Monday, January 25, 2010

Virtue: A Thing of Habit

The idea of being a virtuous person involves being just, righteous, brave, etc. The list could go on and on, but one thing remains constant: these characteristics were not obtained through birth. Instead virtue is learned through teaching, and from this teaching we are able to decide whether to be virtuous or not. According to Aristotle a person must be in the habit of doing virtuous acts at a mean in order to acquire the title of being a “good” virtuous person (“Nicomachean Ethics” 18).

With virtue there is a good or bad approach. We are not born with either good or bad outlooks on virtue, but are rather taught, and through habit with either acquire a just or unjust outlook on life (“Nicomachean” 19). When it comes to obtaining a virtuous status, a person has to obtain an early habit of virtue. Someone who knows virtue and practices it at a young age is more likely to be virtuous later on in life. However, it is important that when a person learns of virtue he/she learns of its opposite. By learning of virtues opposite it allows us to find a middle ground so that we are not over-virtuous.

I know it is hard to imagine being “over-virtuous,” but it is possible. It is important to not be excessive or have a deficiency of virtue. A middle-ground is necessary to preserve healthy and balanced virtue. Only out of habit is this middle-ground of virtue obtainable. There are ways of experiencing virtue in a way that we do not become overly virtuous, but rather are strong and capable of being virtuous (“Nicomachean” 20). As Aristotle puts it, “It is similar with bravery; habituation in disdain for frightening situations and in standing firm against them makes us become brave, and once we have become brave we shall be most capable of standing firm (Nicomachean 20).

It is true that in order to reach the status of “good” in terms of virtue, one must find the mean or middle-ground of a virtue. Aristotle goes on to say, “This is enough, then, to make it clear that in every case the intermediate state is praised, but we must sometimes incline toward the excess, sometimes toward the deficiency; for that is the easiest way to hit the intermediate and good condition” (“Nicomachean” 30). There is a balance that we all must find in order to be labeled as “good” with virtue. My question for Aristotle now is: do people lacking knowledge of the opposite of virtue always tend to be overly virtuous?

Aristotle would answer that question with a resounding “no”. My thinking behind that would be because there is no knowledge of virtues opposite an individual has any option other than that of being overly virtuous. A balance could not exist if there is nothing there other then being completely virtuous. The only habit that person would pick up would be that of being overly virtuous.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Ancient Greece vs. Today: Same Ethics, Shorter Beards


How can it be that modern philosophers reflect on the ethics established by thinkers from ancient Greece over two thousand years ago? After all the developments in history since then, it is absurd to believe that we, in our radiant sophistication, share the same morals as our wide-eyed philosophical forefathers. Upon a closer evaluation of the ethics in ancient Greece, however, one will begin to see that modern ethics are not very different in principle. Christopher Rowe explores this idea in Ethics in Ancient Greece.

Greek ethics can be seen as individualistic, with some requirement for co-operative behavior (127). In ancient Greece living morally was more self-imposed, and focused on eudaimonia and arete (122). Wisdom, justice, courage, moderation, and piety comprised the grounds for “functioning successfully,” (124) and one acted for the sake of one’s own happiness. Virtues contribute to the overall happiness and pleasure in one’s life. Life’s goal would be to avoid pain and do what is pleasurable and this will free one from frustration and unfulfilled desire (126-7). Living a good life emerges from rational processes (126).

Today we live morally by abiding laws or showing respect for the people and things around us, and we do it for the sake of the laws—religious and legislative. Modern ethics place emphasis on generosity, conservation, and oppose self-centeredness. If we are selfish, we feel guilty. Modern ethics are derived from religion and laws, and are reflected in our consciences. To appease one’s conscience, and to avoid feeling guilty, people often donate time or money, which in turn provides a sense of accomplishment. Happiness comes from that sense of accomplishment. Isn’t it true, by that model, that people in modern society only do what is considered good to get a feeling of happiness, or pleasure?

The reasons for living morally seem to be different now, but the things that we and the ancient Greeks considered to be ethically good have not hugely changed. “Right” and “good” actions matter to us, but on what grounds do we define such actions? This question was raised by the Greeks and continues to be asked in modern society—how do we know what is morally right? Greeks said right action contributed to pleasure. Today we still do not know how to define morally right behavior. If we think in terms of achieving eudaimonia, our morals do not drastically differ from those of the Greeks.

Despite all of the advances in modern society, people still adhere to morals that closely resemble those from ancient societies. This suggests something about human nature. Socrates claimed that humans have an innate nature to follow one’s knowledge of right and wrong (126). Plato and Aristotle elaborated by saying people acquire a disposition to act rightly, and even when the time comes to think, reason will confirm the rightness of one’s action (126). When inspecting the motives behind one’s actions, it appears that the innate ethics of human nature and the inclination for pleasure remain constant through the ages. This fact justifies modern thinker’s, including Rowe’s, “search for understanding” through the ancient Greeks.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Religious Authority Concerning Classical and Modern Moral Philosophy

John Rawls explores the differences between classical moral philosophy and modern moral philosophy. Focusing mainly on the religious influences of the different historical and cultural times.

Beginning with classical moral philosophy, Rawls establishes that it was a civic religious culture with attention on the participation in public civic festivals and public celebrations, rather than the ideas of immortality and eternal salvation. They celebrated Homer and taught his Homeric poems, instead of being basing it off of sacred texts, such as the Bible (“Modern” 3). The philosophical criticisms were on the Homeric ideal of the heroic warrior and feudal nobility. Rawls gives general points of the philosophical moral views of the Greeks (“Modern” 4). First, they focused on “the idea of the highest good as an attractive ideal”, being the reasonable pursuit of true happiness (“Modern” 4). Second, being concerned with “this good as a good for the individual” (“Modern” 4). Third, they saw virtuous conduct as a good that should be with other goods in the good life, and looked for a beginning of the highest good to become a basis of comparison to see how this could be done. Finally, this moral philosophy was solely the exercise of free, disciplined reason and was not based off of religion.

Rawls’ description of modern moral philosophy is more in-depth, as it dealt with three major historical developments. Focusing solely on the first major development, the Reformation, Rawls explains its importance due to it fragmenting the unity of the Middle Ages (“Modern” 5). He begins by explaining the five important features of medieval Christianity (“Modern” 6). It was an authoritative, doctrinal, and expansionist religion, was a religion of salvation, and also a religion of priests who held the sole authority to dispense means of grace (“Modern” 6). In distinction to the classical moral philosophy, “the moral philosophy of the medieval Church was not the result of the exercise of free, disciplined reason alone” (“Modern” 6). The main moral philosophy of the medieval Church rested on the idea of God’s divine law, “the consequences of the laws laid down by God who creates all of us… to whom we are everlasting obligated” (“Modern” 7). Rawls has us ask “What is it like for an authoritative, salvationist, and expansionist religion such as medieval Christianity to fragment?” (“Modern” 7). The Reformation created a rival for medieval Christianity now that there are new religions that differ in only some ways from the original. This also led to the question, especially since they are all religions of salvation, “Which religion then leads to salvation?” (“Modern” 7).

The key distinction between classical moral philosophy and modern moral philosophy is the religious authority that influenced each philosophy. Classical philosophers explored the virtues that were not highly established in the Homeric poems, but their criticism of them did not create great conflicts within the community (“Modern” 8). Modern philosophers had to confront the sole religious authority that based itself off God’s divine law (“Modern” 7).

My question for Rawls is if he believes that we would be better off going back to the social environment of classical philosophy due to its seemingly non-hostile approach to philosophers’ criticisms? I believe Rawls would respond to this question by explaining that as Sidgwick mention, “we can hardly understand Greek moral philosophy,” and it is because of modern moral philosophy’s conflicts with the Church we are able to explore more possibilities (“Modern” 2).

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Course Description, Goals, and Requirements

Course Description
This course is designed to introduce you to three major ethical theories. This semester we will work through the contributions of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill to ethics, in the form of the theories of virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and utilitarianism. These different ethical programs continue to influence the way that we think about how human beings should act, what acts have moral worth, and what the final ends of human life should be. In other words, far from being a dry exercise in intellectual history, this semester we’ll be uncovering the reasons behind the ways that we live today.

Although most of the semester will be devoted to engaging the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, we will also have opportunities to consider contemporary revisions of these ethical systems, as well as to consider certain ethical problems.

Course Goals
1) The course will present you with a general knowledge of the ideas of all of the philosophers addressed, specifically in relation to their ethical theories. That is, at the end of this course, you will be able to talk about these philosophers and their ideas; you will be able to see connections between those ideas and issues in our contemporary world; and you should be able to use basic philosophical vocabulary.

2) The course will help develop your skills in critical thinking. Critical thinking is a general term used to describe the mutually overlapping activities of reading, writing and discussion in an interrogative mode. At the end of this course, you will be able to use these skills, not only in philosophy courses, but in all aspects of your life.

Course Requirements
1) Reading: you must do 10-50 pages of reading each week. Philosophical books and essays can be difficult to read and understand, requiring much more concentration and attention than the newspaper or a novel. Taking notes while reading is highly recommended.

2) Attendance and participation: attendance is mandatory and will be recorded. More than three absences (excused or otherwise) will negatively affect your final grade (see below). Although the course shall generally assume a lecture format, you are expected to participate by asking questions during the lecture or contributing to discussion if a question is raised. Your participation is calculated based on your six blog comments (each circa 100 words), and debate participation, as well as your completion of critical thinking exercises (of which there will be approximately one every week, available on fordham.blackboard.com).

3) Blogging, essays and examinations: you must write one (400-500 words) blog post, six blog comments, two essays (3-4 pages); two examinations will be given. Blog posts will address the week’s reading and comments will address the blog posts and course lectures/discussions. For each essay assignment, three topics will be offered from which the student shall select one. More information on these requirements is available on fordham.blackboard.com.