Chaffee, 3e Chapter 9.pptx

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.


ARISTOTLEVirtue Ethics

“But the virtues we acquire by first exercising them... it is by doing just acts that we become just, by doing temperate acts that we become temperate, by doing courageous acts that we become courageous.... It is by acting in such transactions as take place between man and man that we become either just or unjust. It is by acting in the face of danger and by habituating ourselves to fear or courage that we become either cowardly or courageous.”


A Good Person

Aristotelian virtue ethics is concerned with answering the question ‘how do I become a good person’ Good actions are then defined in terms of what a good

person would do

The basic answer is very simple A good person is a person who has virtues

Every Greek person at this time would have accepted this basic answer Aristotle’s take on this includes a theory about what it

means to be virtuous and how we acquire these virtues


Theory and Action Socrates and Plato had argued that no one knowing

does evil A person who knows what the right thing to do is will do

it The evil person is simply ignorant or mistaken about

what the right thing to do is

The GoodThe

Bad


Theory and Action II

Aristotle denies that this is true He thinks that there are cases where a person

knows what the right thing to do is And yet fails to do it

Thus for Aristotle being a good person is about doing right actions Not simply about knowing which actions are the

right ones to do He wants to develop a moral theory that allows

that this could happen And which shows us how to avoid it


The Purposes of Actions

All of our actions aim at some goal (a good) Since ethics is a science of action it will be

concerned with achieving some goal

There are three kinds of goals Instrumental goals –things we want only

because of what they can get us Intrinsic goals –things we want for their own

sake and never because of what they can get us Instrumental/Intrinsic goals –things we want

both because of what they are intrinsically and also for what they can get us


The Final Goal

There must be some final intrinsic goal (good) Which is the ultimate goal of all of our actions If there weren’t then all of actions would be fruitless I do A to get B to get C to get D to get F to get G…and

so on I would never actually get what I want if this were the

case

Aristotle thinks that this ultimate goal is happiness Everything we do is ultimately aimed at happiness We don’t want happiness for what it can get us That is, we desire it for its own sake and never for the

sake of something else


Happiness

Happiness for Aristotle is not pleasure If pleasure were our highest goal then we would

be no different from animals But we have rational capabilities Also, pleasure can be derived from wicked

behavior So whether pleasure counts as good or not

depends on what it is derived from

Happiness for Aristotle is a kind of activity It is living well It is life well lived


The Function Argument

Thus, ethics is science of achieving happiness Ethics is concerned with action, not just knowledge Actions all aim at some intrinsic good The highest good is happiness

And happiness is living well Which is to do well at life

We usually say that something does well when it fulfils its function A knife does well if it cuts well Since its function is to cut A pencil does well if it writes well, a heart if it pumps

blood well, etc


Function Argument II

Thus if Humans are to do well it must be by fulfilling their function

Do Humans have a function? Aristotle thinks so since, every part of a person’s

body has a function (heart, liver, etc) And, every person in society has a function (banker,

teacher, student, cab driver, etc) Shouldn’t the person, considered as a Human Being

then have a function too?

The function of a thing is the unique thing that distinguishes it from other things like it


Function Argument III

So the function of a knife is to cut because It was made to cut, that is its purpose That is the thing which distinguishes it from other

objects

The function of the heart is to pump blood It was designed to pump blood, that is its purpose That is the thing which distinguishes it from other

organs

What distinguishes Humans? Not living, since plants do that Not perception or movement since animals do that Rationality


Function Argument IV

The function of Human Beings is rationality We are the rational animal

Since happiness means living well And something does well when it fulfils its function

well Happiness is therefore acting rationally well

But how do we fulfill this function An object fulfills its function by having virtues A virtue is simply whatever it is that allows an object

to fulfill its function

The virtues of a knife are what allow it to cut well


Virtues

These knifely virtues include Sturdy, easy to grasp, handle Sharp blade Durability, etc

To us it sounds strange to call a knife virtuous The Greek word is ‘Arete’ and is sometimes

translated as ‘excellence’ Instead of ‘virtuous knife’, ‘excellent knife’

Human virtues are the qualities that allow us to fulfill our Human function


Two Kinds

There are two kinds of virtues Intellectual –wisdom, knowledge, strategy, etc Moral –Justice, prudence, temperance, courage

Intellectual virtues are acquired by formal education

Moral virtues are acquired by practice They are habits More like what we would call ‘2nd nature’

You practice until you get to the point that it just happens automatically Like learning an instrument


A Good Person

So a good person is one who fulfills their function well They acquire the virtues which allow them to act

rationally well And thus achieve happiness

One does this by practice Knowing what one is doing Doing it for its own sake Do it from a settled habit

Just like learning to play the saxophone If you are playing jazz, you should know it


A Good Person II

You should be deliberately trying to play jazz

And it should be the product of a stable habit

To be a good saxophonist is to meet these three criteria

Some interesting consequences Occasional vicious acts do not make the person vicious Neither do occasional virtuous acts make a person

virtuous

Being virtuous is a life long activity You can ‘fall out of practice’ Also, never too late to become virtuous


Virtus in Medio Stat But what, exactly are virtues like justice and

courage? They are means between extremes

For every virtue there is a vice of excess and a vice of deficiency The virtuous state is the mean between these to vices of

extremes

Vice of excessVice of deficiency Virtue


Examples

FoolhardinessCowardice Courage

JusticeLess than Deserve More than Deserve


Relative to the Person & Situation

The mean is not a mathematical mean But is a mean relative to the person And the situation that they find themselves in

FoolhardinessCowardice Courage


Phronesis

The virtuous person is the one that is able to judge where the mean falls For them In any given situation they find themselves in

There is no rule that will tell you what to do

You must develop the practical skill of determining where the mean is for you Phronesis=practical wisdom

You acquire this only through repeated practice And lots of mistakes!


Other Good People

To know what to practice you have to imitate a virtuous person Just like to know how to play the saxophone you begin

by practicing what the good saxophone player tells you to

Eventually after enough practice you acquire the virtues necessary to become a good saxophone player yourself

You then have the ability to judge for yourself what you ought to play

The same is true of being virtuous If you do not have virtuous people to imitate the

chances of you becoming virtuous are slim

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kant

Deontology

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Good Actions

Kant’s normative theory is concerned with the question What makes an action good?

A good person is then defined in terms of one who does good actions A good action is one that is motivated by moral duty A good person is one who has a good will or a will that is

‘determined’ by duty

Kant rejects happiness and virtues as intrinsically good Since an evil person could none the less be courageous And happiness can lead to sloth, pride, and presumption if

the will of the person is not good


Duty

Kant’s normative theory is a deontological theory Meaning that it places duty at the center Derived from the Greek work ‘deontos’ meaning ‘duty’

or ‘obligation’ Not just any duty will do A good action is one that is motivated by the

necessary and universal moral law (we will come back to that)

Suppose that you have a duty to be honest And that one person is honest in order to help his

business And that another is honest because of a recognition of

the duty


Duty II

Only the second person’s action has any moral value for Kant The other person is acting selfishly and their action

has no moral worth at all

The only thing that determines whether or not an action is a good action is whether it was motivated by a recognition of a moral duty If one helps others because it makes one feel

good, that action is selfish Luckily for you it makes you feel good to help, but

that is just an accident


Duty III

One can derive pleasure from a good action But it must be the result of the action NOT the

motivation for it

Consider the following two scenarios Suppose that I see a person struggling across the street,

recognize a duty to help them, but in so doing cause them harm

Is this a moral action?

Yes! My action has moral worth because it was motivated by

duty It is not my fault that things went wrong


Duty IV

Now suppose I see the same person, intend to cause them harm but in so doing accidently help them

Does my action have moral worth? No! My action was selfish and I am not to be praised

simply because things happened to go right

The consequences of an action are entirely irrelevant to determining whether that action is good

The only thing that matters is whether the action was motivated by a recognition of a moral duty


Duty V

But how do we know what our duties are? Duties are generated by laws To act from duty is to act out of a respect for the law So moral duties are generated by the moral law

But what is this moral law?

Kant distinguishes two kinds of imperatives An imperative is a command to act in accordance with a

law

There are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives A hypothetical imperative commands under the

hypothesis that one wants something


Hypothetical Imperatives

They have the form ‘If you want Y then do X’ Y is the goal, or end, you want And X is the means of attaining that goal

For example ‘do not miss more than 5 courses’ Is a hypothetical command since it only binds you if

you want to pass the course If you do not care about passing the course then this

command has no effect on your will

Hypothetical commands cannot generate moral duties Morality is not a means to any end


Categorical Imperatives

A categorical imperative on the other hand binds unconditionally They have the form Do X. Whether you want something is not at issue, one

just has to obey the command This is categorical in the sense that these

commands are absolute and without qualification

Only a categorical imperative could capture the moral law The moral law admits of no exceptions and is

binding on all rational creatures regardless of their wants


The Categorical Imperative

Now we know that the moral law must be in the form of a categorical imperative But what is its content? What does it command us to

do?

The moral law must be universally binding and one that all rational creatures must acknowledge is worthy of respect Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same

time will that it should become a universal law

This law determines, for every person, and every situation, what one ought to do


The CI II

Kant’s claim is that once one understands what the categorical imperative expresses one will see that it is worth of respect In fact all rational creatures must respect it because

it embodies the very idea of rational action in it Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the

same time will that it should become a universal law A maxim is the personal policy that describes what one is doing The CI only works on maxims, so to use it one must first

formulate the maxim which describes one’s actions Secondly one must then ask what the world would be like if

your maxim were a universal law of nature


The CI III

We are to imagine a world where your maxim is now an absolute law that admits of no exceptions If there is a contradiction in that world then the maxim

is immoral If there isn’t we must then ask if we would want to live

in such a world If we cannot then the maxim is immoral

These two different ways of getting a contradiction give rise to two kinds of duties Perfect duties; ones that I must always do Imperfect duties; ones that I may choose how and

when to do


Lying Promise

Let’s take an example to illustrate Suppose that you need money and so you come to

me to borrow it Suppose that I say that I will give it to you only if

you can pay me back by next month

You promise to repay me the money by next month even though you know you cannot do so

First formulate the maxim When I need money I will borrow it and promise to

repay it even though I know that I cannot do so


Lying Promise II

Second universalize the maxim Imagine that this maxim is now a universal law of

nature that all persons must obey

Third check to see if there is a contradiction in the imagined scenario Is there? Yes!

In this world everyone knows that no one keeps their promises So there can be no promising But I am trying to promise


Lying Promise III

You therefore have a perfect duty to keep your promises Not to do so is irrational

Notice that what Kant did not say was that there would be bad consequences if everyone broke their promises That is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one

ought to keep your promises

Notice that the same reasoning gets you to the conclusion that you ought not to lie The point of lying is to be believed, but in a world where

everyone lied no one would believe anything, which makes lying impossible


Knock, Knock…

This establishes that it is immoral to lie There are never any circumstances in which it is morally

permissible to lie

This brings up our old fried, The murder at the door

A common criticism of Kant is that on his theory it is impermissible to lie to the murder, even to save a life But most people think that in this case it is perfectly

moral to lie!

Kant is aware of this criticism and tries to answer it


Lying vs. Untruth

To begin with think about murder Not every killing is a murder Some killings are justified (self defense, capital

punishment, etc) A murder is an unjustified killing

So, murdering is always wrong even though we recognize some killings that are justified

Some Kantians try the same strategy with lying A lie is an unjustified falsehood Not every untruth is a lie So lying is always wrong, even though some untruths

are justified and so allowed


Stealing

What about stealing? Suppose I need printer paper and take it from work First formulate your maxim: When I need paper I will

take some that is not mine Second Universalize: Imagine a world where everyone

has to act that way Third, ask if there is a contradiction Is there?

Yes!

In the world we are imagining everyone who needs something takes something that isn’t theirs


Stealing II

So in that world there is no ownership To own something is to have a right to it, and no

one has that in the world we are imagining There is only possession until someone else comes

along and takes it

But when you steal something you try to make it yours you try to own it So the very thing you are trying to do is impossible

to do in a world where everyone did that Which shows that you can’t universalize a maxim

involving stealing


Helping Others

Now let’s look at helping someone when you have the ability to help them Suppose you see someone being attacked on the

subway And you are in a position to help them but choose not to

1- formulate the maxim When I am in a position to help others I won’t

2- Universalize the maxim What would the world be like if this maxim were a

universal law of nature?

3- Is there a contradiction?


Helping Others II

No! There is no contradiction in imagining this world

4- But could I will that this world become actual? Kant argues that we cannot because in doing so we

will a world where no one helps anyone else And yet we know that we will need help some day, in

some way

This results in what Kant called a contradiction in will Which shows us that we have an imperfect duty to

help others


Suicide

What about someone who wants to commit suicide when they think that their life has become so miserable as to be not worth living?

1- formulate the maxim From self-love I decide to shorten my life

2- Universalize the maxim What would the world be like if this maxim were a

universal law of nature?

3- Is there a contradiction? Yes!


Suicide II

Self-love is the principle which is meant to prolong our lives Yet in this case self-love is being used to end my life This contradicts the purpose of self-love

You therefore have a perfect duty to preserve your life There are no circumstances where suicide is morally

permissible

Kant also uses this kind of argument to condemn any kind of sexual activity that is not explicitly for procreation


The Second Formulation

So far we have been looking at only one of the ways that Kant states the Categorical Imperative He states it in four different ways Though these are all supposed to be equivalent

We will only look at two: The Formula of the Laws of Nature The Formula of the Ends in Itself

So act so as to treat humanity, whether in yourself or in others, as an end in itself, and never as a means only This gives the same result in every case


The Equivalence of the Formulae

Lying Promise: In this case you use the person as a means to

get money

Stealing You use the person as a means to get property

Suicide You use yourself as a means to end suffering


Problems

Anything that is not rational has no moral worth and can be treated as means only This is why it is morally permissible to use animals as means We have no duties to animals at all

But what are we to say about non-rational humans? What about infants, the mentally ill, and the senile? If they are mentally no different from animals then we have the

same problem here

Some Kantians try to argue that since infants will be rational, the mentally ill could be rational, and the senile were rational Or in other words, they are members of the rational species

They should be treated as rational agents and so we do have duties to them


THINKING PHILOSOPICALLYThe Categorical Imperative and Your Moral Compass

Using Kant’s categorical imperative as a guide, analyze the following moral dilemmas to determine what the morally right course of action is. Be sure to explain your reasoning along with explaining your conclusion. Mired in a deep depression in which you believe that your life has no meaning and

that there is no reason for going on, you contemplate suicide. Financial reverses have put you on the edge of bankruptcy and personal financial

ruin. Your only hope is to borrow money, but you also know that there is no chance that you will be able to repay the borrowed funds.

You have been told that you possess a great talent in , and you are confident that you could fulfill your unique potential and accomplish great things in this area. But you are also lazy; the prospect of making the kind of commitment in time and energy to realize your talent seems daunting. Why not continue to enjoy the simple, relaxed pleasures of life rather than work so hard?

Fortune has been good to you and you are financially very comfortable. You realize that many others are less fortunate than you, but your attitude is, “I wish them well, but they have to improve their lives on their own. I became a success by my own efforts—let them do the same.”


JEREMY BENTHAMThe Principle of Utility

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

“An action may be said to be conformable to the principle of utility...when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to diminish it.”


Bentham

Happiness for Bentham is simply pleasure (and the absence of pain) Bentham was hedonist, which means that he thought pleasure

was intrinsically good

Two kinds of hedonism Psychological Hedonism –all Human actions are motivated by

seeking pleasure or avoiding pain Ethical Hedonism –Pleasure and only pleasure is desirable in

itself and all action should be motivated by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain

These are the same distinctions we saw in discussing egoism

Bentham endorses both of these claims So does Mill


The Greatest Happiness Principle

Bentham and Mill both think that it is only the consequences of an action that matter for determining if that action is good or not

They hold that only that which is useful (has utility) should be promoted,

and since they both accept that pleasure is the one intrinsic good they endorse the Greatest Happiness Principle An action is right in so far as it promotes the greatest amount of

happiness (pleasure) for the greatest amount of sentient beings

Notice that this is not ethical egoism The ethical egoist thinks that it is their own self interest which

should be maximized The utilitarian thinks that it is the happiness of everyone that

matters


Bentham’s Version

In considering whether an action is good we must consider how much pleasure it would produce along seven dimensions 1.) Consider the intensity of the pleasure 2.) Consider how long it will last 3.) Consider how certain you are it will occur 4.) Consider how soon it will occur 5.) Consider whether it leads to additional pleasures 6.) Consider whether it is mixed with any pain 7.) Consider how many people it affects

A unit of pleasure was called a ‘hedon’ by Bentham To determine if an action is good we add up all of the hedons The action that produces the most hedons is good Each person’s happiness counts as one


Examples

According to utilitarianism no action is intrinsically good or bad If the consequences are good then the action was good If they are bad, then the action is bad

So to determine whether a lie is a morally good action or not we need to determine what the consequences are This gives an easy answer to the murder at the door example

Suppose that you were in a life boat with A happy healthy dog that is making everybody feel relaxed and

comfortable An unhappy unhealthy elderly person who is causing everyone to be

upset

There is not enough room and someone has to go Who?


Bentham Vs. Mill

Bentham held that all pleasure is the same In his famous words “pushpin is as good as poetry”

And since each hedon counts equally it looks like the dog should stay It is producing more happiness And its happiness is just as important as ours

And the elderly lady should go She is producing unhappiness

But Mill thought that this ignored the important sense in which the lady is capable of a different kind of pleasure Intellectual pleasures


Sensual vs. Intellectual

Mill denied that pushpin was as good as poetry Intellectual pleasures were of a different kind than sensual pleasures And they were more valuable and therefore more desirable

As Mill says, “better to be a Human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” Humans are capable of the higher more valuable intellectual

pleasures and are therefore more valuable

Mill also says, “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” A world where only sensual pleasures were maximized is not as

good as a world where only intellectual pleasures are maximized

This allows Mill to respond to Aristotle’s criticism of hedonism


Who Decides?

But how do we know that intellectual pleasures are more valuable?

Consider how we might answer a related question Suppose we wanted to know which of two wines was better How would we do that?

Well, we would have to find someone who had both of the wines before And they should have generally spent a lot of time thinking about

the taste of wine

Mill gives the same answer here Find people who have had both and have thought carefully about the

differences between kinds of pleasure

Philosophers!


My Neighbor

Suppose that my neighbor is a 91 year old shut in She has no family, as they have all died in a tragic skiing

accident She is in great pain suffering from a terminal illness

(pancreatic cancer) and terrible arthritis No one ever comes to visit her except for the nurse who

takes care of her who comes by once a week She has no pets or plants She has a distrust of banks and keeps 1 million dollars in

cash in a pillow case in her closet

You have just learned about utilitarianism and you reason as follows No one knows about this money except for you


My Neighbor II

If I had that money I could donate 90% of it to charity That still leaves me $100, 000 to spend as I want

Now suppose that I decide to kill my neighbor, steal her money and then donate 90% to charity and use the rest to throw a huge party for my friends This looks like a moral action In fact it looks like not to do it would be immoral

But there seems to be something wrong My neighbor is an innocent person and does not deserve to

die

This leads us to the difference between Act and Rule utilitarianism


Act Vs. Rule

An act utilitarian considers actions on a case by case basis Does this particular action maximize happiness? In some instances the action may maximize happiness, but in

others it may not

A rule utilitarian considers general rules NOT particular actions Does the rule ‘do not take innocent life’ maximize happiness? If the rule, when generally followed, maximizes happiness then it

should always be followed, even when doing so does not maximize happiness

Thus a rule utilitarian can say that it would be wrong to murder my neighbor even though in that particular instance it would produce more happiness In the long rule murder always decreases happiness


Rule Utilitarianism & Kant

Rule utilitarianism tries to get the best of Kant’s theory without the focus on motivation To determine if an action is right we need to think about what the

consequences of the action would be if the rule we universalized If everyone murder people would die out and so we ought to

follow the rule ‘do not murder’

But whether we follow it or not, our actions are good if they conform to it, no matter why we did it If we do it because we do not want to be punished our action is

still good The motivation for the action is irrelevant to determining

whether it is right or not So rule utilitarianism is like the Categorical Imperative for

psychological hedonists


Act vs. Rule II

So consider being at a stop light at 3:00 a.m. No one is around, everything is quite Should you wait for the light to turn green before you go? If you go you will not be caught, there are no cameras and no

police or people at all

Most of us wait for the light, but why? Because following the rule is generally a good thing and so

even though we could get away with it we don’t do it

So rule utilitarianism seems to get things right where act utilitarianism gets thing wrong

But rule utilitarianism gets things wrong in some cases where act utilitarianism gets things right


Act vs. Rule III

Consider the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario You know that there is a bomb hidden somewhere in LaGuardia

college You also know that one of your classmate knows where the

bomb is You also know that the only way to get them to talk is to

threaten their family It may even be necessary to kill on of her family members in

front of her in order to get her to talk The family member is innocent and does not know that your

classmate has a bomb or is a homicidal maniac Should you kill the innocent family member? Many feel that the answer is yes

But rule utilitarianism says that we shouldn’t


The Proof

Mill claimed to give a proof of utilitarianism To prove that utilitarianism is true one would need to

prove that ethical hedonism was true If we could prove that pleasure was the only thing

which was intrinsically good And we accept that ethics is the science of

maximizing what is intrinsically good We would then have shown that ethical action

consists in maximizing pleasure

Is pleasure desired for its own sake and never for the sake of anything else? Mill claims that it is, but how do you prove it?


The Proof II

Well, how would you prove that something was visible? The only proof you could give is that people actually see it

How would you prove that something was audible? The only proof you could give is that people actually hear it

So how would you prove that something was desirable? You would have to show that people actually desire it

Since Mill takes psychological hedonism to be true He thinks that people are constituted so that they only desire

pleasure Thus each person takes their pleasure as an intrinsic good

Since pleasure is an intrinsic good to each person is must be an intrinsic good to the group of people


The Proof III

My pleasure is good, your pleasure is good, So our pleasure is good Thus, if we seek to maximize the intrinsic good we must seek to

maximize the happiness of the group

This proof is very controversial

First, is the visible/desirable comparison any good? Many think not since ‘desirable’ could mean either ‘is desired’ or

‘should be desired’ Visible is like this

Second, it is not clear how Mill gets from the claim that each individual’s pleasure is good to them To the conclusion that the general happiness is good to the

group


PETER SINGER AND “SPECIESISM”


Peter Singer

Peter Singer is a famous modern utilitarian at Princeton

He argues that animals deserve equal consideration This does not mean equal treatment It just means that their pleasures should be given equal

consideration

This means that in some cases an animal will be more valuable than a human Not in all cases, just in some

Humans are capable of higher pleasures and so they are generally more valuable When consider a young human and a healthy ape the human wins But if it is an elderly human and a young healthy ape the ape may

win


Singer II

To deny this is to be a speciesist A speciesist is someone who thinks that the pleasures of their

species are more valuable than the pleasures of any other species simply because they are not a member of their species

This is just like racism and sexism The racist gives special consideration to people from their

race The sexist gives special consideration to people of their sex The speciesist gives special consideration to their species

This does not mean that it is never ok to prefer a human over a non human animal In some cases this is legitimate, but these cases will be ones

in which the humans pleasures outweigh the animal’s pleasures

And that will not happen every time


SØREN KIERKEGAARDThree Stages on the Road to Authenticity

The Aesthetic Stage: People are absorbed in pursuing the beautiful and pleasurable dimensions of life, living for the moment, led by emotions and sensuous passions.

The Ethical Stage: Dissatisfaction with the excesses of the aesthetic stage typically motives people to seek a life guided by moral standards and ethical values.

The Religious Stage: This stage is characterized by a highly personal, subjective, and nonrational “leap of faith.”


READING CRITICALLYAnalyzing Nietzsche on Morality (1)

Nietzsche grounds his religious and moral philosophy on what he considers to be a basic principle found at the core of life—”an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant—not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power.” Do you agree with this characterization of a basic life force? Why or why not?

What does Nietzsche mean by his arresting pronouncement that “God is dead”? What are his reasons for coming to this conclusion?

Exploitation and domination are natural consequences of the will to power, according to Nietzsche. Rather than see them as “immoral” we should recognize them as essential attributes of the strong and noble individual. Critically evaluate this view and provide an example of your perspective.


READING CRITICALLYAnalyzing Nietzsche on Morality (2)

Because the majority of individuals are weak, insecure, and lacking in determination, Nietzsche believes that they conspire to create a system of values to drag down superior individuals and keep them in check. Have you ever personally experienced a situation in which you distinguished yourself in some way only to find yourself the target of envy and criticism from others? If so, does this experience support Nietzsche’s thesis regarding the “slave morality”?

Nietzsche voiced contempt for Kant’s moral theory because he believed that using rational duty as the sole criterion for conduct promoted mindless conformity among people. Instead, he believed that individuals must follow their natural passions and instincts for life; otherwise, they are doomed to become faceless members of the human “herd.” In Twilight of the Idols he observes: “(Virtue) must be our own invention, our most necessary self-expression.... The fundamental laws of self-preservation and growth demand...that everyone invent his own virtue, his own categorical imperative. A people perishes when it confuses its duty with duty in general.” Do you think Nietzsche’s point has merit? Support your analysis with specific examples from contemporary culture.


JEAN-PAUL SARTREExistentialism is a Humanism

“But if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, existentialism’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men....”


READING CRITICALLYAnalyzing de Beauvoir on Moral Choices

Simone de Beauvoir believes that in creating ourselves through our free choices we initially desire to be “All” but gradually recognize that we need to exist in a world of other free agents in order to fully realize ourselves. What do you think she means by this? Do you agree with her? Why or why not?

According to de Beauvoir, “freedom cannot will itself without aiming at an open future. The ends which it gives itself must be unable to be transcended by any reflection, but only the freedom of others can extend them beyond our life.” Explain what you believe she means by this assertion, and provide an example from your own life that either confirms or disconfirms it.


ALBERT CAMUS“[Sisyphus] concludes that all is well.”


READING CRITICALLYAnalyzing Noddings on the Ethics of Care

The ethics of care is based on empathy, a complex intellectual and emotional identification with another person. Think of a recent situation in which you felt empathy toward someone else, and describe what the experience felt like as specifically as you can.

In your own words, explain what you think Noddings means by the concept of “grasping the reality of the other as a possibility for myself.”

Reflect on several of the moral decisions that you have made recently. What role has the ethics of care played in your moral reasoning?

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 9.pptx

Documents