BUFFY VS. WOLLSTONECRAFT

Wollstonecraft vs. Buffy Summers

The following is an OUTLINE for the lecture given in class.
1. Damsel in Distress

Wollstonecraft is dependent on men for her salvation (rights)
Buffy does the saving, that is, she is never saved by men.

2. Use of Rationality versus Violence

Wollstonecraft makes an appeal to men’s rationality. She makes an logical, carefully outlined argument.

Buffy uses violence instead of rationality; she even describes herself as “rash and impulsive”.

3. Female beauty and woman as sex object

Wollstonecraft rejects Rousseau’s ideal of woman as an “object of desire” and that the whole tendency of female education should be to render women pleasing to men.

Buffy reverses the traditional gender stereotype that a woman must be either powerful/strong or beautiful/sexy. Buffy is both powerful and beautiful.

4. Vampirism as Rape and the Phallic Symbol

A phallic symbol is any object which represents the violent, penetrating power traditionally associated with the penis; examples include: gun, missile, knife, bullet, sword, etc.

Buffy uses a wooden stake (phallic symbol) to kill vampires, who represent vampirism as a kind rape and male oppressive power over women.

Common uses of profanity often betray our phallic association with power and violence.
“A man has balls or a big dick” if he is tough, and is a “pussy” if he is weak.
If a man is aggressive he is described as “cocky”, and you “cock” a gun to fire it.
The phrase “to fuck” suggests violent penetration, as well as “screwed”

5. Victim versus Judge

Wollstonecraft is a victim of her society and culture.

Buffy is judge, jury and executioner. She cannot look to anyone else for assistance in deciding what is ethical; that is the blessing and burden of being a hero.

WOLLSTONECRAFT

Introduction to Philosophy – Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Immanuel Kant was perhaps the quintessential Enlightenment thinker, exalting in his philosophy the guiding principle of human rationality. And yet, his reputation as a fierce misogynist reveals much about the prevailing irrationality concerning women’s rights in the seventeenth century. For when Descartes, Kant and others wrote of the existence of a rational soul and the power of human reason, in many ways they were not describing faculties of what they might label, “the fairer sex”. At home or in public, both intellectually and spiritually, women were subordinate to men. It was into this world of gender prejudice and fierce subjugation of women that Mary Wollstonecraft was born; and during her thirty-eight years on earth, she would challenge cultural mores, successfully enter the male-dominated world of rational discourse, and publish the pioneering text for feminism.

The English philosopher, teacher and writer, Mary Wollstonecraft was born in 1759.

Wollstonecraft is an Enlightenment thinker. She consistently appeals to “the Law of Nature” (p.7); “Reason…the perfection of our nature and capability of happiness” (p.11); “Exercise of reason, knowledge and virtue” (p.11); “against the monarchy” (p.12); “the sober light of Reason” (p.35); “…my soul and sufficient strength of mind” (p.35); “universal rule of right, virtue and duty” (p.35); “Liberty is the mother of virtue” (p.36)

The Argument

P1: If women are educated, that is, their natural reason is cultivated; then, they will make better wives, mothers and citizens.

P2: If women are better wives, mothers and citizens, then men will be better husbands, fathers and citizens.

P3: If men and women are better citizens, then society as a whole will benefit.

Therefore, women should be educated, that is, their natural reason should be cultivated.

Wollstonecraft never compares men and women, that is, she never tries to prove that they are equal. Rather, she argues that denying women an education is actually a detriment to men, society and ultimately to God. (p.34)

Chapter I-II (pp.1-36)

First Argument

“Ignorance under the specious name of innocence” (p.18)

John Milton

Second Argument

“Manners before morals…” (p.22)
Example of the military

Third Argument

“Woman should never feel herself independent” (p.25)

Rousseau
Moses

Fourth Argument

“…the whole tendency of female education ought to be directed to one point- to render them pleasing.” (p.26)

Dr. Gregory’s book - “fondness for dress.” (p.27)

Fifth Argument

“Friendship or indifference inevitably succeeds love.” (p.29)
“Companionship vs. Contempt” (p.33)

KANT

Introduction to Philosophy – Kant and the Categorical Imperative

The Scientific Revolution

Following on the heels of Descartes, the Enlightenment was a period of reawakening. It was a time not only of questions, but also of answers.

The Enlightenment was made possible by the Scientific Revolution. Don’t let the name fool you, it didn’t happen overnight. The Scientific Revolution took nearly a hundred fifty years. Basically, it was the scientific disproval and eventual rejection of Thomism. It began with the publication of two groundbreaking books in the same year, 1543.

Copernicus “On the Motion of Heavenly Bodies” (1543)
Vesalius’ “On the Fabric of the Human Body” (1543)

As you may have guessed from the titles of these books, both influenced the eventual rejection of the belief that the earth was the center of the universe and that physical illness is caused by an imbalance of bile or bodily humors.

Later, other books would be published that would reinforce the rejection of Thomism. Modern science, including astronomy, physics, anatomy and biology were born with the publication of these books.

Johannes Kepler “Harmony of the Worlds” (1619)
William Harvey “An Anatomical Exercise on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals” (1628)
Galileo “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” (1632)
Isaac Newton’s “"Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" or simply Principia (1687)

The Enlightenment
The eighteenth century witnessed the birth of what is often called The Enlightenment. It was a time when human reason was seen as the ultimate source for legitimate thought. Reason, rather than simply faith or tradition, was the authority to which philosophers made an appeal. Dorinda Outram provides a good example of a standard, intellectual definition of the Enlightenment:
“Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition.”

It is no surprise, then, that in this same century the American Revolution (1776) and the French Revolution (1789) occurred. Both were based on the rational principles of philosophers like Locke, Berkeley, Rousseau, Hume and Alexis de Tocqueville.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Amidst the glorification of human reason in the Enlightenment stands the Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant. You may remember Kant as the one who offered the popular critique of the Ontological Argument. Well that was not his only contribution to western philosophy. He wrote some voluminous tomes on epistemology, art and religion. Many scholars debate whether Kant was a theist, and in fact, some claim he was a Christian. Alas, no one knows for sure. Kant remains an enigmatic figure in the history of philosophy. It is said that when the German students and faculty of the University of Konigsberg would file in for morning chapel, at the last moment before entering the door of the chapel, Kant would ritually step aside and not attend.

In the spirit of the Enlightenment, Kant desired a basis for morality anchored in rationality. He believed that Reason was the only reliable basis for morality. All other reasons for doing good could be perverted and were therefore untrustworthy. For example, while Love often motivates people to do good, and yet, it can also motivate others to do harm. The same goes for reverence for God. How many good and harmful works have perpetuated throughout history in the name of religion?

Kant believed that God had created humans with (a) a rational soul, and (b) free will. Thus, if humans possess a rational soul and free will, then there must be some rational, universal standard for morality. By creating the condition for rationality and free choice, God also must have created the condition for a universal moral standard to be (a) known and (b) followed. A rule or maxim that holds everyone morally responsible to do the right thing- regardless of their personal experiences, emotions, desires or inclinations. For Kant, this universal standard is good will, or perhaps more precisely, a good will.

“Nothing in the world- indeed nothing even beyond the world- can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.” Kant, “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”

For Kant, then, a good or pure will is an intention to act in accordance with a universal moral law. When I choose to do something, I also will to do it. I use my rational, free will. To act out of good will is to do X because it is right to do X, and for no other reason. Love for God, obedience to a divine will, fear of punishment, love for another, sympathy, a desire for peace- all of these are, according to Kant, irrational reasons for doing good. Also, the consequences of actions cannot be the reason for doing good. Consequences are as untrustworthy as intentions. You can never really know the consequences of a moral choice, so this uncertainty makes consequences an unreliable standard for moral goodness.

One must do good from a sense of duty to the moral law. It is not enough for Kant that you happen to do good which accords with the moral law. In order for your action to be considered morally praiseworthy, that is, actually morally good, you must commit an act because you know that you are fulfilling your duty to the moral law.

So what then, according to Kant, is this universal moral law to which we all must do our duty? If it is rational, then, it must be accessible (via human reason) to all persons, regardless of their place in history, culture, religion or personal experience. Everyone must be rationally accountable to this universal moral law.

Kant called this universal moral law, the Categorical Imperative.

“Act only in accordance to that maxim by which by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

Or put more simply, whenever you are about to act, consider whether you would want your action to become the standard for how everyone else should act. If you’re considering stealing some money, consider whether you would want the world to follow your example. Would you say to the whole world, “Thou shall steal”?

The Categorical Imperative asks you to universalize your personal actions. That is, act like your own actions are the universal standard for moral behavior. Everyone’s watching, waiting to see what you’re going to do. And whatever you do- they’re going to do the same.

So why is it called the Categorical Imperative? The Categorical Imperative is categorical in that it commands you to unconditionally to act from duty. It does not take into account other categories for reasons why you should do good, like personal desires or consequences. It is an imperative in that it commands you to do something, i.e. fulfill your duty to the moral law.

It should be noted that for Kant the Categorical Imperative is a moral law within. It is not learned, but rather intuited. It is available to all, in fact, it must be available to all or else it cannot be a universal moral law.

Advantages to the Categorical Imperative

A good thing about the Categorical Imperative is that it attempts to remove morality from the sphere of subjective human experience. Considering all the moral conflict in the world caused by differences in religion, culture and personal experience, it’s nice to think that there is a universal moral law that everyone could follow, and that if they did, the world might be a more peaceful place.

And even though Kant maintained that God created the conditions for rationality and free will, it seems like it would be pretty simple to “drop” God from the equation. Wouldn’t it suffice for an atheist to simply say that humans are rational animals, and this rationality dictates that we follow order to follow the Categorical Imperative?

Criticisms of the Categorical Imperative

Kant wrote voluminous volumes. He was very prolific. He wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Judgment, and the Critique of Practical Reason. Let’s face it, the guy liked to critique. And yet, for all his writing and all his critiques, Kant never gave a practical example of how this universal moral law might be universally applied. The closest he ever came was to suggest that one should never tell a lie. But remember, Kant didn’t want to be specific. He didn’t want another ‘Ten Commandments’. He wanted a universal formula that would yield universal moral goodness, regardless of the intentions or consequences. But is such a formula possible?

Remember how Socrates’ used negative evidence to undermine others’ arguments? Let’s see if we can do the same with Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Imagine this scenario. You are hiding Jews from the Nazis. Soldiers show up at your house and ask you if you are hiding anyone. Do you lie? If you tell the truth then people will be murdered. But maybe you should lie to save your own skin. Won’t you be punished too? So what if you could tell the truth, turn them over to the Nazis, and not get punished? You could save yourself. Would you tell the truth in order to fulfill your duty to the moral law? Or would you lie in an attempt to save innocent lives from injustice?

Now remember, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a formula. It does not prescribe or forbid any specific action, even telling a lie. It commands you to act so that you could will that your action become a universal moral law. That is, it commands you to universalize your particular action. But what exactly does this mean, when applied to an actual moral dilemma?

What exactly are you universalizing? Are you universalizing telling a lie? If so, then you should not lie to the Nazis and you should turn over those you are hiding. Or are you universalizing telling a lie in order to prevent injustice? If so, then you should lie to the Nazis in order to save those hiding in your house.

Remember, according to Kant, the consequences of an action should never be considered a factor in making a moral choice. This suggests that you should not take into consideration the injustice towards those hiding in your house. You are not responsible for the consequences of your action. You are not responsible for the Nazis or their mistreatment of the Jews. Your first obligation, that is, your primary duty is to the moral law. You must not lie, for in so doing, you make lying a universal maxim by which others should live.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative is like an abstract logical formula for moral goodness. As long as the formula is stated in logical symbols, it can be computed easily. On a chalkboard in a classroom, moral computation is as simple and straightforward logical computation; either true or false. But as soon as you replace those abstract symbols with actual words, with an actual moral dilemma, predictable computation becomes unpredictably complicated.

Alas, if moral dilemmas existed only on classroom chalkboards, then Kant’s Categorical Imperative would offer a sufficient rubric for making moral choices. But it doesn’t take a philosopher to know that where morality matters most is outside the classroom. It’s time to put the chalk down…

PLATO THEORY OF FORMS

Jay Michael Arnold – Lecture Notes for Introduction to Philosophy

Plato & The Theory of Forms

Plato (427-347BCE)

Plato was a student of Socrates and present at his trial and execution. He founded a school, the Academy in Athens, considered by many the first European university. He wrote many philosophical dialogues wherein he used the character of his teacher Socrates to investigate philosophical questions. Among his works is the Republic, widely considered one of the foundational texts of Western thought and culture. When Plato died in 347, his student Aristotle continued his legacy, albeit disagreeing with Plato and offering a critique of his ideas.

Plato’s Reaction to Protagorus & Heraclitus

Plato’s Theory of Forms was a reaction to earlier Greek philosophers with whom he disagreed, especially his predecessors Protagorus and Heraclitus.

The philosopher Protagorus was famous for saying, “Man is the measure of all things”. What Protagorus meant was that each individual person is her own criterion for truth; that is, whatever you perceive as true or false is true or false; and whatever you think is good or bad is good or bad. In short, there is no universally existing thing, no universal right or wrong, or good or bad that is true for everyone. For example, if you think that stealing is morally right, then it is right- even if others disagree with you. A person is not accountable to a higher authority or universal law (like the Ten Commandments).

“This is often called, relativism or subjectivism because it makes the most important things relative to and dependent upon the individual (or community, society, etc.), or because it asserts that the subject (either an individual, community, society, etc.), is the source and standard of being, truth and goodness.” (Miller 71)

The Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus was famous for saying, “The sun is new everyday” and “We are and we are not” by which he meant that reality is always changing and nothing remains the same. Reality, according to Heraclitus, is dynamic and always in flux. Everything is constantly changing, nothing stands still for a moment, the world and everything in it is in a ceaseless movement, activity, coming and going, ebbing and flowing. In fact, his slogan “All things flow” suggested that the ever-changing universe was like a river, and according to Heraclitus “You cannot step twice into the same river” meaning that once you put your other foot down to step into the flowing water, it’s a different river.



Plato’s Distinction Between ‘Being’ & ‘Becoming’

Plato disagreed with both Protagorus and Heraclitus.

Plato rejected Protagorus’ relativism, claiming instead that if individuals were the standard for right and wrong then all discussion of justice, blame, praiseworthiness, virtue, and moral responsibility was meaningless. How can we even discuss right and wrong if it’s different for every person? According to Plato, if our notions of being, truth, goodness and morality are to be meaningful, then they must be anchored in some objective (exists outside our own minds), independent (not dependent upon anything else for its existence), and absolute (unchanging) Reality. There must exist, then, another world beyond this world and above our minds- a world of Being. Plato had three goals that he desired his philosophy to fulfill:

Plato's Three Metaphysical Objectives

1.) Objective (exists outside our own minds)
2.) Independent (not dependent upon anything else for its existence)
3.) Absolute (unchanging)

Plato rejected Heraclitus’ theory of an ever-changing reality, claiming instead that there must be something about this changing world that doesn’t change, something reality beyond the sensible world of multiplicity and change. Plato admits that the sensible world is always changing, always Becoming; however, he thinks there is another reality that makes this constant Becoming possible, namely, the world of Being.

On pp. 174-175 of Republic, (Book V 479c-end) Plato draws the distinction between the two worlds: the world of Becoming and the world of Being, and the corresponding difference between knowledge and opinion. In this passage Plato represents the world of Becoming as a ‘twilight zone’ or ‘half-way region’ between reality and unreality.

The distinction between the world of Being and the world of Becoming is further delineated in the following passage from Plato’s Timaeus:

“…We must make a distinction and ask, ‘what is that which always is and has no becoming, and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state, but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is.” (Timaeus, 27d-28a)

Thus, Plato believes that reality is made up of the sensible world of Becoming and the transcendent (beyond space and time) world of Being. The world of Becoming is always changing; while the world of Being never changes.

Plato’s World of Being, or the Forms

The next step in understanding Plato’s Theory of Forms is to grasp that for Plato the transcendent world of Being is populated by realities called Forms. According to Plato, Forms in the world of Being are the causes of the particular things in the world of Becoming. For example, there is a Form of TABLE in the transcendent world of Being that causes particular things in the world of Becoming to appear as tables. As we all know, tables come in many shapes, sizes, colors and designs- but all of them have in common the fact that we consider them to be tables. All tables, no matter how different from each other they may be, have an undeniable ‘tableness’. That transcendent quality of ‘tableness’ that all tables share is the Form of TABLE.

Six Characteristics of Forms

1. Objective – They exist “out there” as objects, independently of our minds or wills.
2. Transcendent – Though they exists “out there,” they do not exist in space and time; they lie, as it were, above or beyond space and time
3. Eternal – As transcendent realities they are not subject to time and therefore not subject to motion or change
4. Intelligible – As transcendent realities they cannot be grasped by the senses but only by the intellect
5. Archetypal – They are the models of every kind of thing that does or could exist
6. Perfect – They include absolutely and perfectly all the features of the things of which they are models

The Relationship Between Forms and Particular Things

Definition: “The Theory of Forms is the belief in a transcendent world of eternal and absolute beings, corresponding to every kind of thing that there is, and causing in particular things* their essential nature.” (Miller, 76)

*From now on I will refer to “particular things” simply as “Particulars”

CHART: Relationship Between Forms and Particulars

FORMS in the world of Being PARTICULARS in the world of Becoming

Transcendent Spatial-temporal
Eternal Changeable
Intelligible Sensible
Archetypal Copied
Perfect Imperfect


World of BEING World of BECOMING

TABLE this table here, that table there, etc.
JUSTICE Nuremburg Trials, Civil Rights Act, etc.
STUDENT Bob, Sally, Brad, Kristy, etc.

According to Plato, Particulars have an essence or nature because they stand in relation to their Form. But what exactly is the relationship between a Particular and its Form? Plato was troubled by this question and offered only a vague explanation:

“[Plato] talks as if sensible things are copies or imitations of the Forms, and at other times he talks of a participation of the sensible thing in its Form. Thus a table is table because it imperfectly reflects or is an imperfect copy of its pattern or model, the Form Tableness, or it is a table because it participates in the Form Tableness.” (Miller, 78)

Later, Plato’s star pupil Aristotle will criticize his teacher for not being more precise.

In further delineating the relationship between Forms and Particulars, Plato pointed out two important issues:
(1) Particulars can participate in more than one Form. For example, an apple (Particular) can participate in more than one Form, like Redness, Hardness, Sweetness, etc, and
(2) (2) a Particular can exhibit characteristics that are not necessarily part of its nature. For example, ink does not have to be blue in order to be ink. It can be red, black, etc. It’s the same with an apple. An apple doesn’t have to be red to be an apple; it can be green. And it doesn’t have to be sweet; it can be sour and tart.

Plato’s Divided Line


Metaphysics Epistemology

Higher Forms Understanding

BEING KNOWLEDGE

Mathematical Forms Reason

Sensible Objects Perception

BECOMING OPINION

Images Imagination


The Essential Form of the Good

For Plato, there exists something beyond the Forms, something from which the lower and higher forms derive their being. “And just as it is above all a reality, and is their ultimate source, so it is above all knowledge and is its ultimate source.” (Miller 83)

Plato calls this “the essential Form of the Good”. He compares this essential Form of the Good to the sun, by which we perceive all things and by which all things have their existence, or survival. “The Good is to the intelligible world, or world of Being, as the sun is to the visible world, or world of becoming.” (Miller 83)

Plato & Aristotle on the Soul

According to Plato, the soul remembers the forms from a previous lifetime. The soul recognizes the forms by remembering them, like when you run into an old friend on the street.

According to Aristotle, the soul knows the forms through rational intuition. The soul does not remember, rather, the soul intuits knowledge of the forms.

AQUINAS

Introduction to Ethics – Aquinas

Introduction

St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) Dominican friar, lectured at the University of Paris and in Naples. He wrote the Summa Theologica, or summary of theology.

Aquinas synthesized Aristotle’s method and principles with Christian theology. His teachings would later be called Thomism, and be accepted by the Catholic and later the Protestant churches until the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. Thomism is the belief in: (1) Ptolemy’s astronomy, (2) Galen’s medicine and (3) Aristotle’s physics. Such was the reverence for Aristotle, held by medieval thinkers that they referred to him as the Great Teacher.

The Summa can be divided into four parts: (1) God, creation and human nature, (2) the human end and the role of human virtue in accomplishing that end (sounds Aristotelian); also specific virtues and morality, (3) life of Christ, role of the sacraments. Although Aquinas emphasizes the role of Scripture and revelation, he also relies upon Reason and philosophical argumentation in order to make his points.

Aquinas named four cardinal virtues (like the four gospels, points of the compass, basic Aristotelian elements, etc.). They are: (1) Fortitude (2) Justice, (3) Prudence (4) Temperance. Of these four virtues, he asserted that justice was the chief among them, mainly because it dealt with the public good (community and church).

The Human End

Aquinas describes Nature/Creation as, “Every kind of thing has a nature that aims to achieve its specific perfection, which is its end.” Recall Aristotle’s telos (goal/aim)- in that acorns become oak trees and puppies become dogs. Whatever a thing aims to achieve, or what it “knows” how to become, is its specific perfection. For Aquinas, babies become adults capable of rational functions, understanding and reason. “And because the power of reason is the specific perfection of human beings, they attain their ultimate perfection, the state of happiness, by activities of reason and activities in accords with reason.”

Aquinas does not think human happiness depends upon material goods (although like Aristotle, he thinks good health and moderate wealth are important). Rather, “…human happiness is a condition of the soul produced by activities of reason and other human activities in this life in accord with reason.” On these points Aristotle and Aquinas agree.

However, the two parts ways on what constitutes the activities of reason, or the aim of reason. Aquinas thinks the aim of happiness is, “…the intellectual vision of God’s essence, albeit not a comprehensive vision.” Aquinas asserts that human reason can produce a vision of God, but cannot create a comprehensive vision without God’s assistance. “Human beings will not be perfectly happy so long as there remains something more for them to know, that nature constitutes them to seek and know God, and that they cannot in this life know what God is in himself.” In this life humans gain knowledge through perceptible effects, that is, one can perceive God as the cause of so many perceptible effects, for example, an orderly universe suggests one who ordered it.

Aristotle was content with the pursuit of theoretical reason. He asserted that the most important ingredient in human happiness is the pursuit of understanding; that is, seeking to understand how things come to be: (contemplation of their efficient, formal, final and material causes). Recall that for Aristotle, politics was the highest pursuit of virtue, that is, a life in service of an earthly kingdom.

Like Aristotle, Aquinas values theoretical reason and the contemplation of causes. Moreover, Aquinas agrees that in order to be happy one needs health, material goods and friends. However, “…he insists that the happiness attainable in this life is incomplete and imperfect, a pale reflection of the perfect happiness of beholding God’s essence…”

“Both Aristotle and Aquinas recognize that human happiness in this life also requires right reason to govern external actions and internal emotions, and a rightly ordered will regarding the requisite ends of human actions and emotions.” However, Aquinas goes farther. He insists that a rightly-ordered will means not only directing your actions in accord with right-reason, but also loving as good whatever God wills. “For Aquinas, there is no complete rectitude of the will without conformity to God’s will and his commands, which reason and revelation communicate.”

“…despite the large measure of agreement that Aristotle and Aquinas share regarding the human end, they differ sharply about the sufficiency of theoretical and practical wisdom in this life for the complete happiness of human beings. On the one hand, the pagan Aristotle does not conceive God in providential terms, and so he does not look to happiness in a future life as the final goal of human beings. On the other hand, the Christian Aquinas conceives God in such terms, and so he cannot look to the theoretical or practical wisdom accessible to humans in this life…short of the beatific vision- as the ultimate human end.” For Aquinas, as with most Christian theologians, the consummation of the beatific vision is accomplished only after death, when one faces God. The beatific vision is the ultimate human end for two reasons: (1) it is the ultimate good or happiness and (2) it is what the human intellect desires, by its very nature.

Thus, for Aquinas, “…human beings can attain an incomplete and imperfect happiness in this life by their natural power to acquire intellectual and moral virtue, but that they cannot by their natural power acquire the complete and perfect happiness of the beatific vision.” The beatific vision is a gift of God, and therefore it must be given by God to humans. “God endows human beings with the requisite freedom and grace to carry out his will and thereby provides the requisite means for human beings to qualify for the complete and perfect happiness of the beatific vision. But however much human beings may cooperate in the dispositions of themselves for the beatific vision, the vision itself remains beyond their natural power to attain.” The beatific vision compliments the natural desire of human beings.

The Cardinal Virtues

Plato describes the four cardinal virtues in The Republic to be:
• Wisdom (calculative) - see the whole
• Courage (spirited) - preserve the whole
• Moderation (appetitive) - serve the whole
• Justice (founding/preserving virtue) - "mind your own business" ie "tend to your soul"/"know yourself"

Plato defines how an individual can attain these virtues: Wisdom comes from exercising reason; Courage from exercising emotions or spirit; Moderation (sometimes "temperance") from allowing reason to overrule desires; and from these Justice ensues, a state in which all elements of the mind are in concord with one another

Plato identified them with the classes of the city described in The Republic and with the faculties of man. Temperance was associated with the producing classes, the farmers and craftsmen, and with the animal appetites; fortitude with the warrior class and with the spirited element in man; prudence with the rulers and with reason. Justice stands outside the class system and divisions of man, and rules the proper relationship among the three of them.

Justice is described by Plato to be the founding and preserving virtue because only once someone understands justice can he or she gain the other three virtues, and once someone possesses all four virtues it is justice that keeps it all together.

In some Christian traditions, there are four cardinal virtues:
• Prudence - able to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time
• Justice - proper moderation between self-interest and the rights and needs of others
• Restraint or Temperance - practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation
• Courage or Fortitude - forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation

The term "cardinal" comes from the Latin cardo or hinge; the cardinal virtues are so called because they are hinges upon which the door of the moral life swings.

It may have been taken up from there into Jewish philosophy; Wisdom 8:7 reads, "She [Wisdom] teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in life."

These "cardinal" virtues are not the same as the three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity (see 1 Corinthians 13). Together, they comprise what is known as the seven cardinal virtues, also known as the heavenly virtues.
The final version of Cardinal Sins consists of: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Biblical Lists

In the book of Proverbs, it is stated that "the Lord" specifically regards "six things the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth." Namely
• Haughty eyes
• A lying tongue
• Hands that shed innocent blood
• A heart that devises wicked plots
• Feet that are swift to run into mischief
• A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
• Him that soweth discord among brethren

While there are seven of them, this list is considerably different from the traditional one, the only sin on both lists being pride. Another list of bad things, given this time by the epistle to the Galatians includes more of the traditional seven sins, although the list is substantially longer: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envying, murders, drunkenness, revelling, " and such like"

Justice

Defining justice

Aquinas defines justice as, “…the habit whereby one with steadfast and enduring will renders to others what is due them” (34).

Whereas Aristotle defined justice in terms of the restoration of balance- Aquinas defines justice in terms of giving to someone what is due them, as if it were wages they had earned.

Aquinas is concerned with the “proper matter of a thing”- that is, what a thing is intended for. Justice is a virtue whose proper matter is rendering what is due others. It is not a personal matter or private affair; rather, it is something dispensed to others.

The necessity of justice

“There are two kinds of necessity…” (35). Coercion removes moral responsibility and is contrary to the will. The obligation of precepts is a kind of necessity, but a necessity wherein one still must choose whether to obey or not. Justice is an obligation to a precept, because the precept is given by God. Therefore, justice is an obligation first to God, then to others, and finally to yourself.

Justice as an appetitive power

“…the intellect, or reason, which is a cognitive power, is not the subject of justice. Justice needs to inhere in an appetitive power as its subject” (35). Remember Aquinas’ distinction between theoretical and practical reason? The intellect deals with theoretical reason. Justice is the subject of practical reason, for it deals with behavior or actions, and more specifically, behavior in relation of others. For example, one cannot be just simply by knowing what he should do- one must actually do it. Justice is an appetitive power, of which there are three: (1) irascible (2) concupiscence and (3) will. For Aquinas, right-reason and right-behavior is an ordering of the will. “The will can be the subject of moral virtue” (36).
“Justice directs human beings in relations to others…” (36). This sounds like Aristotle’s notion of general and particular justice. “And since it belongs to law to order human beings…” (36). Justice is obedience to laws, and therefore it is a legal justice (general justice). For Aquinas, there would be no justice without the law, either God’s law or the law of the community (based on God’s law). Again, for Aquinas justice is about obedience vs. disobedience, and the reward or punishment appropriate to each; whereas for Aristotle justice is simply about restoring balance to a situation made unbalanced.

“…besides legal justice, particular virtues that direct…” (38). Particular justice is also obedience to law; but the aim is the personal good rather than the public good- although, particular virtue strengthens the community and therefore the public good. “…particular justice, since it is directed to others, does not concern the whole subject matter…” (38).

Two kinds of justice

Aquinas defines the two parts of justice, page 48

Commutative justice – “…consists of mutual exchanges, directs the relation of private persons to one another” (47). ‘Quid pro quo’ something for something, that is, it is a quantitative matter. For example, appropriate wages for appropriate amount of work.

Distributive justice – “…directs the distribution of common goods to private persons” (47). Quid pro quo, but in a geometric sense, that is, one person in relation to another, and in relation to the community. If one person gives more to the community then that person should get more from the community. “Distributive justice allots things to private persons…” (49).

One can see how these notions inform Aquinas’ views of the afterlife- he is not interested in everyone getting an equal wage or even an equal share; rather, each gets appropriate wages and an appropriate share of the reward or punishment.

“Since observance of justice is necessary for salvation, it is necessary for salvation to return what one has unjustly taken” (55). Living unjustly and therefore without virtue is a failure to return to God what is owed- namely, obedience to God’s law. For Aquinas, justice is a means to salvation. For Aristotle, justice is the highest end in itself. It is final and self-sufficient. For Aquinas, it is the final aim in this life, but aims for salvation in the next.

ARISTOTLE VIRTUE

Introduction to Ethics – Nicomachean Ethics - VIRTUE

Introduction

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology.
Aristotle considered ethics to be a practical rather than theoretical study, i.e., one aimed at doing good rather than knowing for its own sake. He wrote several treatises on ethics, including most notably, the Nichomachean Ethics.
Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function (ergon) of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight. Aristotle reasoned that humans must have a function specific to humans, and that this function must be an activity of the psuchē (normally translated as soul) in accordance with reason (logos). Aristotle identified such an optimum activity of the soul as the aim of all human deliberate action, eudaimonia, generally translated as "happiness" or sometimes "well being". To have the potential of ever being happy in this way necessarily requires a good character (aretē), often translated as moral (or ethical) virtue (or excellence).
Aristotle taught that to achieve a virtuous and potentially happy character requires a first stage of having the fortune to be habituated not deliberately, but by teachers, and experience, leading to a later stage in which one consciously choses to do the best things. When the best people come to live life this way their practical wisdom (phronēsis) and their intellect (nous) can develop with each other towards the highest possible ethical virtue, that of wisdom.
Defining the good

Aristotle defines the good as, “…that at which all things aim” (1094a). Every action, every choice, every investigation or inquiry into the meaning of life- ultimately aims as the good, or more specifically, human happiness.

For example, the aim of medicine is health, and in turn, the aim of health is happiness. In this way, happiness is the ultimate aim of human activity- even if there are intermediate aims along the way. Happiness is the ultimate aim and therefore superior to all others- it is the ultimate end of human activity.

Aristotle asks, “Will not the knowledge of this good, consequently, be very important to our lives? Would it not better equip us, like archers who have a target to aim at, to hit the proper mark?” (1094a20) In the Meno, Socrates wants to inquire into the nature of virtue while Meno is more interested in the means for the acquisition of virtue- whatever it may be. Here Aristotle concludes that knowledge of the good, or virtue, will enable us to be virtuous which necessarily leads to happiness.

Politics as the highest or ultimate good

Aristotle thinks that this ultimate good belongs to the, “…most sovereign and most comprehensive,” human activity, namely, politics (1094b). Why? Politics encompasses a number of other “honored capacities” such as strategy, household management and oratory. Remember- it is important to note that Aristotle thinks that a fundamental human activity is to be social. In order to be truly happy, one must be involved with friends, neighbors, family, civil responsibilities etc. (1094b5) Since politics, “…uses the rest of the sciences, and since, moreover, it legislates what people are to do and what they are not to do, its end seems to embrace the ends of the other sciences. Thus is follows that the end of politics is the good for man.” Additionally, for Aristotle, the good/happiness of the state is more important than the good/happiness of the individual- therefore politics is the best human activity.

Happiness is difficult to define

(1095a15) “…since all knowledge and every choice is directed toward some good, let us discuss what is in our view the aim of politics, i.e. the highest good attainable by action.” However, Aristotle suggests that while everyone seems to agree that the highest good is happiness, no one seems to be able to agree on a definition of happiness. Some say it is “doing well”, other say “living well” and still others seem to simply say, “being happy”. In Aristotle’s experience, philosophers are not satisfied with how the public often defines happiness- simply wealth, pleasure or honor. In fact, sometimes the same person will define happiness differently depending on her circumstances at that moment- for example, if you are sick you might define happiness as being healthy- or if you are poor then you might define happiness as wealth, or at least a modest income. Happiness, like virtue it seems, is an elusive term to define and understand.

Three notable kinds of life

(1095b15) According to Aristotle, there are three kinds of life, or human activity which have happiness as their aim: (1) the life of enjoyment, simply based on pleasure, (2) the political life and (3) the contemplative life.

The life of enjoyment pursues happiness for personal good

The life of politics pursues happiness for public good

The life of contemplation pursues happiness for private good

The good as final and self-sufficient

(1097b) “What is always chosen as an end in itself and never as a means to something else is called final…this description seems to apply to happiness above all else: for we always choose happiness as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else.” Happiness is never a means to an end; rather, it is always the desired end or aim of all human activity. For example, you do not get happiness so that you may be healthy; rather, you get healthy so that you may be happy.

(1097b15) “…we define ‘self-sufficient’ that which taken by itself makes life something desirable and deficient in nothing.” Happiness is both what makes life desirable and what we ultimately desire from life. Being self-sufficient is good, and therefore whatever is most self-sufficient would be the highest good. Happiness depends upon nothing- it is self-sufficient- it is therefore the highest good. “We see then that happiness is something final and self-sufficient and the end of our actions.”

The function of human activity

(1097b20) “To call happiness the highest good is perhaps a little trite, and a clearer account of what it is, is still required. Perhaps this is best done by first ascertaining the proper function of man.” Aristotle wants to elaborate on what it means to claim that happiness is the highest good; and he wants to do this by figuring out if there is an overall function for humanity. For example, to better understand carpentry, you might spend some time figuring out the function of a hammer, or a saw, or a drill. The function of a thing, in this case human activity, will be a clue to discerning the meaning of happiness.

(1098a) “What can this function possibly be?” Aristotle offers various possible answers, such as: “Simply living” (which he shares with plants); “nutrition and growth” (discounted for the previous reason); “life of sense perception” (which he shares with animals). According to Aristotle, what makes human activity unique is the “rational element”. It has two parts: “(1)…one is rational in that it obeys the rules of reason, (2) the other in that it possesses and conceives rational rules.” For example, one might possess and conceive of a rational rule like the law of non-contradiction; however, one might also disregard that rule and act accordingly; hence (2) is simply the ability to possess a certain kind of knowledge (rationality), and the (1) is the ability to obey or disregard that knowledge.

(1098a5) “Since the expression ‘life of the rational element’ also can be used in two senses, we must make it clear that we mean a life determined by the activity, as opposed to the mere possession, of the rational element. For the activity, it seems, has a greater claim to be the function of man.”

“The proper function of man, then, consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle…”

(1098a15) “…the good of man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence of virtue…”

Virtue as an activity

(1098b30) “…our term ‘activity in conformity with virtue’ implies virtue. But it does doubtless make a considerable difference whether we think of the highest good as consisting in the possession or in the practice of virtue…as being a characteristic or an activity.” Aristotle suggests that rather than defining virtue as a characteristic one may possess; rather, virtue is an activity. In other words, virtue is something you do, not something you possess.

(1099a20) “…actions performed in conformity with virtue are themselves pleasant.” Simply put, if you are acting virtuous, that is, if you are participating in the activity of virtue then you will be happy. Nothing makes humans happier than “activity in conformity with virtue.”

Since virtue is an activity, and recall that Aristotle thinks politics is the best activity, participation in virtue requires human interaction. This is why Aristotle thinks that humans are necessarily social beings, because happiness ultimately depends upon interaction with others. (1099b) “…happiness…needs external goods as well. Many actions can only be performed with the help of instruments, as it were: friends, wealth, and political power. And there are some external goods the absence of which spoils supreme happiness, e.g. good birth, good children, and beauty: for a man who is very ugly in appearance or ill-born or who lives all by himself and has no children cannot be classified as happy…”

ARISTOTLE JUSTICE

ARISTOTLE - JUSTICE

Aristotle finds that two distinct forms of justice are necessary to form a comprehensive theory: general (or universal) justice and particular justice. General justice deals with obeying laws and the relation of virtue to others. Particular justice is placed among the virtues and is divided into two subcategories.

Aristotle begins his discussion of particular justice by providing evidence that Justice is divided into parts and that one of these parts deals with unjust profits from action. First, Aristotle makes note of several vices that are associated with certain activities. Cowardice, for example, is associated with causing a soldier to throw away his shield during a battle (1130a17-19).

Aristotle cites several other examples in which a certain vice causes one to act in a way that does not accord with a virtue. However, there are some cases where a person commits an undesirable act and does not possess a corresponding vice that would usually cause that type of act. Often, Aristotle observes, these acts are caused by overreaching, or getting too large a share. (1130a30-1130b1) “It is therefore, apparent that there exists, apart from the injustice…”; these acts are a particular form of injustice.

This distinction between other vices and injustice is that particular injustice deals with unjust actions that are motivated by unjust gains. In the previous example, the soldier who deserts his comrades in battle and does so out of cowardice is not acting unjustly. However, if the soldier committed the same act motivated by overreaching (pay-off), he would be acting out of particular injustice. Another example is adultery for lust or material gain (1030a25). Because unjust acts are a result of overreaching, they are different from unjust acts in the general sense and as such deserve their own separate place in a discussion of Justice.

Particular justice, however, is not different from Justice as a whole. Neither is particular justice only a part of Justice, it is the same as Justice but since it has a different focus, we give it a different name.

Particular justice deals with what is unfair whereas general justice deals with lawless. Aristotle points out that, "whatever is unfair is lawless, but not everything lawless is unfair" (1130b10).

Aristotle divides particular justice in two parts: (1) distribution of divisible goods and (2) rectification in transactions. The first part relates to members of a community in which it is possible for one person to have more or less of a good than another person. Aristotle cites wealth and honor as two of several divisible goods (1130b31). The second part of particular justice deals with rectification in transactions and this part is itself divided into two parts: voluntary and involuntary.

For Aristotle, the correct distribution of goods is the mean between the extremes of too much and too little, this intermediate is called the fair (1131a10).

The just must fall between what is too much and what is too little and the just requires the distribution to be made between people of equal stature. Aristotle is concerned that, “if the people involved are not equal, they will not [justly] receive equal shares… that is the source of quarrels and accusations.” (1131a20, see footnote).
A final point that Aristotle makes in his discussion of distributive justice is that when two evils must be distributed, the lesser of the evils is the more choice-worthy and as such is the greater good (1131b20).

PLATO'S MENO

Plato’s Meno

(70a) The three questions posed by the Meno are:

1. Can virtue be taught?
2. Is it the result of practice?
3. Do people possess it by nature, that is, are they born that way?
(71e) Meno suggests many virtues, “It is not hard to tell you…”
(72c) Socrates points out that “Even if they are many and various, all of them have one and the same form…”
Therefore: courage, honesty, fidelity and patience are virtues; but not Virtue itself. What Socrates wants to discover is- What is common to all these virtues?
(74b) The form of Virtue versus individual virtues is compared to the form of Shape versus individual shapes. “That is likely, but I am eager…”
QUESTION: Do people possess Virtue by nature, that is, are they born that way?
(87e) Is virtue something beneficial? “And if we are good, we are beneficient, for all that is good is beneficial…”
(88a) Things that benefit us? Health, wealth, strength and beauty. But it seems that is the right use of these things, not the things themselves, that are beneficial.
(88c) Thus, it seems that wisdom is necessary in order to make these things beneficial. And wisdom is a kind of knowledge. And furthermore it seems that not all people possess this knowledge, which means (89a) “…the good are not so by nature.”
Here is Socrates’ refutation of question number 3.
QUESTION: Can virtue be taught?
(93a,b) “I believe, Anytus, that there are many men …” There are virtuous men, but can these men who possess virtue teach it?
(93d,e) Themistocles’ son Cleophantus did not learn wisdom and virtue from his father, but rather horsemanship.
(94d) “It is surely clear that he would not have…” “…virtue can certainly not be taught.”
(96c) Socrates’ refutation of number 1.
QUESTION: Is it the result of practice?
If virtue is a kind of wisdom, and therefore a kind of knowledge, then virtue is not like a skill (horsemanship or business) which can be acquired through practice. Therefore, it follows that if virtue can neither be taught nor do people possess it by nature, then it cannot be the result of practice.
Socrates maintains that Virtue is a kind of knowledge, and that it can only be obtained by recollection. (81e) “Yes, Socrates, but how do you mean that we do not learn, but that what we call learning is recollection?”
(82b) Socrates says, “Pay attention then whether you think he is recollecting or learning from me.”