Christian Allan G.

Lumakin Ethics, A2-3

Answer each question in no less than 100 words.

1. Is Aristotle correct to assume that a change of habit will result in a change of feeling?
What role does this conviction play in his moral philosophy?
- Yes, Aristotle is correct to assume that a change of habit will results in a change of
feeling because, if the person has this kind of habit but is unhappy then there is no moral
stature. If the person is happy with his habit, then there is moral virtue. This conviction
plays a role in moral virtue because a person who has a moral virtue exhibits the joint
excellence of reason and of character. That person knows what the good thing to do is,
therefore, has moral stature and not only just customs in one’s habit, thinking about
means to it, and choosing an action with reason.

2. Does Socrates provide a convincing account of justice in opposition to Thrasymachus'

position?
- Yes, Socrates thinks that justice is like any character virtue that benefits its holder.
According to Socrates, it is not that a person’s being benefits someone else but that
person’s being makes his/her life better. Justice is not what benefits the stronger
because rulers sometimes makes mistakes, and thus enacts laws that are not in their
own interests. Therasymachus’ argument is that might makes right, but Socrates denies
the argument by showing that as a ruler, the ruler’s chief interest ought to be the
interests of his subjects, just as a physician’s interest ought to be the welfare of his
patient. These arguments provide a convincing account of justice in opposition to
Thrasymachus’ position, but Thrasymachus is doubtful that the person will succeed
being so polite and innocent.

3. Can a hedonist consistently claim that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied?
- Yes, a hedonist can consistently claim that it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than
a satisfied pig, because a dissatisfied Socrates wants to achieve success, such as
development, new technology, ideas, promising thoughts, innovation and wisdom that
could make our lives easier and better to live. It accepts the foundation of morals,
promotes happiness and pursues higher pleasure. A satisfied pig is the reverse of
 happiness, just like an animal, it stays on who they are and what they are. They don’t
atleast try better and successful. A satisfied pig has a big body and stays in the mud,
which means that as long as their livelihood is met even at the least condition, they can
keep it that way, being lazy. The reverse of happiness that does not meet the Greatest
Happiness Principle.

4. What is the strongest argument in favor of utilitarianism? Does it work?

- The strongest argument in favor of utilitarianism is its ability to capture what
fundamentally matters. It is to believe that happiness is the aim of whatever we do.
Since happiness means intellectual and spiritual activities. It is by contrast the distinction
of doing versus allowing. Yes, it works because it advocates actions that foster
happiness and oppose actions that cause unhappiness and also it aims for the
betterment of society as a whole. Such as killing, if killing is normal then it would cause
harm to the society. There will be no unity and will be a mess if it continues, thus, it is
illegal and is banned for a number of people. However, it has limitations. Killing would be
normal if there is war since it aims for the betterment of society as a whole, protecting
your own nation against invaders is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number
of people, which also applies for the invaders. They invade for the greatest amount of
good for the greatest number of people.

5. Is utilitarianism a utopian doctrine?

- For me utopian doctrine could be closely related to utilitarianism, however, a utopia has
no limitations, no flaws, and it meets the Greatest Happiness Principle. In other words, it
is perfect and is the ideal place for an ideal person. On the other hand, utilitarianism has
flaws and limitations. It aims for the betterment of society as a whole, but in the world,
there are numbers of society. Every society advocates actions that foster happiness and
oppose actions that cause unhappiness. If these societies contradicts each other, how
would we know that theirs is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of
people? So for me utilitarianism is not exactly a utopian doctrine.