Ethics Midterm

1. NAME: Jessie Genie
2. USERNAME: Jessie_genie74
3. EMAIL ADDRESS: jgenie@lausd.net

4. Offer number of posts completed and "exact dates" for each one:
Post #1: Aristotle (17 March)
Post #2: Epicurus and Epictetus (18 March)
Post #3: Spinoza (18 March)
Post #4: Kant and Mill (19 March)
Post #5: Kierkegaard (19 March)
Post #6: Marx (20 March)
Post #7: Nietzsche (21 March)

5. What reading did you complete thus far in the course?
Aristotle’s Ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, Epicurus (c. 341-271BCE), Letter to Menoeceus, Epictetus (c. 55-135 BCE), The Enchiridion, Baruch Spinoza, Spinoza’s Ethics, Ethics Demonstrated in Geometric Order (Portions of Parts 1-5), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Metaphysics, The Metaphysics of Morals First Section, John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, Existentialism, Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche God is Dead Quote, Nietzsche On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense, Morality as Anti-Nature, Jesus, Paul, Eternal Recurrence, Free Spirit, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980): Existentialism, A selection from Existentialism and Human Emotions

Is there reading material that you did not read?
No, I have read all of the assigned readings.

Did you read the philosophers' actual writings?
I have all of the philosopher’s actual writings.

6. Did you complete any extra credit so far?
I have not completed any extra credit so far.

7. What project are you thinking of completing during week four?
I was thinking of completing the field trip to the Museum of Tolerance as a project. I chose this particular project because I have never been to the Museum and I have always wanted to go.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Offer a detailed description of Nietzsche’s ethical views. When giving his “overall ethical stance,” make sure that you explain what is his opposition to Christian morality. He refers to a “transvaluation of values” (flipping morals upside down)…what do you think he means by this? Next, utilizing the websites on Nietzsche that I provided, specifically explain why he loves Jesus but hates Paul? Why does Christian morality offend him? What does he envision for the height of humanity?

Nietzsche ethical view were based in “primordial creativity, joy in existence and ultimate truth.” He advocated for “the principle of ‘life.” He thought that the “feeling of power” was important in understanding the human condition and “moral’ behavior.” He believed that people were born with an “inherent freedom.” He does not believe that there is a “universal morality.” Most importantly, Nietzsche believed in the “will to power” or the “pouring-out of expansive energy that, quite naturally, can entail danger, pain, lies, deception and masks.”

Nietzsche loves Jesus because Jesus did away with the old morality. In Jesus, there is no "guilt and punishment," no "sin," and no "reward." In Jesus, "God and man" have united. The promise of eternal bliss was now a reality. Nietzsche thought Jesus was different because he lived differently. Jesus did not fight, he was accepting of others, he would not anger, he was incapable of hate, he wasn't litigious yet he practiced civil disobedience, and he would never abandon a loved one. Nietzsche respected how he lived and respected how he died. Jesus was closer to God by doing away with the formula of the other faith. According to Nietzsche, Jesus taught us what salvation was by living it. Jesus was "A new way of life, not a new faith." "Glass tidings," indeed. Nietzsche respected how Jesus lived not to save but to teach. Jesus’ life was a lesson bestowed unto man. Not once did his demeanor change, not even in the face of adversity. Jesus did not struggle against life, he invited it. He was compassionate, humble, and loving. This was Jesus’ gift to the world.

Paul, on the other hand, was Jesus’ opposite, according to Nietzsche. Paul is responsible for the Jesus of faith. According to Nietzsche, the Jesus of faith was a lie invented to destroy the historical life of Jesus. What Jesus had done away with his “glass tidings,” Paul has resurrected. The unity of God and man exhibited and exampled by Jesus no longer exists under Paul’s watch. His living example was corrupted by Paul’s blasphemy. Paul sacrificed a life with God in the present for an afterlife with God after death. Immortality is now the reward, rather than unity with God. Paul is responsible for spreading the word, according to his vision of Jesus’ example. Only now can one see what died when Jesus was put to death. The example of Jesus was real. Look no further than to Paul for the turn. Nietzsche thinks Jesus was a man of love, Paul is man of hate. Nietzsche points out that Paul needed the death to distort the life of Jesus. Paul corruptedhistory. Paul traded the life of Jesus for the death of Jesus. Paul used Jesus' death for his own means and ends. He traded the life of Jesus for power. This was Paul's gift to the world.

Nietzsche thinks that “Christian morality are products of self-deception.” He thinks that “Christianity is a religion for weak and unhealthy people” and contrary to man’s nature. The war on man’s nature is directly linked to Christianity. The church is incapable of intelligently ridding the world of passion because it does not adhere to intelligence. The church has attempted to make human nature appear and ugly so that it could weed it out of our lives. It wants all of humanity to follow the lead of a small group of men who turned to God to help them control their natural instincts. According to Christianity, human nature will always be the devil if you are too weak to control it.


Explain the ethical system of Epictetus and then of Spinoza. Next, compare and contrast their ethical theories. (Hint: Stoicism)

Epictetus
As a Stoic, Epictetus understood that the majority of humankind lives in a state of unhappiness. The trials and tribulations of daily life, the obstacles of everyday life compromise one’s happiness on a daily basis and confound the majority on what is truly important in life. Epictetus suggests that if one chooses to do so, he can change his fortune and live a life of eudaimonia, or happiness. To do so would entail that one understand “the true nature of one’s being and keeping one’s prohairesis (moral character) in the right condition.” He implies that whether our life is well spent or unfruitful is “entirely up to us.” Epictetus suggests that life can either be lived virtuously or decadently. What determines whether one is living a life of virtue or a life filled with vice is the utilization of what Epictetus calls “indifferent” things. “Indifferent” things can either be “preferred” or “dispreferred.” Those things that are considered “preferred” are things that contribute to living well, such as “health and wealth, friends and family.” Those things that are considered “dispreferred” are things that do not contribute to living well, such as “sickness and poverty, social exclusion.” Epictetus thinks “virtuous use” of “preferred indifferent” things is good. What Epictetus is advocating is an understanding of the power one possesses over self, or the “authority over ourselves.” What this amounts to is the “capacity to judge what is good and what is evil” and not get carried away with the “impression” of the situation. If one is unable to remain objective and carefully review what is happening, they will pursue things that have no true value and in no way contribute to living well and, in turn, become a victim of circumstance. Epictetus thoroughly believed that the life one chooses to live was totally dependent upon that one person and no one else. He states, quite clearly, that there are things within our control and things that are not in our control. Regardless of circumstance, Epictetus states “that there solutions that can remedy this sorry state of affairs.” Epictetus continues that one must learn to adapt to and overcome any circumstance that may arise via right judgement. Also, he stresses that it is important to recognize that “dispreferred” things do not have enough sway in one’s life to motivate action. The power of desire, action, and assent of any one thing as a motivating factor in one’s life is truly subjective in that it is up to the individual to decide whether to act virtuous or be “motivated by vice.” Epictetus claims that one must understand “God, the universe, and themselves in the right way” in order to not blame life for their circumstances. In other words, live according to the natural order of things. Epictetus continues that reason is gift bestowed to us by God. This gift from God is power that is in us, this is the “authority over ourselves.” Once that is understood, one can live “in accord with nature.” In essence, one must not fight life and always be engaged in a never ending act of mindfulness.

Spinoza
Spinoza’s philosophy is grounded in reason. Spinoza begins by explaining his concept of God. He presents his argument through fourteen propositions. According to Spinoza, God existed prior to creation and existence. God was not created by something other than itself. Anything that exists does so because of God or else, it is a part of God. God acts out of necessity. In other words, Spinoza thinks that God is “infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible,” and most importantly, everything. Thus, if God is everything, anything that follows everything does so via “divine nature.” According to Spinoza, this “divine nature” is twofold. There is a “naturing Nature” and there is the “natured Nature” Simply put, there is God and there is everything else created and sustained by God. Spinoza’s concept of God is not meant for reverence but more for understanding. Approached this way, one is able to “reveal Nature’s most important truths and shows how everything depends essentially and existentially on higher natural causes.” Spinoza posits that knowledge is to be derived “from random experience,” “intuition,” and “Reason.” Knowledge acquired “from random experience” is knowledge that is “determined by causes.” It is the knowledge that one acquires via the senses; chance encounters and very little thought process. Knowledge acquired by “Reason” requires a deeper understanding. It’s the knowledge that “shows not just that is, but how and why it is.” Finally, knowledge acquired by “intuition,” is no more than the utilization of “Reason” at any given moment. Spinoza thinks an understanding of how knowledge derived from God, or Nature, will help man conceptualize his role in the very same Nature. Spinoza claims man lives either through an affect of action or an affect of passion. An affect of action is any change that stems within self. An affect of passion is any change that is brought forth by an outside source. An understanding of such knowledge will allow man to persevere in the world and pursue those things that will add to his life and avoid those that are a detriment. Spinoza illustrates the importance of the application of “Reason” and the folly of falling victim to passion. Spinoza continues that man will reason that the only way to live is living virtuously and that entails an understanding of “things through the third kind of knowledge.” That is, one should look at things “situated in their relationship to God and his attributes.” This view allows man to see the necessity of his existence and his relation to all things. This, in turn, frees man from his attachments to the world and his fears of the unknown.

Comparison
Spinoza thinks that an understanding of the knowledge one possesses is actually a derivative of God will help man understand his role in the world and assist him in persevering life’s obstacles and trials and tribulations. Epictetus thinks man should attempt to understand the natural order of things if he wants to live in “harmony with nature.” Spinoza thinks “Reason” allows man to understand the cause, how, and why things are what they are. Epictetus thinks reason helps man remain objective and evaluative when judging “impressions” that can impact his life. Spinoza thinks virtue is “the path to restraining and moderating the affects” of “external objects and the passions” they have over us. Epictetus thinks virtue is the motivation of a happy life. It is knowing who you are and how you give of yourself to others.

Explain how the Communist Manifesto fits in the discussion of Ethics. Next, illustrate salient points of Ch.1 and key points of Ch.2. Also, why do you think that Marx’s vision of utopia failed?

The Communist Manifesto fits into ethics because it critiques what it considers to be an immoral social invention, Capitalism. It lays bare the consequences Capitalism has had on humanity and recommends, what it considers, a moral alternative, Communism. It remarks on the exploitation of class of people, the breakdown of the family, the subjugation of women, and the indoctrination of children. Most importantly, it wishes to promote human compassion and cooperation rather impede man from flourishing.

Marx posits that the history of the world is that of “class struggles.” In all societies throughout history, there have been the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie has always possessed the means and thus dictated life for the proletariat. Yet, capitalism was different. Marx blames capitalism not for exploitation but for “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.” Marx continues that capitalism turned everyone into a “paid wage laborers” and has reduced human contact to nothing more than “cash payment.” Marx claims that capitalism is responsible for reducing artisans, craftsmen, professionals, and other honored men of occupation to nothing more than wage earners barely able to scrape out an existence in a world were “work increases” and “wage decreases.” Furthermore, the wage earner is destined to become nothing more than “a pauper” or a slave of “the bourgeois class, and bourgeois state.” Marx also posits that capitalism is responsible for reducing the “family relation into a mere money relation.” The proletariat family is unable to own property in a capitalistic world and most times, children were exploited while forced into labor for monetary gain, while women were forced to consider themselves commodities. Marx also suggests that capitalism sets up a society that insures one is unable to move beyond his class. “The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class.” Finally, capitalism is responsible for globalization. No longer are civic or national loyalties important when conducting business. Gone are the days of “local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency” and in their stead are a “universal inter-dependence of nations” meant to promote the bourgeoisie ideal of civilization. In summation, capitalism is immoral because it “impedes human flourishing.”

According to Marx, “Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor.” Marx continues that property, more than anything, is “a social STATUS in production.” In other words, “it is social power.” For this reason, Marx’s vision of a communist society is a society where there is no such thing as private property. Marx thinks that the removal of the idea, notion, and prospect of private property is the first step in the general direction of the removal of class struggle in society. Eliminating private property would change the character of the society because it would change the character of ownership. Private property, thus, becomes “common property” and thus eliminating individualized social power. Another point of contention for Marx is that of “wage labor.” Marx thinks the concept of minimum wage is implemented for no other reason but to keep the labor alive in order to continue the increase of capital. Marx contends that continuing implementation of minimum wage makes the laborer more and more dependent upon the bourgeoisie and robs him of his existence, his individuality, and his freedom. Marx thinks eliminating minimum wage altogether is a guarantee of a better existence for the laborer. Marx continues that in a communist society, the proletariat will not be forced into labor as he is now, he will, instead, voluntarily contribute to society and share his experience and ability for the greater good and, in turn, instead of being paid a paltry earning, he will receive what he needs to live a comfortable existence. This change in appropriation will impact his existence, improve familial relations, and stop the exploitation of women and children. Marx thinks communism can be successful with the transfer of private property into “community property” and the undoing of a “living labor” via the elimination of minimum wage, culture as whole will change because the “social power” no longer be in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Marx’s vision of a utopian society failed because Marx wanted to avoid having his vision “brought about by high-minded benefactors of humanity.” Also, he never stressed an “importance of morality,” in all his Manifesto was nothing more than a “call of theoretical necessity.” In reality, communism places too much power in the hands of one individual. In theory it is great but when practice, man is still at the helm.

Explain the connection among philosophers: Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus. What is the goal of life that each philosopher pursues? Compare and contrast in depth.

Aristotle’s theory of ethics sets out to discover what entails a life that is worth living and what one must do to attain such a life. His search for the “the good” leads him to declare that one who pursues “the highest good” should do so because “it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake.” Aristotle thinks the aim of all of humanity is eudaimonia, or happiness. He continues that happiness is an aim in itself because it “is the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world.” Aristotle further continues that one must apply reason coupled with “virtuous activity of the soul, of a certain kind” to achieve happiness. He also stresses the importance of having friends, family, opportunity, and the like in order to be happy. Aristotle continues by stressing the importance of a good and proper upbringing which gives some exposure of virtuous behavior during childhood. Aristotle posits that exposure of virtuous activity presupposes that one will display “good habits” at some stage in their life because an exposure to virtue will generate a love for virtuous activity and, ultimately, virtuous activity will serve “as the goal for the sake of which lesser goods are to be pursued.” According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of virtue: intellectual and ethical. Virtues of the intellect are those that pertain to the mind and are engaged in reason and “owes its birth and its growth to teaching.” Aristotle continues that there are two kinds of intellectual virtue: theoretical and practical. On the other hand, “virtues of character” are those that cannot engage in reason but follows reason. It is a virtue that is “made perfect by habit.” Aristotle continues that “ethical virtue is fully developed only when it is combined with practical wisdom.” The incorporation of practical wisdom into ethical virtue brings the prior knowledge of virtue exposed as a youth to fruition as a man. Aristotle posits that a good and proper childhood predisposes one on the path happiness due to the development of “good habits” and the love of virtuous activity. Once practical wisdom is developed and incorporated with virtuous activity on a daily basis, one is able to distinguish between “excess and deficiency,” “pleasure and pain.” That distinction is known as “The Doctrine of the Mean.” Aristotle posits that the mean is a way to find the middle ground between excess and vice in all situations when there is “a full and detailed acquaintance with the circumstances.” Aristotle claims one “must have knowledge,” he must “choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes,” and “he must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character.” In other words, he who exercises “the doctrine of the mean” must act contrary to his natural instincts.

Epicurus, like Aristotle, thinks that an ethical person is one who pursues “the highest good….for its own sake.” However, the highest good for Epicurus is happiness coupled with pleasure, not virtuous activity. Epicurus thinks “one’s one pleasure” takes precedent over all things, yet one must seek this pleasure in a “moderately ascetic” way. According to Epicurus, all of humanity chooses to avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Yet, not all pleasure is worthy of choice and not all pain is worthy of avoidance. All choice of the matter should be with long-term effects in mind, thereby, eliminating any possibility for instant gratification. According to Epicurus, the pleasure one seeks is directly tied into the desires one possesses. Epicurus claims that there are two types of pleasure: “moving’ pleasures and ‘static’ pleasures.” “Moving” pleasure are those pleasures that one is moving towards and “static” pleasures are those pleasures that one has attained and satiated. Unlike Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean between excess and vice, Epicurus does not think there is a middle ground between pleasure and pain. He claims either you feel pain due to unfulfilled desires or you experience pleasure due to fulfilled desires. Epicurus advocates toning down one’s desires to a minimum that way one can be “easily satisfied” rather than constantly striving “to fulfill the desire.” The types of desires Epicurus thinks one should eliminate are those that are considered “vain and empty” because these are false desires impressed upon man by society and “they are difficult to satisfy, in part because they have no natural limit” and those considered “non-necessary” because these desires are associated with extravagance and luxury and are not necessities of life. According to Epicurus, the only desire worth having is the “natural and necessary desires” because they “are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate, and bring great pleasure when satisfied.” Besides pursuing the one desire, Epicurus think virtues are important in the acquisition of pleasure. Yet, unlike Aristotle, who associates “happiness with virtuous activity,” virtue for Epicurus is mainly a means to an end in that it is considered “valuable solely for the sake of the happiness they can bring oneself.” Finally, like Aristotle, Epicurus thinks friendship is important if one is to have happiness. “Epicurus consistenly maintains that friendship is valuable because it is one of the greatest means of attaining pleasure.”

Epictetus understood that the majority of humankind lives in a state of unhappiness. The trials and tribulations of daily life, the obstacles of everyday life compromise one’s eudaimonia, or happiness on a daily basis. Epictetus posits that our lives are unfulfilled because we suffer from “mistaken beliefs about what is truly good.” Unlike Aristotle, who associates “happiness with virtuous activity” and Epicurus, who associates happiness with the avoidance of pain in the pursuit of pleasure, Epictetus associates “happiness with virtue.” He claims that our happiness is totally “dependent upon our own characters, how we dispose ourselves to ourselves, to others, and to events generally.” He suggests that this would entail that one understand “the true nature of one’s being and keeping one’s prohairesis (moral character) in the right condition.” Similar to Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, Epictetus claims there exists a middle ground between virtue and vice and that is indifference, “that is, ‘indifferent’ with regard to good and bad.” Epictetus claims “indifferent” things can either be “preferred” or “dispreferred.” “Preferred” things are similar to Epicurus’ “natural and necessary” and “non-necessary” things in that they bring about pleasure because they contribute to living well. What is considered “dispreferred” things are similar to things Epicurus would avoid because they would cause pain and do not contribute to “a flourishing life.” Epictetus thinks “virtuous use” of “preferred indifferent” to be good. The point Epictetus is trying to make is in order for us to keep “one’s prohairesis (moral character) in the right condition,” one has to understand that he has power within his grasp. If one is unable to familiarize himself with this knowledge, he will be swept up in thinking Epicurus’ “non-necessary” and “vain and empty” things are good and not even Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean will be of any assistance. What possessing an understanding of the power within amounts to are the “capacity to judge what is good and what is evil” and the ability to not be carried away with the “impression” of a situation, similar to Epicurus’ desires. This is of importance because if one is unable to remain objective and carefully review what is happening, they will pursue things that have no true value and in no way contribute to living well and, in turn, he is prone to become a victim of circumstance. Epictetus, like Aristotle and Epicurus, thoroughly believed that the life one lived was totally dependent upon the individual. He claims that there are things within our control and things that are out of our control. He continues that one must learn to utilize the power within to adapt and overcome any “impression” and to recognize any “dispreferred” thing does not have to influence one’s action. The power of desire, action, and assent of any one thing as a motivating factor in one’s life is truly subjective in that it is up to the individual to decide whether to exhibit “moral virtue” or be “motivated by vice.” Finally, Epictetus claims that one must understand “God, the universe, and themselves in the right way” in order to not blame life for the circumstances one finds himself in. In other words, live according to the natural order of things and all will be well. Unlike Aristotle’s idea on reason, Epictetus thinks that reason is gift bestowed to us by God. This gift from God is power that is in us, this is the “authority over ourselves.” Once that is understood, one can live “in accord with nature.” In essence, one must not fight life and always be engaged in a never ending act of mindfulness.

When considering the connection among the philosopher’s, first and foremost, all were Greek. Also,I noticed that all three aimed at achieving eudaimonia, or happiness. Although the pursuit varied, each thought moral virtue to be an important factor in the attainment of happiness. Also, reason played an important role in determining happiness in each philosophy.

According to Sartre, can an atheist be moral? What would Sartre find unacceptable about a Christian world view and what might he find acceptable, if any. (Hint: Kierkegaard) Overall, discuss the connection among existentialism (define), ethics, and atheism.

According to Sartre, an atheist can be moral. He claims that “there is an ethical normativity about authenticity.” He also claims that it is moral in that when he acts, or chooses, “an individual commits not only himself, but the whole of humanity.” Sartre continues that values are constantly being created when one exercises his freedom to choose. The values that are created “have a universal dimension, in that any other human being could make sense of them” were he be in the same situation at the time the choice was made.

Sartre would find the idea of exercising choice to live in “commitment” to God to be acceptable because other can and will understand the decision making process. Also, he would agree with the “knight of faith” because of his authenticity. What he wouldn’t find acceptable is that God is responsible for human nature. According to Sartre, man, alone, is responsible for his essence.

Existentialism is defined as “a doctrine which makes human life possible and, in addition, declares that every truth and every action implies a human setting and a human subjectivity.” Existentialists think that “existence precedes essence, or, if you prefer, that subjectivity must be the starting point.” Atheistic existentialism “states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being by any concept, and that this being is man, or human reality.” The ethics of existentialism is expressed in the “ethical normativity about authenticity.” In other words, since there is value placed on the idea of freedom, Sartre thinks that “by choosing, an individual commits not only to himself, but the whole of humanity.”


In what ways is Kant similar to Kierkegaard? And more importantly, in what ways is he different? Explain why Kierkegaard specifically critiques Kant’s duty base morality. Make sure you explain each philosopher’s view of ethics in depth. (Hint: Kant’s “categorical imperative” and Kierkegaard’s “three stages”)

Kant
Kant’s ethical theory is not based on empirical evidence. Kant’s intent is to approach ethics with the concepts that we formulate in our minds, or “a priori,” rather than the concepts that have been formulated as a result of experience, or “a posteriori.” Kant reasons that by ridding ethics of “a posteriori” concepts he can eliminate consequential ethics and illuminate “deontological ethics.” Kant claims that “a priori” concepts originate from a place of “good will” or a place where to be good without qualification is to be good no matter what. It is from this place of “good will” that we are able to understand “deontological ethics.” The concept of the “good will” allows Kant to make a clear distinction between the “good will” and the human will. This distinction allows Kant to claim that “a priori” concepts conform to moral law. Thus, Kant presupposes that prior to individual experience, man shares a common link into the concept of the “good will.” It is from this link that all of humanity aims to seek out the highest moral law. Kant’s focus on the “good will” allows him to stress the importance of having and acting from “good will.” There are no requirements, no penalties; there are no winners or losers when acting from the “good will.” The bottom line is anything that comes from a “good will” is good in itself no matter what the circumstances are. Simply stated, a “good will” acts because it has to be unconditionally good. Kant continues by placing an emphasis on practical reason in relation to a “good will.” Kant claims the function of reason separates the rational being from man. He states that reason helps the rational being recognize that there are two separate causalities: nature and freedom. According to Kant, the rational being operates from freedom and man operates from nature. This is important because the rational being wants something more than mere existence. Kant posits that the rational being understands he has a choice and is not a victim of circumstance. The rational being chooses to go beyond circumstance and self. Without reason, there are no moral grounds; with reason, we are given the tools to set moral grounds. A “good will” is practical reason that has duly imposed duty upon itself. This duty, “good will,” practical reason places upon itself is the unconditional end, the “deontological ethics” Kant wanted to illuminate.
According to Kant, duty is an obligation of a “good will.” In respect to duty, we ought to act from duty because we can. Which brings us to “two kinds of laws produced by reason:” “hypothetical imperative” and the “categorical imperative.” According to Kant, when one is acting on the “hypothetical imperative,” one is acting on behalf of morality because it is a “rule of action for achieving that end.” When one is acting on the “categorical imperative,” one is acting for nothing more than the end in itself; because it is the rule for “moral action.” Kant clarifies that man adheres to the “hypothetical imperative,” and the rational being adheres to the “categorical imperative.” The rational being follows the “categorical imperative” because it is the one law that states, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The “categorical imperative” is based on nothing more than the end in itself.

Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard’s ethics concerned itself with “customary mores,” or social mores, and “teleological suspension of the ethical,” or religious mores. Kierkegaard’s “customary mores” were the laws that guided man in society. His “teleological suspension of the ethical” was a call to ignore the social mores for a higher calling. It was a calling to trust in faith and God over man’s laws. Kierkegaard’s was claiming that although the social mores are indeed ethical, “ultimately God’s definition of the distinction between good and evil outranks any human society’s definition.” “Christian faith” was important to Kierkegaard but not in “a matter of regurgitating church dogma.” Living in faith was a choice, a “commitment” to God. Kierkegaard posits that to live according to faith, one is adhering a higher calling and has a better chance “to become a true self.” Kierkegaard continues that when one commits himself to God, he is taking on a “burden of responsibility.” It is a burden because when one makes choices, his is a choice that will echo in all eternity in that every choice will determine whether he is damned or saved. This is what Kierkegaard referred to as “Anxiety or dread.” The anxiety of knowing that whatever you decide, it resonates in eternity juxtaposed with the freedom to make that decision. This brings man closer to God in that man must constantly renew his vow of faith as a reminder to him that God is the charge of his life. “This repetition of faith is the way the self relates itself to itself and to the power which constituted it, i.e. the repetition of faith is the self.” What is ultimately required when living in faith is suspension of reason “in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact, we must believe by virtue of the absurd.”

Kierkegaard has three stages in which man need to progress in order to arrive at the “virtue of the absurd” and become a “knight of faith. Stage one involves the man who is able to describe the “movements of faith” but not make them himself. He is simply one who goes through t he motions. Stage two involves the man who goes through “infinite resignation,” accepts faith, and learns his “eternal worth,” yet has trouble “grasping hold of the world by virtue of faith.” Finally, stage three involves the man who makes the “paradoxical movement of faith.” It is this stage where the “knight of faith” commits himself in such a way that it is a “matter between him and the Eternal Being, who is the object of his faith.”

Comparison
Kant thinks reason is responsible for moral grounds. He claims his “categorical imperative” is the rule for “moral action” and is based on nothing more than the end in itself. Kant thinks a call to action must have moral intent and stem from a “good will.” He continues that all rational beings aim to seek out the “categorical imperative” as its moral law. Here, the call to duty is ethical. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, also thinks a call to action must have moral intent but his call to action stems from a place of faith and moral worth. He claims that his living in faith is a commitment to God, and thus, adheres to a higher calling. He continues that the “knight of faith” choices echo in all of eternity and determine whether he will be saved or damned. Here, the call to action is divine.

Critique of Kant
Kierkegaard specifically critiques Kant’s duty based morality because Kant claims duty stems from practical reason and is an obligation of “good will.” Kierkegaard claims duty is not an obligation of “good will” but an “obligation to God.” Kierkegaard posits that since all duty is “traced back to God,” Kant’s duty based morality can not really be a moral law. Instead, it is an ethical law.

Discuss the philosophy of Mill’s utilitarianism (define) and compare/contrast it with Epicurus hedonism (define). (Hint: How does each pursue pleasure?)

Mill
Mill claims consequences of action influences whether or not people find moral worth in their actions. He presents the question: as a result of action, does one want to experience pleasure or pain? Mill posits that every human being chooses pleasure over pain because “it is morally demanded of us.” It is morally demanded of us because human beings “must seek pleasure.” Mill continues that a “maximization of pleasure” insures that man will be at his best because his desires will be satiated. Yet, he continues, one must be discerning in which pleasures he pursues because not all pleasures are worthy of pursuit. According to Mill, because man must seek out pleasure, he should understand that “Some experiences are qualitatively better than others, and in determining which line of action is better, this has to be part of the calculation.” That is when one is capable of determining which pleasure truly add to his living well in all facets of his life, he will move beyond simple pleasures and “self-interest.” Mill thinks man will see that pleasure of the “qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends.” Mill concludes that since every man is satisfied and happy, “the overall effect will be to maximize the pleasure for all.”

Epicurus
Epicurus thinks that an ethical person is one who pursues “the highest good….for its own sake.” The highest good for Epicurus is happiness coupled with pleasure. According to Epicurus, all of humanity chooses to avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Yet, not all pleasure is worthy of choice and not all pain is worthy of avoidance. All choice of the matter should be with long-term effects in mind. Epicurus surmises that the ethical person should believe in a God that is “a living being immortal and happy,” should not fear death, should not be codependent upon another, and should have and understanding of the nature of one’s pleasures and desires. Epicurus claims that the pleasure one seeks is directly tied into the desires one possesses. He states that there are two types of pleasure: “moving’ pleasures and ‘static’ pleasures.” “Moving” pleasure are those pleasures that one is moving towards and “static” pleasures are those pleasures that one has attained and satiated. He continues that there are three types of desire: “natural and necessary desires, natural but non-necessary, and ‘vain and empty desires.” “Natural and necessary desires” are those desires that are associated with the necessities of life and are “naturally limited.” These desires are always “moving” pleasures and easily “static” pleasures. “Natural but non-necessary desires” are those desires that are associated with extravagance and luxury and are not necessities of life. Finally, “vain and empty desires” are those desires that are never satiated and have “no natural limit.” These are false desires impressed upon man by society and ignorance.

Comparison
Mill thinks that every human being chooses pleasure over pain because “it is morally demanded of us.” Epicurus thinks all of humanity chooses to avoid pain by pursuing pleasure. Mill thinks that a “maximization of pleasure” insures that man will be at his best because his desires will be satiated. Epicurus claims that the pleasure one seeks is directly tied into the desires one possesses. Mill thinks man must seek out pleasure is “qualitatively better than others.” Epicurus thinks not all pleasure is worthy of choice and not all pain is worthy of avoidance. Mill thinks man will see that pleasure of the “qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends.” Epicurus thinks the pleasure one chooses should have long-term effects in mind. Mill thinks man will one day move beyond simple pleasures and “self-interest.” Epicurus thinks the only desire worth having is the “natural and necessary desires” because they “are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate, and bring great pleasure when satisfied.” Epicurus chooses pleasure for the individual. Mill chooses pleasure for the masses. Mill concludes that since every man is satisfied and happy, “the overall effect will be to maximize the pleasure for all.”

Define ethics according to the first article/paragraph assigned in the course and then, most importantly, explain who is your favorite ethical theorist among the many we have studied. Apply their ideas to the modern world and/or your own personal life. Explain in depth.

Ethics, or “moral philosophy,” is divided into three fields of study. The first of which, metaethics, concerns itself with the origin and definition of ethical theories. It also concerns itself with “universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgements, and the meaning of ethical terms.” The second of which, normative ethics, is more practical. It generally concerns itself with how one arrives at the position they do. The final field of study involves applied ethics. Normally this concerns itself with the hot topics of the day such as abortion rights, homosexual rights, possibility of war, and the environment. By using the first two fields, applied ethics tries to “resolve these controversial issues.” There is no arbitrary line the make each field distinct in itself, the fields “are often blurry.”

My favorite theorist was Jean-Paul Sartre. I love the idea that man came before his essence. The thought that we are who we make ourselves out to be is rather empowering and also rather frightening. Also, the fact that an atheist can be moral is good to know. I think that if more people were familiar with his teachings, we wouldn’t have some of the problems we have today. For instance, the idea the when one chooses he chooses for all of humanity, if more people understood this idea, maybe we wouldn’t have the kind of issue we have.