PHIL 1027 2024 Midterm Arata H.

Give an example in which an emotion is not appropriate to a situation, and give one in which an emotion is appropriate to a situation. (BK 2)

laughing at a funeral/laughing with friends

crying at a funeral/crying in class

Describe a particular virtue by giving the excess and deficiency about which it

is the mean and the sphere of human activity or concern with which the virtue deals. (BK 2)

courage is the mean; rashness is in excess, cowardice is in deficiency: fear and confidence is a sphere of action

Explain Aristotle's distinction between wish and choice. (BK 3)

-A wish is concerned with an end. It is concerned with things that are outside of our control or impossible

-choices, things we can obtain independently, and are concerned with the means.

-For example, you cannot choose to be immortal, but you can wish to be. You can make healthy life choices that will lead you to live in old age.

What would be an example of a voluntary action that was not a product of choice? (BK 3)

A hungry baby being fed

What, according to Aristotle, do we deliberate about? (BK 3)

Things within our control. NOT scientific, unchanging fact

Give an example of a practical syllogism. Which is the central premise, and which is the minor premise? Which premise is the universal, and which is the particular? (BK 6)

Central premise: All humans are mortal.

Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.

Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal

More General Questions about Aristotle's view as a whole (Marked with a "*"):

There are three main topics in our reading from Aristotle: Happiness, Virtue, and Practical Wisdom, and a fourth if you count the interrelations between those three things. Here are

some general questions that you should think about. (Note: These do not exhaust all the questions that would be relevant to giving an account of the above three topics, but they

may help you get started.)

*Concerning happiness: Describe Aristotle's account of the chief good/happiness.What does he mean when he speaks of a chief good? He uses the function argument in his account of the chief good/happiness. What is that argument meant to show? How does that argument establish the relationship between happiness and virtue? Explain how Aristotle's conception of happiness differs from some other common conceptions of happiness.

-The chief good is sought for the sake of itself and nothing else: happiness

-Happiness is considered a standard of human flourishing

-Performing human function well is flourishing

-One must possess virtue to perform the human function

-Therefore, virtue is the means to happiness

*Concerning virtue: Where in the soul does he locate virtue? Aristotle says that virtue is acquired by habit. Why do you think he holds this? How is practicing virtuous actions supposed to make one virtuous? How does Aristotle describe the state of character that he calls virtue? How does he use the distinction between incontinent/continent/virtuous to illuminate this state of character? How does he use the comparison between virtue and

the skill or art exercised in production or craft to illuminate the former? How

ultimately does Aristotle define virtue?

-Virtue is located in the conscious, irrational part of the soul

-He believes that character is cultivated through performing and repeating like activities. Therefore, one must practice behaviors related to that virtue in appropriate situations to gain a virtue. This will then become the soul's natural response to those situations.

-State of character: the irrational side of the soul acting by the rational side

-Incontinent: tempted to do wrong and do wrong. Continent: tempted to do bad but does good. Virtuous: not even tempted to do wrong. (because their irrational soul is aligned with the rational soul)

-Art is good, where the end and means of virtue matter.

It is acting by the intermediate given situation.

*How does virtue relate to reason? Explain what Aristotle calls "practical wisdom". What is the relationship between virtue and practical wisdom?

Virtue is a state of character, a disposition, concerned with choices, lying in a mean, where a man would determine for himself through rational principle and wisdom. This wisdom is practical.

Explain Aristotle's statement, "It is neither by nature nor contrary to nature that

virtue arise in us; rather, we are adapted by nature to receive them and are made perfect by habit."

Because everyone has the capacity to be virtuous, but virtue will not force itself on anyone. So we rather develop virtue through practice.

Aristotle writes, "It makes no small difference, then, whether we form habits of

one kind or another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or

rather all the difference." (II, 1) He partly means that good habits instill good

character, and bad habits instill lousy character. How are habits supposed to have this effect? In other words, what about one that is changed or trained by habituation?

Well, according to Aristotle "states of character arise out of like activities." In other words, acting courageously on a repeated basis trains you to actually have a courageous natural response to situations. So it will be with every virtue, Aristotle believes. Thus doing good instills good character, because it changes our state of character/natural response.

For Aristotle, virtues are excellences that enable the good performance of

human function. Using an example of a particular virtue, explain how the virtues are supposed to do this.

Because they force us to act in a way the fulfills the human function.

What do you think Aristotle means when he says that the human function is

"activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational principle?"

The human function is that which our capacity for reason suits us for. We are capable of knowing truth and falsehood, right and wrong, this suits us for an excellent, virtuous human life. Just as the sharpness of a blade suits it for cutting, so our reason suits us for the life of reason.

*What follows are some objections that have been made against Aristotle's

function argument. (Marked with a "*")

-

*Why think that human beings have a purpose?

Well, do we not have a characteristic or distinctive activity? Is there not an activity that we do well? That's all we're saying here.

*Why should the human function be peculiar to human beings?

How else would you call it the "human" function? It must be something we are uniquely suited for. If a knife and a racket were both equally useful for hitting balls, we would call them both rackets. If you can find me a rat that can perform the human function identically to a human, I will call that rat a human.

*Even if we grant that it is peculiar to humans, why must it be a life of reason? Why, for example, couldn't it be falling in love or amusing

others through humor?

Because the life of reason is more inclusive and it includes being a loving, amusing person.

*Even if the human function is a life of reason, what does that have to do with

virtue? Can't reason be used for both good and ill?

Wisdom is more than just the means to your end—it's knowing what ends are valuable. So if you're using reason for bad... it's not reason.

*Are these excellent objections? How do you think Aristotle could answer

these objections?

Aristotle might respond by acknowledging that reason can indeed be used for both good and ill, but he would argue that the cultivation of practical wisdom (phronesis) is essential for using reason in accordance with virtue. Virtue, for Aristotle, involves not just theoretical knowledge but also practical wisdom and moral character developed through habituation and moral education. Overall, while these objections raise important challenges to Aristotle's function argument, Aristotle might respond by emphasizing the unique capacities of humans, particularly rationality, and the role of practical wisdom in guiding virtuous action.

In section 13 of Book I, Aristotle says that in virtuous people, the appetitive part of the irrational side of the soul "speaks, on all matters, with the same voice as the rational principle?" Using an example of a particular virtue, explain what you think Aristotle means this:

This just mean that for the virtuous, their desires and the right course of action are in sync. So if I'm a virtuous person, and I'm given the opportunity to give to the poor, my appetitive, irrational soul will say, "yes, I want to give to the poor" whilst my rational side will also say, "yes, it is right to give to the poor." A perfect, harmonious, "same" voice.

Aristotle writes, "We must take as a sign of states of character the pleasure or

pain that supervenes upon acts." (II, 3) Explain.

Because avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure are such huge human motivators, determining whether someone in consistently, reliably good requires that we know whether they take pleasure in virtuous actions.

What do you think Aristotle means when he says that every action and decision seems to seek some good? (ch. 1)

there is a larger outcome that is trying to be achieved with every action-an outcome larger than the action itself-and that this action is serving as a means to attain the "good" in which it should provide. the action has a point of aim or reason, and the agent must have a conception of that. the agent must think that it's worth doing and that there is value for that, based on a reason

Aristotle makes a distinction between some ends that are activities and some that are products of activities. Give examples of both types of end. (ch. 1)

activities: the end of schooling is success; the end of strategy is victory; the end of driving is arriving at a destinationproducts of activities: the end of shipbuilding is a vessel; the end of bridle making is riding equipment

What is it for one end to be "higher" than another, that is, for the second end to be "subordinate" to the first? Give some examples. What is meant by "the chief end?" (ch.1)

one end being higher than another means that it is an end in itself, while other ends only aid in achieving the ultimate end. the chief end is the ultimate "good" or goal that is seeking to be achieved.-HAPPINESSbridle-making falls under riding which falls under military strategy.airplane design falls under transportation which falls under intercontinental connections.

Aristotle thinks that there is something absurd about a situation in which we "choose everything for the sake of something else," for "if at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain." Explain why desire would prove empty and vain? Does this provide a good argument for the existence of a highest good or end, as Aristotle seems to think here? (ch. 2)

it proves empty and vain because there has to be an ultimate end goal for each decision that is made. if there isn't, then there is no true meaning for making decisions, as there would be no end result, no "good" for each art or inquiry. it would all just interdepend on every other decision, never amounting to something greater.yes it does provide a good argument because he argues that there must be a higher purpose for each decision that is made, otherwise life is meaningless. a string of decisions that continues to infinity never amounts to a final "good" and is worthless in itself.

Aristotle says, "Hence any one who is to listen intelligently to lectures about what is noble and just and, generally, about the subjects of political science must have been brought up in good habits." Why does he say this? (ch. 4)

a student of ethics must be able to determine what is fact so that he does not need to understand the reason of the fact. that good habit is necessary in studying ethics because it must be evident what is already known.the aim of political science is practical. it won't make you good, but it will help people be better. unless you are already on the way to doing that, listening to these lectures won't help. or if you haven't practiced the virtues.

Why does Aristotle call "lives of enjoyment" "slavish?" (ch. 5)

there is nothing different in a life of enjoyment than the life that animals live. there is no substance or higher meaning or purpose to it other than to revel in pleasure.

Why does Aristotle disagree with people who identify happiness with honor? (ch. 5)

because honor is dependent on the person bestowing the honor, not the one receiving it; he believes that it is too superficial for that to be called happiness, since happiness (or the "good" he seeks) is something that can not be taken from a person.

How does Aristotle argue that happiness is the highest end of human actions? What does he mean when he says that happiness is "final, without qualification?" What does he mean when he says that it is "self-sufficient?" (ch. 5)

because happiness is always chosen for itself and not for the sake of anything else. when he says that happiness is final, without qualification, he means that there is no reason to qualify happiness except the desire for happiness in itself. when he says happiness if self-sufficient, he means that if happiness is isolated and that is all that is present in a life-if it is still desirable and not lacking any good-then it is the highest of all human action

How does Aristotle argue that the human good is the good performance of the human function? What is the function of a human being? How does Aristotle identify the human function? How does he get to the conclusion that the human good is "activity of the soul exhibiting excellence?" (ch. 7)

the human good is the good performance of the human function by noting that the function of man is an activity of soul that implies a rational principle. therefore, if qualification is not added in all cases, there is a respect for goodness that is held for human function

he identifies the human function by laying out statements that are true: human function is to lead a certain kind of life, which is an activity of the soul implying rational principle, and the function of a man to be the good performance of these, then human good is the activity of soul exhibiting excellence.

What are some of the common opinions about happiness that Aristotle uses his "sketch of the good" to account for? (ch.8)

a happy man lives well and fares well. some identify happiness with virtue, practical/philosophical wisdom, pleasure or without it, or external prosperity.

According to Aristotle does happiness depend on external goods? Is happiness a matter of good fortune, or is it something that we are responsible for?

no he believes that happiness is a condition of the soul, but that external goods are needed to achieve the full perception of happiness. aristotle believes that happiness is most fully displayed through things such as good birth, good children, or beauty. he believes that yes there is a facet of happiness that is just a matter of good fortune, but good fortune is not enough to instill happiness.

Aristotle says that the soul is divided into two parts, a rational part and a non-rational part, but that the non-rational part is itself divided into two parts. How does he characterize the two parts of the non-rational part? How does he argue that there are these two parts? To which of the three parts does virtue of character belong? (Bk.I, ch.13)

first part-"vegetative," from which all growth is derived from. this type of growth has a negative connotation because it causes desires to occur.second part-said to be a division because of the way the soul will have two reactions to the giving of advice: a strict sense and in itself, while also having a tendency to obey.he also believes that virtue falls into each of the three parts-intellectual (rational) and also temperance (irrational in emotions or growth)

Why does Aristotle say "neither by nature nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us?" (ch. 1)

gain virtues by habit or learned, born able to receive virtues but we do not already have them within us, we become a just person through performing and practicing just actions

How, according to Aristotle, do we become virtuous? (ch. 1) Why does Aristotle give the answer that he does to this question?

We become virtuous by doing virtuous things

What is the difference between doing a virtuous action and doing a virtuous action virtuously (or as the person with virtuous character would do it)?

A virtuous person knows the virtuous act, wants to do the virtuous act, and ends up doing the virtuous act. However, a continent person knows the virtuous act, doesn't want to do the virtuous act, but ends up doing it anyway. The difference here is that the virtuous person does the virtuous action virtuously because they want to unlike the continent person.

Aristotle says that pleasure and pain are signs of whether someone is virtuous. Explain what he means by this. Does this imply that virtuous people do virtuous things for the sake of the pleasure they receive from doing so? Explain. (ch. 3)

Because the truly virtuous do the virtuous action for its own sake and receive pleasure as a consequence of that. They don't do it for the pleasure itself.

At 1105a27 Aristotle says, "the case of the arts and that of the virtues are not similar." What is it that is true of the arts but not of virtues? What are the three conditions for having a virtue? Explain each of these conditions.

That the nature of the person does not affect the nature of the painting in art. Art does not align with the three qualifications that virtuous acts do (knows, wants, does)

What does Aristotle mean when he says that the virtues of character are states of character? What is a state of character? How does he argue that virtues are not feelings or faculties (capacities)? (ch. 5)

States of character determine how we respond to passions: do we feel them excessively, appropriately, or too little. Virtue can't be a feeling/passion because we aren't blamed for our feelings, but we are blamed for our virtues. Virtue can't be a faculty either because 1) it takes more than just possessing the capacity for virtue to be virtuous and 2) you have faculties by nature, but not virtue. So "state of character" is the only category that remains for virtue.

True or false? Aristotle thinks that virtue is having the strength to overcome your feelings when they tempt to you to do something inappropriate? Explain.

False.

Virtue that is having to overcome temptation has not yet reached perfect virtue-the highest kind of virtue consistently does what is right and takes pleasure in it

What does Aristotle mean when he says that virtue is a state "consisting in a mean"? How is the mean determined? (ch. 6) Does Aristotle's doctrine of virtue as a mean amount simply to the claim that the virtuous are exercise moderation in all things? If not, how should we understand this doctrine?

-Virtue is neither celebrated in deficit or excess-It is successful in the intermediate/mean-The mean is determined by a rational principle by a wise man when examining the extremes in any matter

What according to Aristotle are the two ways in which an action can be involuntary? Give examples of each. (§1)

1. taking place by force

2. owing to ignorance

-to be carried somewhere by wind, or by men who had him in their power

According to Aristotle can someone escape blame if he is overcome by anger or desire? (§1)

No.

because enduring the greatest indignities for no nobles end or for trifling end is the mark of an inferior person and they are blame worthy-actions that proceed from anger or appetite are the actions of that man

What for Aristotle is a "mixed action"? Given an example. (§1)

mixed action: the choice to do something is only done in a particular situation

throwing goods overboard (wasteful) but if in a storm and you are doing it to save your life then it is a justified action

Suppose someone threatens to kill my family if I don't confess to a crime I didn't commit, and I confess. Is this action voluntary according to Aristotle? (§1)

this action is voluntary because it is a mixed action

-its situational/not something you would normally do

Explain Aristotle's distinction between doing something because of ignorance and doing something in ignorance.

-doing something by the reason of ignorance is neither voluntary nor involuntary because this action was performed without knowledge

-doing something in ignorance is considered involuntary if it brings about regret or shame because the person did not do it for the intended outcome

Aristotle agrees that every vicious person is ignorant, but he doesn't think that it follows from this that all wrongdoing is involuntary. Why not? (§1)

things done to intentionally harm others i voluntary. he believes that it is ignorance of the particulars that makes an action involuntary, not ignorance of the purpose or universal ideas. a vicious person is not ignorant of what is to his advantage. aristotle believes that no vicious person can be ignorant

ALL the following: of what they are doing, who he is, what/whom he acts on or what he is doing it with, or to what end/how he is doing it

Can children according to Aristotle act voluntarily? Can animals?

yes, both can act voluntary according to Aristotle because our rationality makes up as much of our soul as does our appetitive desires do. they are aware of many of the circumstances associated with their actions

How does Aristotle define choice? (§2) How does he define deliberation? (§3)

choice-a voluntary, rational action. it is the result of a thought/idea. it pertains to means and involves thought and reason over desire.

deliberation-defined as dealing with uncertainty or things that occur always in the same manner for the most part but have an obscure twist to them. our power and how things can be done involves the process of deliberations.

Extra: It may be nearly impossible for a vicious person to be able to do virtuous actions. If so, how can we hold vicious persons responsible for their actions? (§5)

They made themselves vicious through their bad habits.

Extra: Explain Aristotle's distinction between theoretical knowledge (science) and practical knowledge. (§1)

Science is more morally neutral. But since practical wisdom is the capacity to act with regard to what is good for man, it has higher stakes and more moral culpability. Science, moreover, concerns that which does not change. But the whole point of practical wisdom is to deliberate correctly about that which is changeable by our actions.

Explain his distinction between art or skills and practical wisdom? What are the central differences between these? Can practical wisdom be employed toward a vicious end? Explain. (§5)

1) Art is specific, practical wisdom is general.

2) All can become practically wise, while not all can become great artists.

3) Art is not a final end, so it can still serve a good or bad purpose. It's art if it produces art. However, practical wisdom is not distinct from its end. Its end is good, so it can't be done towards a vicious end.

In what sense is practical wisdom concerned with "particulars"? What is "particulars" contrasted with? (§8)

Practical wisdom is aimed at the general good of men, not a particular end like health. Particulars is contrasted with universals

What are natural virtue and cleverness? What is the difference between natural virtue and virtue in the strict sense? What is the difference between cleverness and practical wisdom? (§13)

1) natural virtue - you have virtue but still may act inappropriately in certain situationscleverness - knowing the means to a given end, regardless of whether the end itself is good. 2) Strict virtue is more complete: you know that an action is virtuous and choose it intentionally, not as a result of predilection. Cleverness is a part of practical wisdom, not the whole. 3) Cleverness tells us how to do it, practical wisdom tells us how to do good and what ends are good (156-7)

Why does Aristotle think that you cannot have virtue in the strict sense unless you have practical wisdom? Why does he think that you cannot have practical wisdom unless you have virtue in the strict sense? (§13)

Practical wisdom is a complete knowledge of that which is good/virtuous. Practical wisdom is perfect, whilst natural virtue can still fall short or be misused/unrealized, so it's not sufficient for practical wisdom. However, it definitely does imply virtue in a strict sense (157)

What, according to Rachels, is cultural relativism?

There is no such thing as universal truths in ethics. There are only various moral codes, none being greater than others.

Explain the difference between the view that different cultures have different

ethical standards (beliefs or practices) (i.e., different standards of right and wrong) and the view that ethical standards are culturally relative.

The Callatians would eat their dead as a way to honor their lives while the Greeks would burn their bodies at a funeral pyer. Both customs are correct according to the particular culture in which the ceremonies are practiced. The difference of the ethical standard is how both cultures honor their dead.

Give an example of variation in ethical standards across different cultures or

societies (try to come up with an example that is different from those that Rachels gives).

In India, widows were burned at the stake to join their husbands in death. When the British controlled India, this practice was banned as the British saw it as an abomination.

Give an example of a standard (it needn't be ethical) that you think is culturally Relative.

polygamy vs. monogamy

Rachels argues that many cases in which societies seem to have a moral

disagreement are best explained by un moral disagreements. On

such a basis, Rachels argues that there isn't as much variation in moral beliefs across cultures as it might initially seem. Give examples of such cases.

The Eskimos practiced infanticide, especially infant girls. Within Eskimo society, a female baby can be seen as a liability due to the harsh conditions of Eskimo's natural environment. Further, mothers are limited to how many infants they can care for at the same time, and males, the food providers, are seemingly more valuable to the success of the Eskimo people.

Describe what Rachels calls the "Cultural Differences Argument". Does Rachels accept this argument? That is, does he think that the argument is valid? Explain.

Different cultures have different moral beliefs, so there is no absolute truth about moral beliefs. However, because different cultures have different geographical beliefs, there is no absolute truth about geographical beliefs. this makes the argument invalid.

Rachels argues that cultural relativism has some consequences that make people "reject it as implausible on its face." What are these? Do you agree with him that cultural relativism does have these consequences?

1. Can't criticize the practices of other societies-for practices such as the holocaust, according to cultural relativity, we can't say that the practice is wrong because it was a belief of a different cultural

2. There is no such thing as moral progress. We like to think that the advancement of women's rights is progress; however, according to cultural relativity, we cannot criticize our past culture, and therefore, progress has yet to be made.

3. There is no such thing as a self-criticism of culture's practice

A lesson that Rachels thinks we should draw from cultural relativism is that some practices are just a matter of social convention. Here, he gives the example of rules governing funerary practices. That may be so, but we would also frown on a society that didn't have any funerary practices at all as a way to honor the dead. If so, what is and is not a matter of social convention concerning funerary practices?

Greeks believed in burning their dead, while Callatians believed in consuming the dead. Both cultures believe their customs are a form of honoring those who have passed. To understand a culture that does not have funerary customs, you must ask that culture why they do not practice any funerary services. The culture may answer with many reasons, but to that culture itself, their reasoning is just as valuable to them as the customs of the Greeks and Callatians.

Another lesson that Rachels thinks can be drawn from cultural relativism is this:

"cultural relativism, by stressing that our moral views can reflect the prejudices of our society, provides an antidote for this kind of dogmatism." What is the

"dogmatism" of which Rachels speaks here? How is cultural relativism supposed to provide an "antidote" to it? Do you agree with him that it does provide such an Antidote?

Rachel believes people will judge other cultures against their own, which they perceive as inferior or corrupt. Cultural relativism allows us to be more comfortable and open-minded toward the ideas that shape customs that differ from ours. Cultural relativism allows us to be more understanding of foreign beliefs.

What is Rachel's final stance about cultural relativism?

Rachel believes that cultural relativism sufficiently lacks proper reasoning and has many shortcomings. Rachel does contend that due to these shortcomings, valuable lessons can be learned from cultural relativism.