The Good Teacher: Socrates’ Legacy, Plato’s Works

Socrates lived in Athens from approximately 470 to 399 B.C.E. He was a teacher to the famous philosopher Plato. Socrates had an interesting teaching method which is still used today, he never wrote anything down. His method of teaching was only through discussion and communication with his students. Because there was no school or academies in the age, Socrates taught his students in the middle of the city. The students loved there teacher and the way he expressed ideas by asking state official passing by certain questions to prove a point. Although Socrates was loved by his students he had many enemies for various reasons not exactly known. His enemies finally got to him by having him arrested for corrupting young minds. Socrates was tried and convicted by a jury of five hundred male citizens of Athens. The Athenian court would vote once for conviction or acquittal, and once again if the verdict was guilty, in what we today would call the “Penalty phase,” determining the punishment. Socrates himself gave two speeches, one in his defense and one concerning the punishment. His speech during the penalty phase featured an in-your-face suggestion that the proper punishment would be not death but a reward for services to the stat, much like a sports hero: feted by the city of Athens. Socrates was then convicted and sentenced to be executed. He had the chance to escape however he said that because he lived by Athenian law he wanted to die by Athenian law. If he escaped, he said that they would have won and he wouldn’t have stood by his principles.
Virtue for Socrates means to question the meaning of life and to keep one’s integrity while searching, to not be swayed by one’s physical longings or fear of unpleasant situations or concern for comfort. He believed that using are reason will make us realize what virtue is and will actually make us virtuous.

Virtue ethics: Character and Tribal philosophy

Virtue ethics is a whole different way on looking at ethics. It is an ancient approach that instead of asking “what should I do?” the fundamental question for virtue ethics is “how should I be?” It focuses on the development of certain personal qualities, of certain behavior pattern - in other words, on the development of what we call character. Many Greek philosophers believe that character is innate: character is indeed something we are born with, but it is also something that can and must be shaped. We are not the victims of our character, and if we let ourselves be victimized by our own unruly temperaments, then we are to blame. Tribal virtue ethics such as the Akan people in West Africa focuses on virtue and character; whenever a person commits an act of wrongdoing it is said not that he/she did something wrong but that he/she is a bad person. Although character is something were born with, we can work to acquire a good character through good habits.
I like the idea of virtue ethics. I think it a lot more rational approach to ethics then the others. Focusing on trying to be a good person will naturally make ethical decisions easier to solve. Your values and virtues that you hold to your heart will define your character and also the ethical being that you are.

Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

In one of Kant’s passages he introduces the categorical imperative and links it with the concept of the good will as an understanding of doing one’s duty in accordance with reason. The moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it nor in any principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected effect.
In another one of Kant’s passages he argues his point that you should not make choices you couldn’t wish to become a universal law and that you should not make choices that diminish the dignity of others or yourself. This passage proves Kant’s talent for careful analysis.
Kant’s theory still exposes a major flaw every time I analyze his writings. How specific is the situation where we are able to label an action as a universal law? For example if you rob a bank because you have no money, no food and your landlord kicked you out of your apartment because you couldn’t pay the rent, do you denounce that its ok to rob a bank only under those specific circumstances? Or is the situation as simple as just robbing a bank. It’s hard for me to apply the categorical imperative to specific situations because I don’t know how specific the situation is.

Rational beings are ends in themselves

In one of Kant’s books he talks about two ways of expressing the categorical imperative. Including not using people as tools, Kant is saying that in a moral world all people have intrinsic value. If you are using someone to achieve a goal you are giving them instrumental value. They are only a means to an end. This is another way of expressing the categorical imperative because one, you are universalizing your maxim; and if you are refusing to treat others merely as means to an end, you are also universalizing a maxim and a very fundamental one. Second, both maxims may be interpreted as expressions of the Golden Rule.
Humans are considered value-givers and this makes them rational beings. All rational beings have absolute value. The second formulation of the categorical imperative is also respecting yourself and your own values because as a rational being you have the right to set your own values. This means that although making sure that you are not using people as tools, you need to make sure that people aren’t using you as a tool.
Nonhuman animals don’t belong in the moral universe at all; they are classified as things and can be used as a tool by a rational person because animals cant place value on something.
The third major theme of Kant’s work is the “kingdom of ends” applying that the categorical imperative is something all rational beings can do, then all will end up following the same good rules because all have universalized intentions.
I think a lot of what Kant mentions makes a lot of sense. People should be respected for who they are and not what they can do for you. However, as psychological egoists this would be hard because we are inclined to use people as instruments in some situations if it is in our self-interest.

Using Your Reason Part 2 Kant's Deontology

Kant's deontonology is the opposite outlook of utilitarianism. A utilitarian is strictly concerned with the consequesnses of there actions and who benifits from them. A follower of Kant's deontology is only concerned if your action is right or wrong by itself. For Kant the presence of good will is what makes an action morally good, regardless of the consequences. Tehrefore even if you never accomplished what you intiended, you are still morally praiseworthy provided you tried hard to do the right thing. The categorical imperative is how we test if an action is right, all we have to do is determine whether we could imagine others doing to us what we intend doing to them. There have been many criticisms of kant's theroy such as that the categorical imperative actually implies concern for consequences. A big criticism of kant's theory is that if you were to do something that is considered wrong in your situation, how can we define what your situation is compared the rest of the people. There is a good example of this in the reading. Another problem with the theory is that there is now definition of rationality. Bentham belived in rationality as a tool however his moral views are quite different.
I dont think that Kant's theory a rational way of finding morals. you definately need to take in consideration of the consequences of your actions. For example, if there is a serial killer stalking your friend and your friend comes to your house to hide. You then tell him to hide in the closet, and then the killer comes to your door and asks you where hes hiding. You would have to lie or else your friend would be killed. kant belives that you should tell the killer the truth because you are not concerned about the cosequences. This is absurd. There are so many situations like this one and I dont believe that Kant's deantolgy is the best way in solving them.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the moral principle witch only concerns the consequences of the moral situation. A person's ethical choice he or she has to make is the one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain of the community. Notice the community, this means that it doesen't soley depend on the individual's happiness but the hapiness of as many as possible. Jeremy Benthem is the man responsible for the ideals behind utilitarianism, However it was David Blume who invented the term. Hume believed it is good for an action to have utility in the sense that it makes yourself and others happy, but he never developed that idea into a complete moral theory, Bentham howver, used the term to create a moral system for the new age. How do we induct this theory into an ethical situation? Through Benthams hedonistic calculus. The hedonistic calculus states that we must investigate all aspects of a proposed consequence - it's intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity and remoteness, and it's extent. These aspects are then assighned value depending on the how they apply to the situation. They are then added up to determine how to act in the situation. There are a few problems with benthams hedonic calculus. For example, he never gave us any numerical values to add or subtract, which means we have to come up with the values. I believe that utilitarianism is a great outlook for life and the choices you make. Every descion you make should optimize your happiness. One thing that Bentham should have included in his theory is a division beween pleasure and happiness. Happiness is more of a long term state of being, pleasures tend to be more instant.

Altruism: The Ideal and Its Recipricol

Altruism is the alternative to ethical egoism it states everybody must give up his or her own self interest for others. This theory implies that there is something wrong with acting to benefit oneself, and if that is the case, it will never become a widely accepted theory because it will only work for saints. The basis of this theory makes sense but not when put in this ideal light. The way that Australian philosopher Peter Singer puts it makes more sense: Looking after the interests of others makes sense because, overall everyone benefits from it. But if you induct this theory into a situation, ultimately any altruist could be considered an egoist. If you are responsible for protecting someone during an altercation and that someone is responsible for protecting you. It is in your self interest to protect that person so he will protect you. It is still an egoist outlook, your companion is only used as a tool for your own security. This idea expressed in this analysis is called rational ethical egoism. The reason it is not considered another example of egoism self interest however is because it involves someone else’s interests too. It says that there is nothing wrong with keeping an eye out for yourself, so long as it doesn’t happen at the expense of someone else’s interests.

Shortcomings of Ethical Egoism

There are three main shortcomings of ethical egoism. One is that falsification is not possible. Meaning the theory presents no possibility of being wrong. This might seem to most people like a positive characteristic, but in fact it is a negative trait. If the theory presents no possibility of being wrong it is not a theory at all but a prejudice. It is not open to the chance that another theory can be correct.
The question is then asked if everyone is selfish all the time. This is where we start to see more problems with psychological egoism. If someone does a seemingly selfless deed like giving money to charity, one would think that this deed obviously
can’t be selfish. However, the satisfaction that one gets from giving money to the poor; is that not selfish? Do people give money to the poor because they actually want to help people less fortunate then them, or do people give money because they believe that it will make them a “good person.” As you can see the motive is always in one’s self-interest. That euphoria of satisfaction you have when you give away money makes the deed selfish. But, it is this language that brings up problems. Can this satisfaction of giving be considered selfish just as stealing? Certainly both can’t be measured as the same degree of selfishness. The word selfish begins to have multiple meanings and this is where another problem with psychological egoism lies.

From Glaucon to Hobbes

When Glaucon, Plato’s brother argues with Socrates about being just and unjust, Glaucon brings up a good point. He suggests that since everybody is only looking out for themselves stealing and any other means of self benefit is acceptable. It doesn’t matter who gets hurt as long as you are benefited from the situation. This means however, that everybody will be stealing and committing other dirty deeds which could be very unpleasant to you, thus we agree with our community that we will not steal or whatever else as long as you receive the same treatment. This is called the social contract theory. We all agree to treat each other with respect only so our own self-interest will not be affected. Glaucon brought up an interesting story to demonstrate his point of view. It involved a ring that had the power to make you invisible. If you gave this ring to a descent person and a scoundrel. They would probably both use the rings to their advantage even if it meant hurting others because of this fact that they wont get caught. This raises the question that if a descent person used the ring in these selfish ways then being a good person is just a disguise to who we all really are which is selfish cheating lying beings. This means that these traits is what defines us as humans.

Myself or Others?

Psychological egoism is a widely accepted theory among scholars and analysts. However, some find the theory preposterous. Phsycological egoism is the idea that everyone is selfish all the time, because it is built into our nature as human beings. We simply cannot avoid being selfish. This theory in many situations makes sense. However in a few specific scenerios it doesn't. this is explained vicariously ina true story of man that worked at a bridge for trains to pass over. His job was to lower the bridge when trains were coming. One day, he brought his son, whom he loved to work. While he was working, his son got caught in the gears of the bridge. While trying to get his son out of the gears, a train was coming toward the bridge. He had the decision of lowering the bridge and killing his son but saving the 200 or so on the train. Or, not lowering the bridge and vice-versa. He then decides to save the 200 people on the train and kill his son. Another story similar to this involves a man in the military that jumps on a grenade killing himself but saving his friend. These two stories that I have shared both seem to epitomize selflessness. How could the man in the first story be described as selfish. He gave up his son to save 200 people. If there is nothing apart of us that is selfless then what are we apart from animals. We are only interested in our own survival and nothing else. Selflessness is a part of what humanizes us. Then again selfishness is also apart of humanity. Nobody exists that is completely selfless even though that is what most religions tell us to strive for in life. A complete selfless being is considered a god. This is what we see in most monotheistic religions. Jesus for example was a compete selfless being, and that very thing is what separated him from humans. That’s why in order to be human we must have a balance of selfishness and selflessness. At some point in our lives we will commit an act that is selfless or seems to be selfless. Either way, we do it so feel more human from so much of our other selfish ways. This is what people on the other side argue. saying that we are committing this selfless act to feel better about ourselves and to give us that humane satisfaction.

Refuting Ethical Relativism

Ideas presented in this chapter further deal with the problems of ethical relativism. The principles of ethical relativism boldly state that there is no correct answer when it comes to moral code. What is correct is only pertinent to your own culture. I believe however that we may be able to verify that some moral codes are objectively right and others are wrong. Another problem with the theory is it concludes on the basis of a disagreement that both parties are wrong. An example of this is the flat earth argument.
All ethical situations are analyzed through induction. We must understand however that induction is not a 100% accurate form of reasoning because of possible overlooked evidence. If the evidence is significant it could alter the results. Induction, although effective, leaves ethical relativism as and in-exact science.
Multiculturalism is a common belief of the western society and states that all cultural traditions and all perspectives represented in the public deserve to be heard. This is the personification of America that draws immigrants to our country. However this only seems to be true with the major countries such as England, Sweden , Ireland, and Germany. Smaller country’s voices seem to go un-noticed. So the melting pot is dominated by the major country’s viewpoints.
I believe that ethical relativism cant function in a society such as ours because of amount of diverse cultures that exist in the united states. Being so close to a different culture in America, it’s almost impossible not to question each others practices, and find a majority rule of the population.

Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is the idea that there is no universal moral truth, that each culture has its own set of rules that are valid for that culture, and we have no right to interfere, just as they have no right to interfere with our rules. Other moral approaches presented in this chapter include moral nihilism which means that there is no universal moral code. Another, moral skepticism is the belief that we can't know for certain if there are any universal truths. A final standpoint on morality is moral subjectivism, which holds that moral views are merely inner states in a person and that they cant be compared to the inner states of another person, so a moral viewpoint is only valid for the person who holds it.
These are all interesing stances on ethics, the problem with them is that all of them have flaws. The moral nihilist is a hard stance to defend in most situations because, for example if you see somebody abusing a child you are inclined to step in. A moral nihilist could not step in because there is ultimately no right or wrong.
A problem associated with ethical relativism is that at what point of culural practice crosses the line of inhumanity where another culture should interfere. For example, the situation in Rwanda a few years ago where the united states had to get involved after the genocide of an indiginous people was goin to wipe ou there race. A true realtivist could not get involved because this culture would have the right to do this becuse within there culture it is correct so we cannot interfere. This is the problem with Ethical relativsm, there needs to be a set of universal guidelines or a universal code in which all cultures can adhere to and are still able to have there own moral code within their culture.