Buluran, Ma. Carmela Francez D.

Midterms ETHICS

1. For Socrates, virtue is good and is a kind of knowledge. With this, he started his arguments by
stating in that virtue is good. To support this, Socrates claims that “If then there is anything
else good that is different and separate from knowledge, virtue might well not be a kind of
knowledge”. I interpret this to mean that if good is a subset knowledge, then virtue is a kind
of knowledge. He then follows this by examining how virtue is good in order to show that is a
kind of knowledge.

Basically, Socrates believe or argues that virtue being good is knowledge and by doing good
or knowing what is good or mostly for being able to discern and separate the good from the
bad, you are knowledgeable. Virtue is indeed all about grasping clearly what is good and
why it is good, and somehow this grasp, when truly solid, is efficacious. Somehow the
unjust soul truly is unhealthy in a way that no one could wish to be and that calls for more
compassion than for vengeance. Grappling with the claim that virtue is knowledge, then, is
a first step towards clarity, inasmuch as it reveals the diverse and contradictory opinions
that we thoughtlessly hold.

Socrates establishes that bodily goods and qualities of the soul cannot be harmful or
beneficial in and of themselves. Firstly, he states that since virtue is good, and all good things
are beneficial; therefore, virtue is beneficial. Giving examples of things that are beneficial,
Socrates lists bodily goods such as health, strength, beauty and wealth. Despite their ability to
benefit us, Socrates illustrates that these things also have the capability of harming us.

2. There were many dissents about the concept of reason and man himself, leading to the
consciousness that man has reason that urges him to choose whether he wants to do good
or bad. The “Medieval period” or the “Middle Ages” gave rise to the Latin West way of
thinking wherein the belief that “The Divine Law is the Universal law” according to St.
Augustine. That “law” and “order” is synonymous. From further readings, I came up with
the realization that law really is harsh that it imposes among men to comply with the
existing laws. Thus, it always requires him coercively to be good despite having his own
will, which is not synonymous to his wants. Consequently, the law is obeyed not because he
wanted to obey it, dissimilar with respect.

The natural way of man to follow the rule would mean respect, on the other hand, if a man
is therefore forced to just comply or obey the law, he might neglect his reason. Thus, a man
may neglect the law in a way he wants. For an instance, if a man voluntary obeys the law, he
might do good all the time because he is not required by such. The mere fact that man has
his choices, he can do things out of his choice to act in a way he prefers.
 To recall St. Augustine’s thought which says “But because we are rational beings, or
creations with reason, it becomes a discretion for humans to do good, to choose to be good
and always practice that which is good. However, there might be forces that can trigger
man to choose evil rather than the “good” he is expected to do. From the Stoics along with
the philosophy of Augustine, “All in all, human beings it is up to us to be responsible for the
actions that are done day ion day out. For instance, if a person takes a piece of paper and
throws it on running water, the paper is washed away by water. The person who did it is to
be blamed since he or she is the one who initialized the activity and then nature took its
course.”

In this case, the man who initiated the act will always be blamed because anyway a piece of
paper cannot throw itself away, it was just there in a still position when a man grabbed it
and threw it away causing the paper to be washed or vanished. It only clearly points out
that, whether or not you choose to be good or evil, both ways will affect others will come up
with due result. The more a man is free the less he is under the law, thus, whether a man is
aware and in observance of the law, he can still choose to violate because of his freedom.
Human as we are, even church people commit violations and or crimes. Despite the defense
and the universal truth that man is endowed with reasons, he always tries to deviate from
reason out of the fact that he is likewise innately evil.

3. Camus depicts freedom as the culmination of a particular relationship with life, while
Sartre uses Nausea in order to contend that freedom is inherent to mankind. When viewed
in the context of his philosophical essays, it becomes apparent that Sartre’s conception of
freedom is that of an innate characteristic that exists within man.

For Sartre, anguish arises as a result of the fact that man is separated from his past and his
future by a nothingness, and that regardless of the convictions he has espoused in the past,
he still retains the ability to alter his behavior: for a man who has previously decided to
cease gambling, “anguish is precisely the total inefficacy of the past resolution”, as the man
must continually reaffirm his prior convictions in order to prevent himself from gambling.

On the other hand, Albert Camus expresses his view that freedom cannot be quantified in a
metaphysical sense as “free will”, as such this freedom is contingent upon knowledge of
other metaphysical truths, such as the existence of God.

The embodiment of the concept of the absurd man, can only achieve a measure of freedom
through a recognition and acceptance of the absurdity of existence, and the subsequent
rejection of the overarching tablets of morality that confine the behavior of human
beings. In contrast, Sartre’s existentialism is deeply rooted in the notion that freedom, or
free will, is an intrinsic component of the human being-for-itself that cannot be eradicated