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.