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.