LTC Uhl Final

Focus on Greek philosophers

Cephalus (The Elder/Traditionalist) definition of Justice

• Definition of Justice: Justice consists of speaking the truth and paying one’s debts.

• The Socratic Refutation: Socrates uses the "Madman and the Weapon" example: If a friend lends you a weapon but then goes insane, it would not be "just" to return the weapon or tell him the whole truth, as it would lead to harm.

Polemarchus (The Son/The Soldier's View) definition of justice

• Definition of Justice: Justice is giving to each what is "owed" or "appropriate." Specifically, he argues it means doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies.

• The Socratic Refutation: Socrates argues that our judgment of who is a "friend" or "enemy" is often flawed. Furthermore, he argues that a truly just person would never seek to harm anyone, as harming someone makes them less virtuous (and justice cannot produce injustice).

Thrasymachus (The Sophist/Cynic) definition of Justice

• Definition of Justice: "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger". He argues that those in power make laws to benefit themselves, and they call following those laws "justice."

• The Socratic Refutation: Socrates points out that rulers, like any craftsmen (doctors or pilots), can make mistakes about what is actually in their own interest. A "true" ruler, like a true doctor, should act for the benefit of their subjects, not themselves.

Glaucon (The Challenger/Plato's Brother) definition of Justice

• The Social Contract: He argues that justice is a compromise between the "best" (doing injustice without penalty) and the "worst" (suffering injustice without redress).

• The Ring of Gyges: Glaucon tells the story of a shepherd who finds a ring that makes him invisible. He argues that if a "just" man and an "unjust" man both had such a ring, they would both eventually act unjustly because the only reason people act justly is for fear of being caught.

The Greatest Happiness Principle (Mill)

Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

NOT the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Happiness (Mill)

Defined as pleasure and the absence of pain.

Higher vs. Lower Pleasures (Mill)

Mill distinguishes himself from earlier utilitarians by arguing that intellectual and moral pleasures (higher) are superior to physical pleasures (lower).

Justice vs. Expediency (Mill)

Mill argues that justice is a name for certain social utilities that are vastly more important than others, and thus more absolute and imperative.

The Good Will (Kant)

The only thing that is good "without qualification." It is a will that acts from duty, not just in accordance with duty.

Categorical Imperative

Act only on a maxim that can become universal law

Moral law = physical law

Hypothetical imperative

command of reason that applies only conditionally. It tells you what to do in order to achieve a specific goal or "end".

Maxim (Kant)

A maxim is the subjective principle of volition.

A maxim is just the subjective principle behind your choice—it's the why and the how of what you're doing, stripped of all the "if it makes me happy" feelings.

Kant argues that the "moral worth" of your action isn't found in the result (whether you actually saved your squad or got an A), but in the maxim (your intention and the rule you followed).

Case 1 of action (Kant)

Actions contrary to duty: Clearly immoral acts (e.g., lying, stealing).

Case 2 of action (Kant)

Actions in accordance with duty, but done for an indirect interest: You do the right thing, but only because it helps you later (e.g., a shopkeeper who doesn't overcharge customers because he wants to keep his good reputation).

Case 3 of Action (Kant)

Actions in accordance with duty, but done from an immediate inclination: You do the right thing because you like doing it (e.g., a naturally sympathetic person who helps others because it makes them feel happy).

Case 4 of action (Kant)

Actions done from duty: You do the right thing simply because it is right, even if it goes against every personal desire or benefit (e.g., a man who is depressed and wants to end his life, but preserves it because he recognizes a duty to stay alive). Only this case has true moral worth.

Kingdom of ends (Kant)

1. Using someone as a "Mere Means" (The Wrong Way)

To use someone as a "mere means" is to treat them like a tool or an object to help you get what you want, without regarding their own goals or their ability to consent.

2. Treating someone as an "End in Themselves" (The Right Way)

To treat someone as an "end" is to respect their rationality and their dignity. It means recognizing that they have their own goals, values, and the right to make their own choices.

Justice (Plato)

Justice is "doing one's own work." A person is just when Reason rules the soul, Spirit supports Reason, and Appetite is kept in check. If your desires (Appetite) start making decisions for you, Plato would say you are "unjust" because your soul is in a state of civil war.

The Tripartite Soul (Plato)

1. Reason (Logistikon): Seeks truth and rules the soul.

2. Spirit (Thumos): Seeks honor and supports reason.

3. Appetite (Epithumetikon): Seeks physical pleasures and must be restrained.

• 
  

The Forms (Plato)

Eternal, unchanging truths (like the Form of the Good) that philosophers must understand to rule justly.

Happiness (Artistotle)

Eudaimonia: Often translated as "happiness," but more accurately "human flourishing." It is the ultimate end ($telos$) of human life. Living right

Virtue (Aristotle)

Virtue (Arete): A state of character concerned with choice, lying in a "mean" relative to us. This mean is determined by reason between two extremes: a deficiency and an excess.

Ethical Objectivism

Objectivism is the view that there are moral standards that are objectively true, regardless of what any individual or culture believes.

Moral Realism

While often used interchangeably with objectivism in introductory courses, Moral Realism is the specific metaphysical claim that moral facts actually exist in reality.

Ethical Relativism:

The belief that moral truths are relative to a specific culture or individual. In this view, there is no "objective" right or wrong—only "right for us" and "wrong for them".

Ethical Pluralism

Pluralism suggests that there are several objective, valid moral values, but they can sometimes conflict with one another. Unlike relativism, it doesn't say "anything goes," but unlike strict objectivism, it acknowledges that there might be more than one "right" answer in complex situations.

Bravery (Aristotle)

• Definition: The mean state regarding feelings of fear and confidence. A brave person stands their ground against the right things, for the right reason, and in the right way.

• Deficiency (Vice): Cowardice (Excessive fear; lacking confidence).

• Excess (Vice): Rashness (Excessive confidence; lack of appropriate fear).

Temperance (Aristotle)

• Definition: The mean state regarding physical pleasures, particularly touch and taste (eating, drinking, and sex). A temperate person desires these things in the right measure and only as reason dictates.

• Deficiency (Vice): Insensibility (Rarely found in humans; having no taste or delight in physical pleasures).

• Excess (Vice): Intemperance (Self-indulgence; being a slave to one's appetites).

Justice (Aristotle)

• Definition: Justice is the state of character that makes people disposed to do what is just and to wish for what is just. Aristotle distinguishes between "General Justice" (total virtue in relation to others) and "Special Justice" (fairness in distribution or correction).

• The Mean: Unlike other virtues, justice is a mean because it aims at a fair share—neither taking too much (an advantage) nor being assigned too little (a disadvantage).

• Extremes:

  • Injustice (Doing): Taking more than one's fair share of goods or less than one's fair share of burdens.

  • Injustice (Suffering): Receiving less than what is fair.

The State of Nature (Hobbes)

A hypothetical time without government where there is a "war of all against all". Because resources are scarce and humans are naturally equal in their ability to kill one another, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

The State of Nature (Locke)

Unlike Hobbes, Locke believes humans are naturally social and governed by "Natural Law" (reason). We have rights to Life, Liberty, and Property even before government exists.

Application (Hobbes)

• The Contract: Rational people agree to give up nearly all their rights to an absolute Sovereign (The Leviathan) in exchange for one thing: physical security.

• Power: For Hobbes, the Sovereign’s power is absolute; you cannot rightfully rebel because that would return everyone to the "hell" of the State of Nature.

Application (Locke)

• The Problem: There is no "impartial judge" to resolve disputes fairly, so people form a government to protect their pre-existing rights.

• The Contract & Revolution: The government’s power is conditional. If the government fails to protect Life, Liberty, or Property, the people have a right to Revolution and can form a new government.

Jus ad bellum

Justice of going to War

Jus in bello

Justice in war

Jus post bellum

Justice after war

Jus ad Bellum Principles (Just Cause)

The most important criterion. It usually requires a state to be responding to "aggression," typically defined as a violation of territorial integrity or political sovereignty (self-defense).

Jus ad Bellum Principles (Proper Authority)

War must be initiated and declared by a legitimate governing body or sovereign, not by private individuals or groups.

Jus ad Bellum Principles (Right Intention)

The actual motivation for the war must be the "Just Cause" itself. A state cannot use a legitimate reason (like self-defense) as a "mask" to pursue hidden agendas like land-grabbing or resource theft.

Jus ad Bellum Principles (Last Resort)

All reasonable non-violent and diplomatic alternatives (sanctions, negotiations, UN appeals) must be exhausted before force is used.

Jus ad Bellum Principles (Reasonable Chance of Success)

A state should not go to war—even for a just cause—if the mission is hopeless. Engaging in a conflict that will only result in futile slaughter without achieving the objective is considered immoral.

Jus ad Bellum Principles (Proportionality)

Before the war begins, the total expected universal good (e.g., stopping an aggressor) must outweigh the total expected universal harm (e.g., casualties, economic destruction, and social upheaval).

Jus ad Bellum Principles (Public declaration)

The intent to go to war must be made known to the citizens of the state and to the enemy state so that the reasons and the start of hostilities are clear.

Jus ad Bellum Principles (All)

just cause

last resort

proper authority

right intention

reasonable chance of success

proportionality

public declaration

Jus in bello Principles (discrimination)

Soldiers must always distinguish between combatants (those who can be legitimately targeted) and non-combatants (civilians or those "out of the fight," like POWs or the wounded).

Jus in bello Principles (proportionality)

The military advantage gained by a specific tactical strike must be proportional to the "collateral damage" (harm to civilians or civilian property) that it causes.

Jus n bello Principles (responsibility)

combatants are morally and legally responsible for the specific outcomes of their actions on the battlefield, particularly regarding the protection of non-combatants.

Jus in bello Principles (All)

discrimination

proportionality

responsibility

Double effect requirements / definition

• The Nature of the Act: The action itself must be either morally good or at least indifferent; it cannot be an act that is intrinsically wrong (like the intentional killing of an innocent).

• The Means-End Condition: The good effect must not be achieved by means of the bad effect. In other words, you cannot do something bad to bring about a good result.

• The Right Intention: The agent must intend only the good effect. While the bad effect may be foreseen, it must be unintended—a secondary side effect rather than the goal.

• Proportionality: There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the bad effect. The good to be achieved must outweigh the evil that is permitted.

Supreme Emergency (Walzer)

• imminence: The danger must be immediate. It is not a distant or hypothetical threat, but a "close and present" danger that requires action right now.

• Nature of the Threat: The threat must be truly horrific—what Walzer calls an "ultimate evil." It’s not just about losing a war or a change in government; it’s about the total destruction of a civilization, a genocide, or the enslavement of a people.