while compassion and self-sacrifice may

benefit people in the short-term by helping to

Philosophy: The Good Life: Friedrich
relieve their suffering.
Nietzsche’s attitude towards conventional
views of how individuals believe they ought Claims that dominance of these life-denying
to live as expressed in his moral and religious values leads us to struggle and suffering.
writings.
Skepticism extends beyond questions about
Is known for his proclamation that God is morality.
dead: He believes that his metaphorical death
He doesn’t look for followers or developing
of God allows us to live a more meaningful
a theory of morality, but he wants individuals
and fulfilling lives. He used the phrase to
to think of themselves about what matters
express his idea that the Enlightenment
beyond confines of conventional categories
eliminated the possibility of the existence of
of good and evil.
God.
AMOR FATI (Love of one’s fate)
He takes a critical attitude toward morality
and often describes himself as an Amoralist. One must look back in past experiences
He also emphasized the need for reevaluation including suffering and hardships and
of values and critical examination of the success and want nothing to be different and
value of morality. accept that fact.
He criticized the traditional moral framework It is only when a person can take this attitude
for their importance in Asceticism where it is towards his personal history that he has lived
a belief that self-denial is at the root of praise- a truly meaningful life.
worthy behavior.
his constant approval of aspiration to do so
Ascetic Morality: Encourage individuals to makes clear the extent to which living a full
see their desires and passions as things to be human life requires individual reflection and
overcome if we are to live well or attain taking a cautious attitude towards
salvation. conventional moral categories.
MORAL FRAMEWORKS embrace values
like EQUALITY, PASSION, AND SELF-
SACRIFICE and results into LIFE-
DENYING. They encourage leveling down
suppressing human greatness in order to
uphold democratic values and making life
better for everyone. In doing so, they express
hostility towards life and what it means to
live well.
Argues that values associated with human
flourishing must be life-affirming.
Compassion and self-sacrifice are out
excellence and individual development are in
ARISTOTLE experience. These virtues occupy middle
ground between the vices of excess and
Nicomachean ethics Aims to identify the
deficiency relative to each person. So, for
hughest good for human being While most
example the virtue of courage occupies a
peaople believe that the highest good is the
middle ground between being cowardly and
acquisition of material wealth and pursuit of
overly rash. Acquisition of both the
honor or satisfaction of bodily pleasure.
intellectual virtues and these virtues of
Aristotle argues that all of these goods are
character make up aristotles highest good.
deficient as the highest good in some way.
Which he identifies with the greek word
Material wealth is always acquired for the
Eudaimonia, which in translation of aristotle
purpose of attaining something else. Pursuin
often is translated as the word happiness.
honor is not connected to any characteristic
While a person achieves Eudaimonia when
of the person himself but how others perceive
he possesses all of the virtues, acquiring some
him. And satisfying bodily pleasure is not a
of these virtues requires more than studying
good peculiar to human beings. Here,
or the right amount of habituation. Certain
aristotle gives us insight into an important of
external conditions must be present for thei
the highest good. It must be something that is
cultivation, external condition that are often
consistent with the maximization of our
beyond the control of individuals. Perhaps
faculties as human beings. What separates
the most important is that an individual is
human beings from non-human animals is
born into the right type of state. Aristotle
our capacity for reason and a life that aims
argues that the state exists not for the purpose
only at satisfying bodily pleasures is one
of allowing people to live, but for the purpose
Aristotle claims is not fit for human beings
of allowing them to live well. And he also
but for cattle. And son, he argues yhay a good
claims that one aim of the legislators is to
life for a human being would focus to a
make use of the laws to help improve the
significant extent on contemplation and
character of individuals. Individual character
learning or acquiring the intellectual virtues.
develops along spectrum of worst to better, a
Aristotle associtates the intellectual virtues
spectrum that ranges from vicious to virtuous
with what we might identify as scientific
with incontinent and continent falling in
knowledge. Here, there are two kinds of
between. What connects all of these character
knowledge; knowledge of first principles or
states is that these individuals possess reason
fundamental truths of nature and knowledge
and know the difference between good and
that comes from inference or demonstration
bad behavior. The vicious man is the worst,
or what comes about as the result of applying
he derives pleasure from acting badly. The
these principles. But spending your life in
incontinent man is next, he inclined to act
contemplation alone is not enough. Aristotle
wrongly and gives in to these inclinations out
claims the person who lives a good life also
of weakness. And so while he has satisfied his
acts highly rightly and develops the
desires, he is dissatisfied with himself in the
appropriate state of character from which to
same way that we are dissatisfied with
perform those right actions. While the
ourselves when we look back on our own
intellectual virtues are acquired as a result of
moments of weakness. The continent man
learning, these character virtues, such as
possesses strength of will and unlike the
courage, temperance, and generosity, are
incontinent man, acts rightly even though he
acquired as the result of habituation and life
was inclined to do what was wrong. But he is
not fully satisfied either because he was not
able to satisfy his inclinations.
Aristotles virtuous man is able to satisfy both
his inclinations and his rational desires
because these two things are aligned. He
wants to do what is right and does it and as a
result derives pleasure from good behavior.
Aristotle argues that one function of the well-
ordered state is to help individual make this
progression from worst to better. Laws can
habituate people to perform the correct
actions. And so doing what tis right becomes
habit over time and individuals acquire an
affinity for this kind of good behavior. It is
for this reason Aristotle argues that a
legislator must possess the intellectual virtue
of Phronesis, which is connected to
understanding what constitutes virtuous and
vicious behavior and knowing how to direct
people to do what is right. So for Aristotle a
human lives well when he acts rightly and
possesses all of the virtues both intellectual
and those relating to good character. But
some elements of a good life are not
completely within a person's control.
The Good Life: Plato
When Socrates was speaking to the jury to
explain why he cannot stop what he was
doing and questioning people about what
they believe in why, Socrates says that he
cannot stop examining his own life because
the unexamined life is not worth living.
The statement provides tremendous insight
into his understanding as to what it means to
live a good life.
He is merely saying that the person who
wakes up in the morning and goes to work
and comes home, watch television and repeat
the same process in his entire life never really
reflects to what he or she is doing or what he
values and why, that, that life is not worth
living.
But for Socrates, doing philosophy is not
enough by itself in order to live a good life.
But what is also needed is that the individual
becomes a master of himself using his reason
to rein in his passions, as well as doing what
he can to promote the stability of his
community.
Plato’s Dialogue Republic
- Understood as a dialogue focusing on
virtue and role of philosophy,
community, and the state in helping to
create the conditions that made living
well possible.
BOOK II
Glaucon, one of his interlocutors in the
dialogue, pose a challenge to him and tells
the fable of the Ring of Gyges which, like the
One Ring in the Lord of Rings, has the power
to make its wearer invisible.
- He said that person who wears the
rings would be able to get anything
like power, money, or good
reputation.
The moral of the story seems to be that it is
not important to be just or rather merely
appear to be just.
His challenge to him: WHY MUST AN
INDIVIDUAL BE JUST OR TO LIVE A
GOOD LIFE?
- Isn’t it simply necessary for that
person to appear to be just?
In the remaining parts of the book….
Socrates attempts to address this
challenge. His solution is to see justice not
just as a political condition, but also as a
state of a person’s soul.
Understood politically, justice requires each
person in the city to mind his own business,
doing a job that has been allocated to him to
the best of his abilities.
Socrates claims that operating in this
manner will allow the city to thrive, which
was in everyone’s best interest.
When the boys object that one implication of
this position is that individuals or classes of
individuals will not be happy with this
arrangement. So, Socrates responded that he
is not concerned with the happiness of
particular or classes of individuals but rather
with the happiness of the city as a whole.
For Socrates, a well-ordered society
trumps individual freedom. He also sees it
as a state of individual’s SOUL.
- He compares the soul to a two-horse
chariot. One of these horses, which he
associates with a person’s appetites or
desires, is stubborn and must be
controlled. The other horse, with
associates with spiritedness, is noble
and can be used by reason, which he
associates with the charioteer, to help
control the stubborn horse. But if a
person doesn’t learn how reason can
make use of spiritedness in order to
reign in desire, then that person is just
as misdirected as the chariot
controlled by the stubborn horse.
When understood in this way, it seems
obvious to Socrates why being just, in
addition to participating in philosophical
investigation, is necessary in order to live a
good life.
The just person not only does his part in order
to maintain the stability of society and
community but is also in control of himself
and not ruled by his desires.
IS SOCRATES POSITION
REASONABLE?
- Being asked this, Socrates might
respond that freedom outside of a
well-ordered community or well-
ordered soul is simply lawlessness
 and this is inconsistent with any
conception of human well being and
what it means to live a good life.
What we see in the Socratic Dialogue, is a
conception of human well-being and the
good life that emphasizes both the
importance of rational reflection and an
individual doing his part to contribute to
the stability of the community as a whole.
Kant
For Kant the highest good for human being is
attaining both complete virtue and happiness
at the same time. But not only is there no
necessary connection between the two,
frequently it is the case that doing what is
right is in opposition to doing what would
make us happy. Of these two components of
the highest good. Kant’s focus in his moral
and political writings is on virtue and what
individuals must do to cultivate a virtuous
character.
For Kant, virtue is the strength possessed by
individuals to resist bodily inclinations and
do what is right simply because it is the right
thing to do.
This capacity for virtue is unique to human
beings, because human wills are affected, but
not determined, by bodily desires. This
characteristics places our wills between those
of non-rational animals, whose wills are
determined by bodily desires, and those of
divine beings, whose wills are determined by
reason.
Kant claims that the true vocation of human
reason is not to help us to become happy, but
rather to make us worthy of happiness by
assisting us in becoming virtuous.
Kant closely associates morality, reason, and
freedom. One necessary condition of morally
praiseworthy actions is that they are
performed freely. But here, Kant’s
understanding of freedom may be a bit
different than what we are used to. An
individual’s action is free if his own reason
generated the maxim, or principle, from
which that action was performed. That means
that if an individual was motivated by a
bodily desire, like hunger or lust, or he was
coerced or habituated into adopting certain
principles, then his actions are not free and he
would not be morally praiseworthy, even if
he did the right thing.
But to be morally praiseworthy, it is not
enough simply to adopt principles of action
freely. They must be the right principle or
ones that are consistent with the moral law.
Kant connects the moral law directly with
reason as well, and he argues that reason
dictates that individuals should “act only in
accordance with that maxim which you can at
the same time will that is can become a
universal law.”
This, for Kant, is the Categorical Imperative,
and all principles of action can be tested
against the categorical imperative to see if
they pass, are consistent with the demands of
morality and can be acted on, or fail, and
should be discarded.
The challenge for the virtuous person is two-
fold. Not only must he developed his reasons,
so that he can identify what principles are
consistent with the categorical imperative,
but he must also act on those appropriate
principles. Kant claims that his development
of reason comes about through education,
and as a result, can occur only for an
individual who is a member of a civil
community.
Living in civil society has the added benefit understanding of the highest good for human
of helping to secure the external conditions beings is connected to our nature of being
necessary for an individual to become both rational and sensible. Reason, which is
virtuous. An individual who lives in constant developed by living in civil society, allows us
fear of sudden and violent death, or is he both to generate the moral law and to
starving and does not know where his next determine which principles of the action are
meal will come from, cannot act virtuously, consistent with it. The strength to set aside
because he lacks the necessary degree of our desires and act on these principles comes
external freedom. After an individual has from within as well.within as well.
developed the appropriate degree of reason to
identify principles upon which he should act,
the last step is actually acting on those
principles.
Here, Kant introduces the concept of self-
respect argues that the motivation to act
appropriately must be internal, and claims
that the greatest punishment for bad behavior
is that an individual feels worthless and
contemptible in his own eyes.
The virtuous person, therefore, possesses the
strength and self-respect to not given in to
bodily inclinations, adopts good principle of
action freely, and then acts on these good
principles. But virtue is only half of the
highest good. The other half is happiness and
Kant’s religious writings give us insight into
how he believes an individual can hope to
become virtuous and happy, even though it
appears as if these two ends are in tension.
His solution is that attaining the highest good
is possible only if there is a supreme creator
who is able to guarantee the coexistence of
virtue and happiness. Since we ought to
realize the highest good, that we ought to
realize it implies that we can realize it, and
that we can realize it is possible only if God
exists and can unite virtue and happiness. It is
reasonable to have faith in the existence of
supreme creator.
Whether or not we buy Kant’s argument for
how virtue and happiness get united, his