had a soul, it would be thanks to atoms as well.
Aristotle: Of course a poster has a soul. The soul of a poster is to promote the fair going on next week.
Democritus: You have it all wrong, everything is due to atoms. When you realize that, we can have lunch once again. Good day.
Ethics dialogue between Kant, Aristotle, and Epicurus...
K: Oh no, someone lost their ipod, I’d better return this, because I know how I would feel if I lost my ipod and I would hope someone would return it to me. Besides, it’s the right thing to do.
A: I agree that you should return it to its owner, especially since doing what is right in this particular situation will help develop your virtue.
E: Are you serious? Is that the best you could come up with? Forget virtue, K, keep the ipod for yourself, so you could put your own music on it. Or, better yet, sell it for a profit.
K: Why would I do that?
E: Keeping the ipod will give you more pleasure than returning it to its original owner.
A: But returning it will help him better his virtue and once his virtue achieves excellence, he will be happy.
E: That sounds like too much work.
A: As long as he is working towards his telos and becoming a better and more virtuous man, it’s all good.
E: Not if it brings him more pain than pleasure in the process.
K: I’m just going to go return this ipod, but you guys have fun.
E: Wait, how are you going to return it, don’t you think it will take too much time and effort to find the owner? Instead you could be enjoying some nice tunes by just keeping it.
K: Actually the owner’s info is engraved in the back.
E: Well, what if the owner suspects you stole it and beats you up? Or what if the name on the back of the ipod wasn’t the original owner and you are just returning stolen goods to a thief? Might as well keep it for your own enjoyment.
K: I don’t care about the “what ifs” of the situation or its consequences. All that matters is that I am doing the right thing.
E: How do you know it is the right thing to do?
K: If I lost my ipod, I wouldn’t want anyone to keep it or sell it, but I would want him or her to return it to me. So that is what I am going to do, no matter what you have to say about it.
Mill: If continue condoning the acts that provide pleasure for one, over the overall welfare of multiple persons, you are not understanding what makes a life better lived.
Epicurus: If a person throws another person on a subway track to stop the train from running into a wall to save a multiplude of people that man is dead, and had no pleasure, his life is not going well.
Mill: Yes, but more people are alive then dead, so more lives are going well than badly.
Epicurus: So you completely ignore the value of the man’s life, for the survivors who may even be undeserving. Who decides who lives and who dies? Who are you to say anyone should die? The pleasure the man feels, and the amount of it he feels, is the only way he can truly live a good life.
Mill: No, the pleasure of one has nothing to do with it, it is the pleasure of the many
Epicurus: What if the man was a seven year old boy? Would you still throw him on the track? More people would be saved than dead
Mill: You misunderstood my point, it has nothing to do with deciding who lives, or who dies, it has to do with the amount of people, numbers are the only factor I mean to discuss.
Epicurus: You have not understood my question, my friend, you mustn’t stray away from the pints you cannot yourself answer properly without the support of your utilitarian views.
(My hypothetical situation was inspired by the Lectures of Prof. Aaron James in Philosophy 4: Intro to Ethics, October 21, 2008.)
This is a dialogue on the ethics of what to do when a bag of 200 dollars is found on a bench. The two people, Alan and Richie, are both deciding what to do with the money. Alan is a universal hedonist while Richie is about individual teleology.
A: “oh wow Richie look at all this money”
R: “you’re right that’s a lot of money”
R: “we should spend it on something”
A: “no we should give it out to everyone.”
R: “why would you do that?”
R: “we could split this between us.”
R: “each of us can have 100 dollars to spend on anything”
A: “I just think that giving money to other people to spend is better for the community.”
R: “but what if the people you give the money to decide to spend it on drugs?”
R: “if we had the money we could decide what to spend it on.”
A: “I wouldn’t just give it to random people.”
A: “I would give it to charities so that they can buy more supplies thus having a greater influence for their cause.”
R: “how do you know if the charity will spend it wisely?”
R: “if we were to spend it we could decide on how much to spend and what to spend the money on.”
A: “Charities such as Red Cross and Rotary take donations and use it to benefit the rest of society.”
A: “if we spend it then it will only be benefitting ourselves and not the greater
One cold night in December we find a pondering Aristotle enjoying a pint at the local bar. To his surprise his long time friend Immanuel Kant walks through the door and takes the empty seat next to him. And so starts their epic dialogue that'll ring out through all the ages.
Aristotle: Good evening my dear Kant.
Kant: Hello Aristotle, its fancy meeting you here.
Aristotle: Ahh yes indeed, well it seems you have caught me at a perfect time.
Kant: Why it that?
Aristotle: Well I had an interesting event happen to me today, an event that has tested my virtue, I think I may have passed this test.
Kant: Well what was this testing event?
Aristotle: Well I was on my way to my car after doing a bit of shopping at walmart, and there in the middle of the parking lot there were someones car keys. Now it is here where my ethical test had begun.
Kant: Yes, this is a perfect ethical test. So what did you decide to do.
Aristotle: How about we make this more than just me telling you a story, how about we discuss this as philosophers?
Kant: Oh Aristotle you have read my mind.
Aristotle: In this situation, Kant, what do you believe would be this best ethical route?
Kant: I believe that what is ethical is that which is right, no matter of the consequence or the scenario.
Aristotle: What would be the consequence of such situation?
Kant: Well time of course, a more selfish person would disregard the keys because to pick the keys up and to walk back to walmart to give them to the proper people would effect their day, it would take up that which is very important to humans, time.
Aristotle: Yes that is a bit of a conequence. So continue..
Kant: Being that I believe in doing the right thing inspite of how it might hinder me, I would pick up the keys and take them someone in walmart, where they would make an announcement and hopefully someone would collect their lost item.
Aristotle: But what if that person never comes?
Kant: I would find them even if had taken me all day those keys would find their way back to the owner. So Aristotle enough about my decision how would you react in accordance to your ethics?
Aristotle: Well my dear friend, I believe that yes we must do what is right, but I simply will do this if it will help along my virtue. This was a test of my honesty mainly a state that is important in virtue.
Kant: Well why do you consider this a test in honesty, how come its not a test of laziness due to the whole time factor.
Aristotle: In my opinion, returning an item is a test of honesty the time factor is just a consequence, I mean I'm ancient Greek I don't think I know how to be lazy.
Kant: Yes that is true so please continue, what would you do with the keys?
Aristotle: I would as you did turn them in to the proper people who could find the owner of the lost keys, but thats as far as I go. After that its the business of the person whom I entrusted the keys to, to find the owner.
Kant: Why?
Aristotle: Well I believe there is such a thing as trying to hard, being too honest and this flaw in a state reflects a flaw in virtue.
To reach my full potential and virute I must find that intermediate between too honesty and being a liar. With turning the keys in to a person who couldd find the owner I am being honest but to search the streets up and down all day for the owner would be an extreme that is no better than leaving the keys in the parking lot.
Kant: That is a good point, but I must believe that the right act should be done even if it takes all day, I guess we have to differ somewhere.
Aristotle: Yes, it is only natural to differ in opinions especially in the topic of ethics, but this has been a great discussion.
Kant: Yes it really has I hope we could do this again I always enjoy hearing your outlook on ethics.
Aristotle: And I you, so hows the wife?...
And they sat drinking and talking until the wee hours of the morning. Until the next dialogue:}
So far so good, but at this point, can the rest of you do something other than "found money" problems?
Kyle (Epicurus) and James(Aristotle) decide to go paintballing one day and realize that they've found a package of paintballs left on the field, apparently forgotten by someone.
Kyle: Dude! look at these paintballs we found!
James: oh man! There must be 40$ worth of paintballs in here!!!
Kyle: YEAH MAN! now we can survive even longer and take everyone down!
James: whoa wait. don't you think we should return these to the front desk?
Kyle: WHY? i mean, its obvious these didnt mean enough to the player, or else they wouldnt have left them here right?
James: thats not true. what if the guy just forgot in the moment of his game and is frantically looking for them now?
Kyle: but thats his fault for leaving his paintbag here! and besides, think of how much more ammo we could have if we took it!
James: but its not right. we should return it to the owner; its the honest thing to do.
Kyle: but think of how much more powerful i could be if i had some extra paintballs!
James: dude; grow up. its just a game. besides, we should be doing the honest thing and returning them.
Kyle: but they were LEFT here! that means they are free for the taking! remember? finders keepers, losers weepers!
James: dude. you know thats not right. we should be honest and think about this.
Kyle: there's nothing to think about! i want the paintballs. they will make me a better paintballer. so lets just keep them!
James: you know we cant do that. just man up. we need to turn these in to the front desk. They will know what to do. and in the end, we'll feel better about ourselves and then person who lost it will feel better. c'mon lets go!
Kant, Aristotle and Epicurus.... randomly
Kant: I saw something peculiar the other day. Somebody dropped a gorgeous diamond encrusted watch! Of course I made the right decision in handing it over to the authorities. They must be looking for the owner now.
Aristotle: Good job! That is the most virtuous decision. That way, you feel better about yourself too.
Epicurus: How foolish. You could've kept that watch for yourself and eventually sold it or something.
Kant: Now why would anybody want to do that? It's the wrong choice!
Epicurus: Well obviously, I would feel better about myself if I kept the watch. Imagine all the beauty for one's own gratification from that.
Aristotle: You must not be a virtuous man now, are you. How is keeping something so precious to another person helping you grow as a better person?
Kant: I second that question.
Epicurus: Because it's the easiest choice I suppose. It seems to work out plenty "correctly" in my head. There is nothing wrong in taking something from somebody when it was obviously left behind. Why not just make yourself happy? That is the most important thing in life.
Kant: But don't you feel like it's the wrong thing to do? If I were to lose such a precious watch, I'd want somebody to return it to me somehow.
Aristotle: That is the best choice afterall.
Epicurus: I don't understand you guys. I'd definitely take it for myself.
Dialogue on Ethics:
A nation-wide epidemic breaks out. The highly contagious disease, Natesajerkaritis, causes people to quickly age and spontaneously explode. The time frame between when they start to age and when they explode is approximately 13 days. Top scientists come together to try to find the cause and cure. One doctor successfully creates an antidote for this disease. However, there are not enough resources to create enough antidote for everyone. Other countries are also experiencing their own special epidemics and therefore cannot lend a helping hand to America. The doctor is left with ONE last antidote. However, he must choose between giving it to his lover or the President...
The doctor is torn between the two people. As he is trying to make a final decision, Aristotle and Epicurus appear on each shoulder.
A: So, what's the decision going to be?
E: It's obvious… you're (the doctor) going to give it to your wife right?
A: Clearly he's going to give it to the President...
E: Why the President? Yeah he runs the country... so what? Has he ever done any personal favors for you?
A: The President can essentially SAVE other people!
E: He’s not the one with the antidote.
A: We know that, but he’s helping keeping everything under control during this epidemic! He’s directing everyone.
E: It’s not like he’s the ONLY one running the country.
A: The people need the President to make the major decisions right now.
E: Yeah yeah, so you save the President and for a while he’ll be thanking you… then what? He’s not going to be cleaning your house, doing your laundry, making you food, and sticking with you through the good times and the bad like your wife will.
A: The more virtuous decision is to give the antidote to the doctor. That way, many other lives can be saved and there may be a better chance to put a stop to the epidemic.
E: There’s only ONE antidote. How could the President possibly save everyone else?
A: He can probably think of a way to get a hold of more resources? Who knows… but if the President is saved, he is more likely to help more people than your wife could.
E: You love your wife… she can bring more happiness and pleasure in life than the President ever could.
A: That’s beyond the point. Saving the President makes you a better person. By saving the President, you’re saving more people.
E: Saving your wife will bring you more pleasure. Think about it, after this is all done, you’re going to be so lonely if you choose not to save your wife. You’re going to have to live life unhappy.
A: He’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that he did the right thing and spared many other people their lives.
E: Yeah yeah. I don’t think so. Think of what YOU want and what will benefit YOU.
A: No, think about the other people… do the right thing. Time is running out.
A young boy is sitting at the dinner table with his mother and father and refuses to eat his brussel sprouts (can you blame him?).
"How can you not eat those, honey," his mother asks, "when millions of poor children go to bed hungry each night? They would love to eat your brussel sprouts!"
The until-then silent dinner guests stand up abruptly.
"I can NOT agree with that argument," Mr. Mill says. "The brussel sprouts on that boys plate will profit that boy and that boy alone. Bringing the hungry into this is a weak argument because giving the three brussel sprouts your son hasn't eaten to even one homeless child would not suffice their hunger. If you are truly concerned with the problems of hunger, you would make a larger amount of food and distribute it to a number of people who need it, not solely friends and family who can afford and cook it themselves. Your argument, however, is primarily concerned with your own wallet and the boy eating his brussel sprouts is preventing your money from going to waste."
The second dinner guest by the name of Epicurous interrupts Mill and begins to defend the poor housewife, who at this point is cowering in the corner.
"It is your money and your son. Why would you spend money on people that have no effect whatsoever on you? You have every right to want to keep your money and it is your son's responsibility to take advantage of the things given to him."
While the two dinner guests continue to argue, the young boy sneaks away from the dinner table to return to his videogames that his mom thinks is math homework, but not before giving Mill a hidden high-five.
Jessica and Marie are sisters and are in a hospital to see their mother. Jessica has the spirit of Aristotle possessing her often in time of extreme situations, and her sister has Mill possessing her too. Their mother was in a terrible accident and is living off machines. The cost is too much for them to deal with, and their mother has been in a coma for months, but the last thing she said was that she wanted her daughters to help keep her alive as long as they could.
M: We have to take her off the machines.
J: And what, kill her? You know we cannot do that! She is our mother and we cannot let her down.
M: Yeah, I know, but the bills we are getting for keeping her alive is too much for us to handle. We are almost going to lose our home if we keep on trying to take care of her.
J: I don’t care what you say, but we promised her we would stay until she woke up.
M: But it has been months and nothing has happened! This has been too much of a hassle for you and for me, and we are getting nothing out of it.
J: If you were in that hospital bed, you would not be saying that. You would be telling us to keep on going until you got better.
M: Well, I am not there, now am I? The best thing for the both of us is just to let her go. She will go away peacefully and not know what happened. We can go back to our jobs and bring back our lives. We can pay off the money we owe people and be at peace with everybody.
J: I am just trying to be a good person and do what is best. I know times have been tough, but we will get our reward in the end of having our mother if we just keep on holding on.
M: You are such a sentimentalist. What will you get out of that? Nothing. The rest of the family is starting to complain that they cannot keep on helping us with the money and I don’t want to be on their bad side.
J: Is that all you care about, pleasing every one? Think about your mother, think about yourself as a daughter, and do not bring all these other things from the outside. Don’t think about what is best for everyone; think about what is best for our mother.
M: I cannot stand you and your silly virtues. Just let her go so we can bring our lives back to how they were, this is all too much of a stress for us, and you know it.
*M walks away, and J stays with her mother*
(This sounds like somewhat of a soap opera to me, but I think it gets the points across :D )
Post a Comment