CHAPTER 6 – THEORIES OF SENSES OF SELF

LESSON 1 - SUBJECTIVISM
Lesson 1        Subjectivism

Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there.

 There are no objective moral facts. Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't

be objectively true
 Many forms of subjectivism go a bit further and teach that moral statements
describe how the speaker feels about a particular ethical issue.

 Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude the speaker holds
on a particular issue
 So, if I say "Lying is wrong", all I'm doing is telling you that I disapprove of telling
lies

·       Some forms of subjectivism generalize this idea to come up with:

 Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude normal human
beings hold on a particular issue

·       And this may ultimately lead us to this conclusion about moral truths:

 Moral judgements are dependent on the feelings and attitudes of the persons
who think about such things
 GOOD POINTS OF SUBJECTIVISM

 Reflects the subjective elements of morality

-       it reflects the close relationship between morality and people's feelings and
opinions - indeed it can cope with the contradictory moral views we often find ourselves
wrestling with

Reflects the evaluative elements of moral statements

-       moral statements in everyday life make judgements ("lying is wrong"), factual

statements ("cats have fur") don't
Shows that moral judgements communicate dis/approval

-       it reflects the communication of approval and disapproval that seems to go along
with the everyday making of moral statements

May clarify what people are arguing about

-       subjectivism may enable people disagreeing over the rightness or wrongness of

some issue to see that the real dispute is not about objective truth but about their own
preferences

Reflects the persuasive intentions behind ethical discussions

-       subjectivism may also enable people engaging in moral argument to realise that
they are not arguing about objective truths but trying to persuade their opponent to
adopt their point of view

Bad points of subjectivism

The problem with subjectivism is that it seems to imply that moral statements are less
significant than most people think they are - this may of course be true without
rendering moral statements insignificant.

"If I approve of something, it must be good"

·       Subjectivism seems to tell us that moral statements give information only about
what we feel about moral issues.

·       If the simplest form of subjectivism is true then when a person who genuinely
approves of telling lies says "telling lies is good" that moral statement is unarguably
true. It would only be untrue if the speaker didn't approve of telling lies.

·       So under this theory it seems that all the speaker has to do to prove that lying is
good is to show lots of evidence that they do indeed approve of lying - perhaps that they
tell lots of lies and feel good about it, indeed are surprised if anyone criticizes them for
being a liar, and that they often praise other people for telling lies.

·       Most people would find this way of approaching ethics somewhat unhelpful, and
wouldn't think it reflected the way in which most people talk about ethical issues.
 

Moral statements seem more than statements about feelings

-       By and large if a person says something is wrong, we usually get the message that
they disapprove of that something, but most of us probably think that the other person
is doing more than just telling us about their feelings.

How can we blame people if moral truths are always subjective?

-       If moral statements have no objective truth, then how can we blame people for
behaving in a way that 'is wrong', i.e. if "murder is wrong" has no objective truth, then
how can we justify punishing people for murder?

·       One answer is that we can justify punishment for murder on the basis of the
objective truth that most normal people in society disapprove of murder. If we do this,
we should not pretend that our justification is based on anything other than the
majority view.

TEACHER’S INSIGHT

Subjectivism is the doctrine that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of
our experience", instead of shared or communal, and that there is no external or objective
truth.
 
 

LESSON 2 - PYSCHOLOGICAL EGOISM

Lesson 2        Psychological Egoism

Psychological egoism - is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what
we perceive to be in our own self-interest.

Psychological altruism - on the other hand, is the view that sometimes we can have
ultimately altruistic motives. 

Suppose, for example, that Pam saves Jim from a burning office building.  What
ultimately motivated her to do this?  It would be odd to suggest that it’s ultimately her
own benefit that Pam is seeking.  After all, she’s risking her own life in the process.  But
the psychological egoist holds that Pam’s apparently altruistic act
is ultimately motivated by the goal to benefit herself, whether she is aware of this or
not.  Pam might have wanted to gain a good feeling from being a hero, or to avoid
social reprimand that would follow had she not helped Jim, or something along these
lines.

Several other egoistic views are related to, but distinct from psychological egoism.
Unlike ethical egoism, psychological egoism is merely an empirical claim about what
kinds of motives we have, not what they ought to be.  So, while the ethical egoist claims
that being self-interested in this way is moral, the psychological egoist merely holds that
this is how we are. Similarly, psychological egoism is not identical to what is often
called “psychological hedonism.” 

Psychological hedonism - restricts the range of self-interested motivations to only

pleasure and the avoidance of pain.  Thus, it is a specific version of psychological
egoism.

The story of psychological egoism is rather peculiar.  Though it is often discussed, it

hasn’t been explicitly held by many major figures in the history of philosophy. It is most
often attributed to only Thomas Hobbes (1651) and Jeremy Bentham (1781).  Most
philosophers explicitly reject the view, largely based on famous arguments from Joseph
Butler (1726).  Nevertheless, psychological egoism can be seen as a background
assumption of several other disciplines, such as psychology and economics.  Moreover,
some biologists have suggested that the thesis can be supported or rejected directly
based on evolutionary theory or work in sociobiology.

While psychological egoism is undoubtedly an empirical claim, there hasn’t always been
a substantial body of experimental data that bears on the debate. However, a great deal
of empirical work beginning in the late 20th century has largely filled the void. Evidence
from biology, neuroscience, and psychology has stimulated a lively interdisciplinary
dialogue. Regardless of whether or not the empirical evidence renders a decisive verdict
on the debate, it has certainly enriched discussion of the issue.

TEACHER’S INSIGHT

Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and
selfishness, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help
others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to
obtain, directly or indirectly, from so doing. This is a descriptive rather than normative view,
since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they ought to be. It is, however, related
to several other normative forms of egoism, such as ethical egoism and rational egoism.

LESSON 3 - ETHICAL EGOISM

Lesson 3       Ethical  Egoism

Ethical egoism - contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents
have an obligation to help others.

Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a

moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher
regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and
"the self" to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not
obligated to sacrifice one's own interests (as altruism does) to help others'
interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are
substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the
choice to do so.

 Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism
and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are
both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective).
However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial): it
does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as
being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others.

Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and
well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's
self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on
others. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded
or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the
agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest,
one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfilment
of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self. 

 
Ethical egoism is often used as the philosophical basis for support of right-
libertarianism and individualist anarchism. These are political positions based
partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from
exercising freedom of action.

TEACHER’S INSIGHT

Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their

own  self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in
their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from  rational egoism, which holds that it
is  rational  to act in one's self-interest.   Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose
consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense.
  
CHAPTER 7- ETHICS AND VIRTUE

LESSON 1 - ARISTOTLE PRINCIPLE

Lesson 1      Aristotle Principle

“Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of
human existence.” – Aristotle

          Aristotle is a philosopher from Stagira, he wrote a lot about topics of ranging
from logic, psychology, political science, biology, botany, rhetoric, government, physics,
geology, metaphysics, and poetry and so on.

          The most famous and through of Aristotle’s ethical works is his Nicomachean
Ethics. This work is an inquiry into the best life for human beings to live. The life of
human flourishing or happiness (eudaimonia) is the best life. It is important to note that
what we translate as “happiness” is quite different from Aristotle than it is for us. We
often consider happiness to be a mood or an emotion, but Aristotle considers it to be
an activity – a way of living one’s life. Thus, it is possible for one to have an overall
happy life, even if that life has its moments of sadness and pain. (Barnes, 1984)

TELOS/END

            Virtue ethics cannot be fully appreciated without talking Aristotle’s ethics. It was
Aristotle who said that we must cultivate virtues because they are the qualities that will
help the people to live well. His ethics is founded on the premise that man strives for an
ultimate goal – a Telos. He called this living well – Eudemonia – generally translated as
happiness, though when applied it refers more to flourishing of the human being. The
achievement of Eudemonia is the end goal of man and man acts towards this goal.
Aristotle would point out that moral philosophy should lead an individual to grow. It is a
virtuous person who will achieve this end. If one wants to be in the state of eudemonia,
one must be virtuous. However, virtue should also be partnered with
wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to see what is right and the ability to know when to apply
it. Thus, wisdom must always be present in the application of virtue.

          Examples of character virtues would be courage, temperance, liberality and

magnanimity. For example, the courageous person knows when to be courageous and
acts on that knowledge whenever it is appropriate to do. Each activity of any particular
character virtue has a related excessive or deficient action. The excess related courage,
for example is rashness and the deficiency is cowardice.

          Since excellence is rare, most people will tend more towards an excess or
deficiency than towards excellent action. Aristotle’s claim here is to aim for the
opposite of one’s typical tendency and that eventually this will lead one closer to
the excellence.

          Since the best life is a life of virtue and excellence, and since we are closer to
excellence, the more thoroughly we fulfill our function, the best life is the life
of  theoria or contemplation. For Aristotle, however the contemplation of unchanging
things is an activity of full of wonder. Seeking knowledge might be good, but it is done
for the sake of a greater end, namely having knowledge and contemplating what one
knows.

“It is easy to perform a good action, but not easy to acquire a settled habit of
performing such actions.” – Aristotle

          Virtue should be understood as being a habit. It should be something that has
shaped one’s character through constant and consistent virtuous act. In
his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle devised a standard of virtue which should be a mean
between two vices. Anything extreme can be considered as a vice. Thus, an act to be
considered as a virtue should be neither too much or too less. An example would be
courage. If one is too brave, then one might do some foolish acts that have not been
thought well. But if one does not have enough courage then one is cowardly and he
might not be able to do anything at all and will be prone to abuse. This is what Aristotle
calls, virtue of the mean.

TRIVIA!!!  The Nicomachean Ethics is dedicated to his son, Nicomacus who died in battle.

TEACHER’S INSIGHT

The development of virtuous character is best understood in the light of practical wisdom and
experiences. Mere theory will not give a good picture of what is the mean between two acts.
Virtue would also entail doing an act with the right degree and the right timing.
CHAPTER 8 – PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE
LESSON 1 - ARISTOTLE
Lesson 1      Aristotle

The Human Good and the Function Argument

The principal idea with which Aristotle begins is that there are differences of opinion about what
is best for human beings, and that to profit from ethical inquiry we must resolve this
disagreement. He insists that ethics is not a theoretical discipline: we are asking what the good
for human beings is not simply because we want to have knowledge, but because we will be
better able to achieve our good if we develop a fuller understanding of what it is to flourish. In
raising this question—what is the good?

Aristotle's search for the good is a search for the highest good, and he assumes that the highest
good, whatever it turns out to be, has three characteristics: 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's conclusion about the nature of happiness is in a sense uniquely his own. No other
writer or thinker had said precisely what he says about what it is to live well. But at the same
time his view is not too distant from a common idea. As he himself points out, one traditional
conception of happiness identifies it with virtue. Aristotle's theory should be construed as
a refinement of this position. He says, not that happiness is virtue, but that it is virtuous activity.
Living well consists in doing something, not just being in a certain state or condition. It consists
in those lifelong activities that actualize the virtues of the rational part of the soul.

LESSON 2 - ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Lesson 2      St. Thomas Aquinas

“We call this man a dumb ox, but his bellowing in doctrine will one day resound
throughout the world.” – Albertus Magnus in defense of Aquinas

            He was from a noble family in Naples and early in his life he decided to join the
Dominican order. Under the Dominican Order, he was mentored by Albertus
Magnus who defended him from those who made fun of him as a dumb ox because of
his size and his slow voice.

          The moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas involves a merger of at least two
apparently disparate traditions: Aristotelian eudemonism and Christian Theology. On
the other hand, Aquinas follows Aristotle in thinking that an act is good or bad
depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from our proper human end-
the telos or final goal at which all human actions aim. That telos or eudaimonia, or
happiness, where “happiness” is understood in terms of completion, perfection or well-
being. Achieving happiness, however, requires a range of intellectual and moral virtues
that enable us to understand the nature of happiness and motivate us to seek it in a
reliable and consistent way.

          NATURAL LAW. Aristotle had a strong influence in Aquinas’ philosophy though

Aristotle may be considered as Pagan. Aquinas respected Aristotle’s empirical teaching
and connected it with Christian teaching. For him, reality is composed of
the “natural” and the “revealed”.

Natural – the natural would be within the sphere of philosophy where one has to
observe first then make a conclusion.

          However, another part of the reality cannot be known to man unless it
is revealed.

Revealed – means that out knowledge will come from God’s revelation and that would
be within the sphere of faith – where it mandates believing first.

          Though they would come from different perspectives, these two should be
compatible and must conclude the same reality. On the other hand, Aquinas believes
that we can never achieve complete or final happiness in this life. For him, final
happiness consists in beatitude or supernatural union with God. For this reason, we not
only need the virtues but we also need God to transform our nature – to perfect or
“deify” it – so that we might be suited to participate in divine beatitude.
Moreover, Aquinas believes that we inherited a propensity to sin from our first
parent, Adam. While our nature is not wholly corrupted by sin, it is nevertheless
diminished by sin’s stain, as evidenced by the fact that our will are enmity with God’s.

          However, even though this beatitude is brought about supernaturally by the

power of God, it is not utterly foreign to human nature. In effect, the supernatural power
of God elevates or expands the powers of intellect and will to a kind of completion
beyond themselves and yet not foreign to them. So, this distinction of a “two-fold
happiness” should not be thought of as involving two fundamentally distinct goals or
ends of human life. The second supernatural happiness is seen as a kind of surpassing
perfection of the first.

THE CARDINAL NATURE VIRTUES:

·       PRUDENCE – intellectual virtue since it bears upon the goal of truth in the good
ordering of action

·       COURAGE – cardinal virtue that pertains to the resolve to act virtuously, especially
when it is most difficult. It is acting for the good, when it would be much easier not to
this time.

·       JUSTICE – virtue of the rational appetite or will.

·       TEMPERANCE - moderation or voluntary self-restraint. This includes restraint from

revenge by practicing non-violence and forgiveness, restraint from arrogance by
practicing humility and modesty, restraint from excesses such as extravagant luxury or
splurging by practicing prudence, and restraint from rage or craving by practicing
calmness and self-control

THE CARDINAL THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES:

·       FAITH - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual

apprehension rather than proof.

·       HOPE - a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen

·       LOVE - an intense feeling of deep affection.

MISERICORDIA – the virtue that pertains to suffering with others and acting to alleviate
their suffering. Thomas explicitly but unconvincingly claims that Aristotle recognized it.
And yet in the Summa Theologica he says that it is an effect of charity. In that case,
there is an acquired form of it and an infused form of it. As infused, it is informed by the
love of God and love of neighbor in God in which is beatitude.

CHARITY – is the love of God and neighbor in God. It resides in the will. Hope is the
desire for the difficult but attainable good of eternal happiness or beatitude. It too
resides in the will. Faith is intellectual assent to revealed supernatural truths that are not
evident in themselves or thorough demonstration from truths evident in themselves. So,
it resides in intellect. It is divided into believing that there is God and other truths
pertaining to that truth, believing God, and believing “in” God. The distinction between
the last two is subtle. It is one thing to say you believe in me. It is a different thing to say
you believe in me. The latter connotes the relation of your intellect to the will’s desire to
direct yourself to me in love. Thus, believing in God goes well beyond believing that
there is a God. It suggests the other theological virtues of Charity and Hope.

TEACHER’S INSIGHT

Thomas Aquinas broad account of virtues as excellences or perfections of the various human
powers formally echoes Aristotle, both with regard to the nature of a virtue and many specific
virtues. In beatitude and felicity, the fulfilment of intellect and will respectively, the virtues of
Faith and Hope fall away, and do not exist, for one now sees with the intellect what one believed
and has attained what one hoped for with the will. Only Charity abides.

LESSON 3 - EMMANUAL KANT

Lesson 3      Immanuel Kant

Towards the end of his most influential work, Critique of Pure Reason  (1781/1787),
Kant argues that all philosophy ultimately aims at answering these three questions:
“What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope?” The book appeared at the
beginning of the most productive period of his career, and by the end of his life Kant
had worked out systematic, revolutionary, and often profound answers to these
questions.

At the foundation of Kant’s system is the doctrine of “transcendental idealism,” which

emphasizes a distinction between what we can experience (the natural, observable
world) and what we cannot (“supersensible” objects such as God and the soul). Kant
argued that we can only have knowledge of things we can experience. Accordingly, in
answer to the question, “What can I know?” Kant replies that we can know the
natural, observable world, but we cannot, however, have answers to many of the
deepest questions of metaphysics.

Kant’s ethics are organized around the notion of a “categorical imperative,” which is

a universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in
others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for
everyone. Kant argued that the moral law is a truth of reason, and hence that all
rational creatures are bound by the same moral law. Thus, in answer to the question,
“What should I do?” Kant replies that we should act rationally, in accordance with a
universal moral law.

Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the
immortality of the soul. Although we cannot have knowledge of these things, reflection
on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind rational
faith. Thus, in answer to the question, “What may I hope?” Kant replies that we may
hope that our souls are immortal and that there really is a God who designed the
world in accordance with principles of justice.

In addition to these three focal points, Kant also made lasting contributions to nearly all
areas of philosophy. His aesthetic theory remains influential among art critics. His theory
of knowledge is required reading for many branches of analytic philosophy. The
cosmopolitanism behind his political theory colors discourse about globalization and
international relations. And some of his scientific contributions are even considered
intellectual precursors to several ideas in contemporary cosmology.

TEACHER’S INSIGHT

To act out of “good will” for Kant means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or “duty”. In
other words, the moral agent does a particular action not because of what it produces (its
consequences) in terms of human experience, but because he or she recognizes by reasoning that
it is morally the right thing to do and thus regards him or herself as having a moral duty or
obligation to do that action. In Kant’s terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are wholly
determined by moral demands or, as he often refers to this, Moral Law. Human beings inevitably
feel this law as a constraint on their natural desires, which is why such laws as applied to human
beings are imperatives and duties. A human will, in which the moral law is decisive and
motivated by the thought of duty.
  

IMMANUEL KANT ON RIGHTS:

Immanuel Kant examined the idea of human rights within politics in such a way that
it “is only a legitimate government that guarantees our natural right to freedom
and from this freedom, we derive other rights”.

From this basis, it can be assumed that Kant looks at the development, creation and
implementation of rights as primarily dependent on the state and how government
within the state functions.

As Kant teaches, these righteous laws” are founded upon three rational principles:

1.     The liberty of every member of the society as a man.

2.     The equality of every member of the society with every other, as a subject

3.     The independence of every member of the commonwealth as a citizen

Kant believes that these principles are necessary above all, not only for the founding of
“righteous laws” but for the state to function in the first place. This is so because without
the acceptance of the people a state would not exist therefore rights are necessary
within states to keep support of the people of the state.

TEACHER’S INSIGHT

Kant differs contrasts between right and virtue. He thinks both relate to freedom but in different
ways: right concerns outer freedom and virtue concerns inner freedom being master of one’s own
passions. Right concerns “act themselves” independent of the motive an agent may have for
performing them. Virtue concerns the “proper motive” for dutiful actions.