Print bookPrint book

PHIL103 Study Guide

Site: Saylor Academy
Course: PHIL103: Moral and Political Philosophy
Book: PHIL103 Study Guide
Printed by: Guest user
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2024, 6:04 PM

Table of contents

Navigating this Study Guide

Study Guide Structure

In this study guide, the sections in each unit (1a., 1b., etc.) are the learning outcomes of that unit. 

Beneath each learning outcome are:

  • questions for you to answer independently;
  • a brief summary of the learning outcome topic; and
  • and resources related to the learning outcome. 

At the end of each unit, there is also a list of suggested vocabulary words.

 

How to Use this Study Guide

  1. Review the entire course by reading the learning outcome summaries and suggested resources.
  2. Test your understanding of the course information by answering questions related to each unit learning outcome and defining and memorizing the vocabulary words at the end of each unit.

By clicking on the gear button on the top right of the screen, you can print the study guide. Then you can make notes, highlight, and underline as you work.

Through reviewing and completing the study guide, you should gain a deeper understanding of each learning outcome in the course and be better prepared for the final exam!

Unit 1: Murder, Morality, and the Value of Human Life

1a. Define ethics and moral philosophy

  • What are ethics and moral philosophy?
  • What are the differences between normative ethics, metaethics, and applied ethics?
  • What are virtue ethics, social contract theory, deontology, and utilitarianism?
  • What are the components of an ethical dilemma?

The word ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, which means custom or habit. Ethics describes the branch of philosophy that is concerned with morality, which is derived from the Latin word moralis, meaning custom. Many use ethics synonymously with morality, values, and moral philosophy.

The study of ethics reflects a systematic examination of our attitudes and beliefs about how people should treat others and act as members of their community. Today's philosophers and scholars continue to debate many of the same questions that preoccupied ancient ethical thinkers. Philosophers often incorporate the study of ethics within larger philosophical systems that include theories of knowledge, reality, aesthetics (the branch of philosophy that relates to the principles of beauty and art), and politics.

Prescriptive or normative ethics tell us how to act and be. This type of ethical reasoning is prescriptive and practical. It provides practical guides or norms by means of which we know how to act; it tells us what is right and wrong. Ethics is a prescriptive study insofar as we don't just do it as a matter of course. If we did, we wouldn't ask what we ought or should do. Normative questions include: "Is it ever ethical for me to lie?" and, "Do I have a duty to help the poor and those less fortunate than me?"

Metaethics is the study of morality and moral judgments. Metaethicists use descriptive and theoretical approaches to understanding the commitments and assumptions that underlie our thinking about morality and moral actions. In short, metaethics is concerned with uncovering the origin and nature of moral principles, moral attitudes, moral judgments, and moral properties. That is, metaethics is concerned with what it means to say that we should or ought to act the way a normative theory tells us we should.

Applied ethics examines controversial issues. For example, applied ethics applies normative and metaethical concepts to issues such as abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, stem-cell research, environmental issues, capital punishment, same-sex marriage, drug legalization, discrimination, and specific rights, such as animal rights.

Note that we will discuss different theories about ethics in the study guide that follows, including virtue ethics, social contract theory, deontology, and utilitarianism.

To review, see Ethical Systems.

 

1b. Apply a definition of ethics to moral and political concepts such as justice and others

  • How did Plato and Thomas Hobbes define justice?
  • What is social contract theory?
  • Is justice a political or moral concept, or both?
  • Does absolute justice exist, or does the state determine justice through the laws its passes?
  • How does Martin Luther King, Jr. define justice?
  • Is there an absolute justice or a natural law, which protects certain inherent rights of people?
  • What is necessity?
  • What is the difference between something we need and something we want?
  • Does necessity or need change our ethical principles when we make decisions? For example, is it okay to do things we need to survive that we might not otherwise consider morally or ethically permissible?

Philosophers define ethical concepts, such as justice, differently. For example, Plato (c. 423–348 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC), the Greek philosophers, defined justice as following the laws of the state, provided the city is structured in a way that creates "just" laws.

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1689), the English philosopher who wrote about social contract theory, defined justice as acting in a way that is within your power. Hobbes claimed that political leaders get to define what justice means, as long as they are strong or powerful enough to get away with it.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968), was an American Baptist minister and political activist, who promoted equal rights for African Americans during the civil rights movement from 1954 to 1968. He was assassinated in 1968 and is remembered for his ability to mobilize the American people to support civil rights, powerful speeches, and actions in favor of rights for all races. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated for change in peaceful, non-violent ways. One of his most influential writings is his Letter from the Birmingham City Jail.

Michael Sandel discusses how the shipmates Dudley and Stephens raised questions about whether it is ethical to change our moral principles or norms in cases of extreme need or necessity. Which type of ethics should philosophers use to answer this type of question? Are some people better equipped to answer questions about ethical dilemmas than others?

To review, see:

 

1c. Identify and describe the intrinsic value of philosophical investigation as an academic discipline

  • What is the intrinsic value of trying to understand ethical theories?
  • Do ethical theories have any connection to real life?
  • What does it mean to live an ethical or virtuous life?
  • Does Martin Luther King, Jr.'s letter suggest any real consequences for understanding abstract philosophical concepts?
  • What terms did King use that we might consider being philosophical or abstract? What importance did he give them in his letter?
  • How does understanding ethics and morality help us fix some specific problems today?

Ethical dilemmas are questions about what we should do in particular situations. Philosophers look for general principles about how we should make these decisions. For example, "Do not do anything that will harm other people". But what about situations where we only have two bad options and the best action may involve harming another person. Situations, such as war and the death penalty, raise questions about whether we should kill someone, given our options.

Ethics and philosophy seek to understand what principles are best for handling difficult situations and the implications of those principles. No matter how technical or abstract these disciplines may seem, they always relate questions about what we should do in a particular situation.

Plato and Aristotle, the Greek philosophers, examined what it means to live virtuously, or in ways that will promote human flourishing (eudaimonia) or living a good life. These thinkers considered the most important virtues to be wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. In the same manner, cultivating one's character includes learning to avoid vices, such as ignorance, cowardice (or brashness), intemperance, and injustice. Their theories about virtue focus on the development and state of one's character. So, rather than learn moral rules, the virtue theorist focuses on learning to become a moral person, to develop a virtuous character.

To review, see Major Ethical Systems, Virtue Ethics, and Letter from the Birmingham City Jail.

 

1d. Use the works of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Aquinas, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to compare and contrast theories of ethics

  • What are the two governances that Bentham says nature places humankind?
  • What is the principle of utility and the actions it refers to?
  • What did Bentham mean by utility?
  • What is consequentialism?
  • What is hedonism?
  • What did John Stuart Mill mean when he described a qualitative difference among different types of pleasures?
  • How do we know which pleasures are higher?
  • How did Mill illustrate the difference between higher and lower pleasures?
  • What does Mill say about Socrates, the pig, and the fool?
  • What is Mill's greatest happiness principle?
  • How do we determine what brings most people the most happiness? How do we count?
  • What if an action brings happiness to some, and pain to others? How do we decide?
  • What is monetized utilitarianism?
  • What is the difference between hedonistic and idealistic utilitarianism?
  • What is the difference between act and rule utilitarianism?
  • What is the difference between hard and soft utilitarianism?
  • According to Aquinas, what is the natural law and the eternal law?
  • Did Thomas Aquinas believe that the natural law is the same for everyone?
  • Did Aquinas believe that the natural law can change?
  • Did Aquinas believe that people can remove the natural law from their hearts?
  • How does Aquinas' concept of natural law differ from consequentialism?
  • What did Aquinas believe natural law is rooted in?
  • What are some different levels of precepts or commands in the natural law?
  • Why does Martin Luther King Jr. refer to Hitler in his letter?
  • What does King's reference indicate about legal and illegal actions?
  • How does this reference relate to King's conception of the moral law?

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), the English philosopher, was the first major philosopher to espouse the principle of utility and utilitarianism. He examined the moral consequences of our actions in addition to the intrinsic quality of the act. Bentham believed that the right thing to do, individually and collectively, is to maximize the balance of pleasure over pain, and happiness over suffering, to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. He stated that it is preferable to act in ways that uphold "the greatest benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness ... to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness".

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), also an English philosopher, and Jeremy Bentham were both utilitarians, but they had different ideas about the specifics of utilitarianism. We could describe Bentham as a hedonistic utilitarian, and John Stuart Mill as an idealistic utilitarian because Mill believed some pleasures are higher than others. In Chapter 2 of Utilitarianism, Mill describes a "difference of quality in pleasures".

In addition to the readings about utilitarianism in the section on Jeremy Bentham, review the following materials on John Stuart Mill. While Mill and Bentham did not use the following terms themselves, they may help you understand how we evaluate different pleasures. Consider these exercises as a guide to some important terminology.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the Italian priest and theologian, believed that natural law and eternal law (which are prescribed by God) go hand-in-hand. 

Aquinas writes in an unfamiliar format so you need to read carefully. First, he lays out the objections to his own beliefs. So, the first text you read is the opposite of what Aquinas believes (see the headings: Objection 1, 2, and 3). Next, he claims, "on the contrary", where he begins to present his argument against these objections, as if he is saying, "they have got it all wrong!" Finally, he responds to each objection one by one and offers his opinion on each issue.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham City Jail, which we introduced in 1b., above, is one of his most widely circulated and influential writings.

To review, see:

 

1e. Identify and describe central issues and branches in ethics, including moral intuition, reflective equilibrium, and utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology, and natural law

  • What is a primary concern of deontological theory or deontological ethics?
  • What two types of duties does Kant distinguish?
  • What are the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative?
  • What three keywords demonstrate how Kantian deontology can provide helpful guidelines for law enforcement?
  • What are moral intuition and reflective equilibrium?
  • Name some moral intuitions you consider to be fairly clear to right-thinking individuals. Do most people agree with you about these basic intuitions?
  • How do moral principles relate to moral intuitions?
  • What is the progress Rawls describes as reflective equilibrium?
  • How do we revise our moral principles in this process?
  • What is the veil of ignorance?
  • What two principles does John Rawls identify as being necessary for justice and fairness?

Consequentialism is an umbrella term that refers to several ethical theories that evaluate moral principles according to their consequences.

Utilitarianism is one specific form of consequentialism or consequentialist theory. Review utilitarianism and consequentialism in the sections about their founders, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, in learning outcome 1d. above.

Deontology, or ethical theories based on duty, focuses on our obligations. Derived from the Greek word, deon, duty dictates what we ought to do. Deontological ethical theories are focused on determining the principles we use to define our duties. We classify deontological ethical theories as non-consequentialist. That's because the morality of an action, in a deontological theory, is not determined by the consequences of that action, but whether or not the action was performed for the sake of duty.

John Rawls (1921–2002), the American moral and political philosopher, coined the theory of reflective equilibrium which suggests we should continually re-evaluate our moral principles, against our judgments and intuitions, to ensure our entire moral system is consistent.

Many associate Rawls' philosophy with Immanuel Kant, because Rawls also argued that we should follow certain rules absolutely, out of a sense of duty, just because they are right. Like Kant, Rawls believed we have a duty and obligation to follow these rules and principles.

To review, see Deontology, Rawls' Theory of Justice, and Reflective Equilibrium.

 

1f. Analyze how an ethical theory may influence policies in corporations and institutions and how an ethical theory may affect individual rights and liberties

  • What were the four steps to Martin Luther King Jr.'s program?
  • Did King express his disappointment about certain groups of people? Who in particular?
  • Why did King have to write such a long letter?
  • What was the advantage students at Karen Dillard College Prep had, and why it came about?
  • Was there something wrong with what happened?
  • What would a utilitarian have to say about this case?
  • Does utilitarianism provide the best framework to evaluate these actions ethically speaking?
  • Should the College Board have canceled the scores of the students who had an unfair advantage?
  • What happened in the Ford Pinto case? What was the topic of debate? What was the company's decision?
  • Did the Ford Motor Company make the right decision? Was it the best decision on utilitarian grounds? Are utilitarian grounds sufficient to weigh this decision?
  • Would a different kind of utilitarianism be a better approach?
  • What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of utilitarianism as an approach to business ethics?

In his Letter from a Birmingham City Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. says an oppressor never voluntarily gives freedom to the person or people they oppress. For this reason, King creates a plan for demanding freedom. He says the oppressed have to demand freedom for themselves, or it will never be granted. King proposes a four-step program the oppressed can use to make their demands heard.

To review, see Letter from Birmingham City Jail and Utilitarianism: The Greater Good.

 

Unit 1 Vocabulary

  • applied ethics
  • Aristotle
  • consequentialism
  • deontology
  • eternal law
  • ethical dilemmas
  • ethics
  • hedonistic utilitarian
  • human flourishing (eudaimonia) 
  • idealistic utilitarian
  • Immanuel Kant
  • intrinsic 
  • Jeremy Bentham
  • John Rawls
  • John Stuart Mill
  • justice
  • living a good life
  • Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • metaethics
  • moral philosophy
  • moral principles
  • morality
  • natural law
  • necessity
  • normative ethics
  • obligations
  • Plato
  • pleasures
  • prescriptive ethics
  • principle of utility
  • reflective equilibrium
  • rights
  • social contract theory
  • St. Thomas Aquinas
  • Thomas Hobbes
  • utilitarianism
  • values
  • virtue ethics 

Unit 2: Rights, the State, and the Free Market

2a. Define the concepts of citizenship and civil government as described by Plato

  • What is Plato's Theory of Forms?
  • How did Plato contrast things that are real from things that merely appear to be real?
  • Why do you believe Plato was correct or incorrect? Do some things seem real, but you find them merely ephemeral and passing when you think about them more closely?
  • What are some examples that exemplify Plato's point?
  • Why do you agree or disagree with Plato's belief that we judge other actions or things according to an ideal standard?
  • How many sections does Plato's divided line have?
  • What things did Plato put at the top? At the bottom? At each level in between?
  • Which things are most important? And by what ratio are they more important?
  • How does Plato define justice?
  • What is Socrates' view?
  • What does Thrasymachus say?
  • Who do you think is right?
  • If people know they can get away with doing wrong, will they do it?
  • Why should we live justly if we can get away with injustice?
  • Socrates wants to argue that even if we can get away with it, it is still better to live a just life. Do you think he can make a convincing argument for this point?
  • What are state, citizen, and citizenship?
  • How do these definitions relate to Plato's Theory of Forms?
  • What are the responsibilities a citizen has to the state?
  • What are the responsibilities the state has to its citizens?
  • What recourse does the citizen have if they want to opt out, or want a different state?
  • What are the divisions of the state and the three classes of people?
  • What are the virtues in human souls?
  • What are the three parts of the human soul?
  • How do the virtues in human souls relate to the divisions of the state and the classes of people?

Plato's Theory of Forms is probably his most influential idea. Plato explained that the things we see in front of us are not as "real" as we think. After all, these things disintegrate over time and can change like the wind. Living things die and physical objects pass away in time. However, the idea of these entities in their true essence never changes.

For example, although this chair may break, burn up, or be thrown away, the essence or form of "chairness" continues, and people continue to make chairs based on this pattern. Plato called this essence of "chairness" the form of the chair. Everything we think of patterns itself after a form. This includes concepts, such as justice, goodness, and the state.

Review the argument about the meaning of justice in Plato, the State, and the Soul. Pay careful attention to the sections, "What is Justice" and "The Privilege of Power". The next section, "Is Justice Better than Injustice?" discusses a ring a shepherd found which made him invisible (perhaps this sounds familiar – who knew this story was this old!). In Plato's story, the ring leads the shepherd to consider a life of crime. Why not? He could get away with it! This story in The Republic is at the beginning of Book II.

Many philosophers credit Plato for providing Thomas Hobbes with the foundation for the first version of his social contract theory. Hobbes's ideas offer a more modern description of state authority which says the state has authority because it embodies the will of the people. Together the people come together to agree, via a social contract, that they will live together according to certain rules. Our current views about democracy are rooted in this theory of the social contract. Note that we will review Hobbes's ideas in more detail in Unit 4.

To review, see The Republic, Theory of Forms, Plato's Republic, Socratic Citizenship: Plato, Crito, and Plato, the State, and the Soul.

 

2b. Explain the libertarian perspective on property rights and wealth as described by Robert Nozick

  • What is libertarianism?
  • What is redistributive taxation?
  • What is progressive taxation?
  • What do you think the role of taxation is in an ideal government?
  • What are liberal and liberalism according to Milton Friedman?
  • What are paternalism and collectivism?
  • What do paternalism and collectivism have to do with a theory of the state?
  • What are freedom, economic freedom, and political freedom?
  • Are economic freedom and political freedom related?
  • What narrow functions should a minimal state perform according to Robert Nozick?
  • Do you think his analogy, the "state as night-watchman", fits?
  • What did Nozick mean by entitlement theory? Which philosophers do you think influenced his theory the most?
  • What are anarchy and minarchist libertarianism?

The modern libertarian political movement is rooted in certain philosophical ideas about liberty, freedom, and the meaning of the state.

Milton Friedman (1912–2006), the American economist, espoused laissez-faire economics, an economic theory based on the principle of leaving things alone: the government should not get involved in regulating the economy, but allow things to take their course by promoting policies that support free trade and a free market economy.

Robert Nozick (1938–2002), the American philosopher, defended capitalism and libertarianism. In his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argued for a minimal state and described his theories about entitlement theory, anarchy, and minarchist libertarianism.

Nozick was not an anarchist – he supported the "night watchman" theory of the state, or minarchist libertarianism, which assigns a limited role to the state to protect property, such as from break-in, theft, and other harms.

Likewise, Nozick defended "entitlement theory", the belief that people are entitled to acquire and transfer their holdings, such as money or goods, but that the state does not have the right to force anyone to give up their holdings to benefit someone else, such as due to notions of distributive justice (which we review below), social good, or welfare.

To review, see:

 

2c. Explain the connection between property and labor described by John Locke

  • What were the three main philosophical ideals of the French Revolution, liberty, equality, and fraternity?
  • What kind of balance do these ideals set up according to John Locke? In other words, which two of these ideals are in tension with each other?
  • Where do the Europeans during this time period believe government gets its authority?
  • What was the relationship between property and government according to John Locke?
  • Describe Locke's thoughts on the state of nature, the first instance of social organization, and the basis for forming a government.
  • What are the characteristics of the state of nature according to John Locke?
  • If the state of nature is a state of liberty, does that mean there are no restrictions on my freedom? What restrictions would there be?
  • What is prescribed by the law of nature?
  • Who has the right to punish the offender?
  • What three things are missing in the state of nature?
  • What does Locke describe as the chief end of commonwealth in section 124?
  • What does John Locke mean by common to all men versus proper to his own person?
  • What things count as common?
  • What things are proper, or owned by one person?
  • What is it that makes something, which was once common, my own?
  • What is the role of labor and the meaning of enclosure?
  • What is the basis of a political society according to John Locke?
  • Why would someone want to join together into a society?
  • Once people have formed a community, what are its characteristics?
  • How closely and how firmly joined together are they who have formed a society?
  • What obligations does someone have to a society once it has been formed?

John Locke (1632–1704), the English philosopher, theorized that government was the manifestation of a general will or "consent of the governed" that allowed citizens to change their governors at will. His book, Treatises on Civil Government, influenced those who fought in the American revolution.

To review, see Second Treatise on Civil Government, Democratic Values: Liberty, Equality, Justice, Locke: Social Order, and Consenting Adults.

 

2d. Apply theories of freedom and distribution of wealth to specific situations

  • What is the importance of consent in today's society?
  • What was the importance of consent for John Locke?
  • What does Michael Sandel mean by pre-political?
  • How does taxation relate to consent according to John Locke?
  • How does taxation relate to freedom?
  • How does taxation relate to equality?
  • Should we impose taxes upon the rich for the good of the poor?
  • What would Robert Nozick think about using taxation for more equitable distribution? Would John Locke agree?
  • What concepts in Locke's Treatise would address this question?

John Locke said that the majority cannot violate an individual's unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The legislature does not have the authority to arbitrarily take an individual's property without their consent. However, he also says it costs a lot of money to run the government and everyone has an equal obligation to contribute. We own our property, according to the laws of the community. He justifies taxation by saying the majority, as a collective consent, can legitimately impose taxes in a way that is not arbitrary since everyone in the community is equally affected.

Robert Nozick argued that the state should play a minimal role in our lives, such as by serving as a night watchman, as we noted in learning outcome 2b. He believed it is okay for the state to tax citizens to pay for this minimalist role. He claimed that taxation is unfair because the state would be forcing citizens to contribute money they have worked hard for and earned to use for someone else's purposes.

To review, see This Land is My Land and Consenting Adults.

 

2e. Compare and contrast the theories of distributive justice and the economic principles of Plato, Locke, Nozick, and Milton Friedman

  • What functions should government perform according to Plato, John Locke, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman?
  • What are the responsibilities of citizens?
  • What are the rights of citizens?
  • What types of actions would be overstepping of the government's bounds, or overreaching of their responsibilities?
  • What job functions do you think the government should perform?
  • Should the rights of the individual citizen or rights of the state as a whole come first according to Nozick?
  • How can I preserve my rights without the state, which represents the whole community?
  • Would I be able to enjoy the same rights if there were no state or society? How would Locke respond to this question?
  • What responsibilities should individual citizens have toward their state agencies?
  • What responsibilities does the government have to provide for its citizens?
  • What role does private property have regarding these differing views of government?
  • Which of these thinkers reflects our ideals today, in your opinion?

Robert Nozick disagreed with John Rawls who argued that government should support distributive justice, the belief that principles of distribution should be equitable to everyone in the community. Nozick believed that the government's role should be minimal, and restricted to protecting property. He claimed that government should not correct economic inequality or disparities in distribution.

Nozick would have opposed the public assistance programs governments promote, such as healthcare, public education, public housing allowances, and unemployment. Current examples in the United States include Head Start, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

Plato argued that we owe our lives to the state. Locke argued that the state owes its existence to the consent of the governed. This may sound like a chicken and egg scenario (which came first?), but the difference is important because it helps us define our worldview.

The way we think about government and its responsibilities shapes how we think about its functions and our individual liberties. How do you think Locke, Nozick, and Plato would answer these questions? 

 

Unit 2 Vocabulary

  • anarchy
  • capitalism 
  • citizens
  • consent
  • consent of the governed
  • democracy
  • distributive justice
  • essence
  • entitlement theory
  • form 
  • freedom
  • free market economy
  • free trade
  • goodeness
  • John Locke
  • justice
  • laissez-faire economics
  • libertarianism
  • liberty
  • meaning of the state
  • Milton Friedman
  • minarchist libertarianism 
  • night watchman
  • Plato's Theory of Forms
  • property
  • Robert Nozick
  • social contract theory
  • state
  • taxation

Unit 3: Morality, Markets, and Immanuel Kant

3a. Explain the connection between moral behavior and economic pressures of the market, as in situations connected to parental rights and the sale of human organs

  • What are some examples of situations where money causes people to do things that are ethically questionable?
  • Which of these examples involve relinquishing individual rights?
  • Which examples involve taking away the rights of others?
  • Which examples involve giving up individual rights for money?
  • Which examples are morally acceptable, and which are unacceptable?
  • What are organ trafficking, organ trading, commercialization, and transplant tourism?

While American law is based on the idea that everyone has equal rights, wealthier individuals frequently have privileges less wealthy people cannot access. For example, everyone in the United States has the right to a fair trial, and those who cannot afford competent representation can obtain free access to a public defender. But many public defenders are overworked, underpaid, and have limited availability to research all aspects of a case due to an overwhelming caseload. Those who can afford to hire a more experienced and less time-constrained lawyer have a distinct advantage during a court trial.

In Hired Guns, Michael Sandel explores the difficulty of deciding what to do from a public policy standpoint when money influences matters that should, in principle, promote equal standing before the law. He studies two examples: conscription, when wealthy people hire others to serve for them in military conflict, and a couple that hires a woman to carry a baby for them.

These two examples point to a difficulty with free-market philosophies and libertarianism. What if I freely choose to relinquish some of my rights in exchange for money? What if you can afford to buy my legal rights? Do the market and the freedom of choice answer these questions?

To review, see Hired Guns, Michael Sandel on Markets and Morals, and Ethical Controversies in Organ Transplantation.

 

3b. Discuss the implication of Kantian ethics for decisions involving lying and buying and selling of goods and property

  • What did Immanuel Kant say about the good will?
  • In the fourth paragraph of the Groundwork, Kant contrasts a good will to the idea of utility. What does this mean?
  • How important are the consequences of our actions when determining morality? Or do you agree with Kant, that morality is about principles, not consequences?
  • How do utility and utilitarianism relate to what Kant said about a good will?
  • What are consequences, utilitarianism, duty, and deontology?
  • How do Immanuel Kant's ideas about morality affect the cases we discussed above – organ transplants and trafficking, military service, and surrogate birthing?
  • What do these cases suggest regarding consequences and duty, in terms of our ethical ideas?
  • Does your argument change if you remove all consideration of the consequences from these scenarios?

Immanuel Kant believed that issues of morality are completely separate from questions about the consequences of our actions. In other words, he opposed Bentham and utilitarianism. Utilitarians argue that we judge whether an action is moral or immoral, based on its consequences. But Kant says the consequences have nothing to do with morality. Our moral intention is more important.

We derive the term deontology from the Greek word for duty, deos. Deontological ethics is based on duty. Since Kant based his ethics solely on the concept of duty, or "doing the right thing", rather than consequences, his ethical theory provides the primary foundation for deontological ethics.

Michael Sandel notes that Kant claimed it is never morally right to lie. But what if someone who is trying to kill your friend asks you to tell them where they are? Are you morally obligated to tell a murderer the truth? If you believe you should not reveal your friend's location, does that mean you believe consequentialism is correct and that Kant and deontology are wrong? Explain the relationship between lying and consequences.

To review, see:

 

3c. Define the categorical imperative

  • What are the categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative?
  • How did Kant differentiate between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives?
  • What are Kant's concepts of the Formula of Universal Law, and Formula of Humanity as an End?
  • What claims about these categorical imperatives make sense and what claims do you think are correct from the standpoint of ethical reasoning?
  • Do you agree with Kant's formulas? Why or why not?
  • What is the good will according to Kant?
  • What is inclination?
  • Compare a duty with an inclination. What kinds of duties do we have?
  • How do we weigh the differences between our duties and our inclinations?
  • Explain what Kant meant by a maxim.
  • Explain what Kant meant by autonomy and heteronomy.
  • What does autonomy have to do with human dignity?

Kant claimed that morality is grounded on a single principle he called the categorical imperative. Understanding this principle and its foundation is fundamental to Kant's ethics. Kant offered a complicated argument for this principle, and philosophers continue to debate whether they find his argument conclusive.

In the second section of the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (the Groundwork), Kant argued that everything in nature works according to laws. This is also true for ethics, which have laws similar to the laws of nature. But human beings are free, so they are free to choose whether they want to act according to the laws of ethics or act according to their inclinations. The categorical imperative claims that ethics is about conformity to this objective moral law. Note that this is a long and difficult text, but see if you can find the locations of some of the themes discussed here.

To understand Kant's Formula of Universal Law, pay attention to his description of what makes an action moral. Kant argued that an action's consequences do not make it moral. Even if we are completely ineffective in our efforts to do good, the good will is praiseworthy in itself.

In other words, our intention is more important than the outcome. Kant uses the word, maxim, to identify the intention we use to guide our actions. A maxim is a principle we use to help us make decisions or direct our actions. For example, "I always put others first" or "Do whatever it takes to get ahead". People follow maxims to help them choose an appropriate action or response.

Kant's categorical imperative is about acting according to the right maxims. The morally correct maxims are those which accord with our duty, rather than our inclinations. Kant ultimately claimed that an action is morally correct, not only if it aligns with our duty, but if we do it for the sake of duty.

The maxim to do our duty, or do what is right, is the morally correct action. We not only have to act in the right way, we need to do so for the right reason. Kant's second formula is the Formula of Humanity as an End, which is sometimes referred to as the formula of human dignity.

Kant believed human beings are distinct and are important in a way that things are not. The reason human beings are so important is that we are rational beings and we are free to make choices. Plants have life, but they do not make choices or reason the way human beings do.

Philosophers frequently debate whether animals have the ability to think rationally and if the way they reason is similar to that of human beings. Kant believed that any being that has reason is a person and deserves a certain dignity. This dignity means a person is an end-in-themselves, and not merely a useful tool for some other purpose, or as Kant would describe it, "not merely a means to an end".

To review, see Mind your Motive, The Supreme Principle of Morality, and The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (the Groundwork).

 

3d. Apply the categorical imperative to specific decisions and situations

  • What duties might pertain to a person who is despondent and no longer wishes to live?
  • Kant categorized our duties as duties to oneself and duties to others. How would this belief illuminate this question? What did Kant say about this situation?
  • Kant also said we have a duty to develop our talents and reach our potential. Is this similar to the duties Kant points out regarding suicide?

In the second section of the Groundwork, Kant discussed four specific examples of duties. His first example considers a despondent man who no longer wishes to live.

Kant gives the four examples and comes back to analyze them after some discussion. Note what he says about suicide in that analysis. What does he mean by the idea of humanity as an end in itself? What does this imply for one's duty in that situation?

To review, see the Second Section of the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (the Groundwork).

 

3e. Compare and contrast Kant's ethical theory with libertarian political theory and utilitarian theory

  • How do you think Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick would respond to Kant's ethics?
  • Did they understand freedom in a different way than Kant?
  • How do libertarians and Kant conceive of freedom differently? Which do you think is a better description of freedom?
  • Why does Kant disagree with Jeremy Bentham's claim that pain and pleasure are our sovereign masters? Why is that important? Does it matter what master we follow?

Would deontology in Kant's view affect the way we think about economic markets and specific examples of the way the market affects an investor's moral choices? We discussed this above.

Review libertarian political theory and the views of Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick in learning outcome 2b in Unit 2 above.

Review Jeremy Bentham's claim in Mind your Motive.

 

Unit 3 Vocabulary

  • categorical imperative
  • consequences
  • deontology
  • deontological ethics
  • dignity
  • duty
  • end in itself
  • Formula of Humanity as an End
  • Formula of Universal Law
  • free-market philosophies
  • good will
  • immoral 
  • inclinations
  • libertarianism
  • maxim
  • moral
  • moral intention
  • privileges
  • rational beings
  • utilitarianism

Unit 4: John Rawls' Theory of Justice

4a: Explain Hobbes' description of the state of nature and its implications for human nature.

  • Why did Thomas Hobbes suggest that all human beings have equal abilities?
  • Do you think his analysis is convincing or does he ignore some relevant points?
  • Define what Hobbes meant by diffidence.
  • What did Hobbes mean when he suggested this equality leads to a diffidence that each of us has for other human beings?
  • List the three reasons Hobbes gave for why human beings quarrel with each other.
  • Do you agree with Hobbes' analysis of the state of war?
  • How does war function for Hobbes in relation to political theory and the social contract?
  • List three reasons why Hobbes believed human life in the state of war is undesirable.
  • What did Hobbes mean by a right of nature?
  • How did Hobbes define liberty? Why do you think Hobbes understood liberty in this way? How does this compare with other definitions of liberty we have discussed so far in this course, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., John Locke, the French revolutionaries, Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick?
  • What did Hobbes mean by a law of nature, generally speaking?
  • What did every human being have a right to according to Hobbes? What about your neighbor or colleague?
  • What is Hobbes' reasoning for this atypical description of rights?
  • What is Hobbes' First and Fundamental Law of Nature?
  • What is Hobbes' Second Law of Nature (which follows from the first)?
  • Why do we enter into a social contract according to Hobbes (your responses may overlap with some of your answers above)?
  • How are human beings different from bees and ants?
  • Hobbes believed we need to institute a central power due to these accounts. He said, "the only way to erect such a common power …" is what?
  • What did Hobbes mean by commonwealth? What did he mean by leviathan? Why did he choose this word for his ruler?
  • How much control did Hobbes believe individuals have to give up to the common central power? How is this similar or dissimilar to various governmental structures today?

Hobbes' concept of the social contract and his entire political philosophy begin with his description of the state of nature. Hobbes famously claimed that human beings are naturally in a state of war. In this natural condition our lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Hobbes' concept of diffidence refers to the anxiety people feel when they fear for their security or standing vis à vis another individual.

Hobbes described two fundamental laws of nature in the first five paragraphs of Chapter 14 of Leviathan:

"The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves".

Hobbes continues to list many more laws of nature in Chapter 15 of Leviathan, but he believed they all follow from these first two fundamental laws of nature.

While the idea of a social contract goes back to Plato, it is a common political idea in our modern political state. For example, many political theorists, including Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence adopted in 1776, base many of their ideas and arguments on John Locke. They emphasize the need for a social contract, with the idea that government is grounded in the consent of the governed.

When Thomas Hobbes wrote chapter 17 of the Leviathan in 1651, he also argued for a social contract with a king or other type of sovereign power that is grounded by a tacit agreement with all members of society. However, Hobbes' ruler was much more powerful than Jefferson's. The power of Hobbes' sovereign was much less restrained, and had fewer checks on his power, than the governments of more modern political theorists (such as the checks and balances the framers built into the U.S. Constitution).

To review, see:

 

4b. Compare and contrast Hobbes' and Locke's description of the state of nature and Rawls' original position and veil of ignorance concepts

  • Define John Rawls' original position of equality?
  • What did Rawls mean by justice as fairness?
  • Define the veil of ignorance according to Rawls and explain how it relates to his idea of the original position of equality?
  • What term in Rawls' discussion corresponds to the idea of the state of nature according to Hobbes and some other political theorists?
  • What are the two principles of justice according to Rawls?
  • How do these principles relate to his concept of the "veil of ignorance" and the "original position of equality"?
  • How would you compare the concept of the state of nature, according to Locke and Hobbes?
  • How would you compare the social contract, according to Locke and Hobbes?
  • How would you compare the violation of the social contract, according to Locke and Hobbes?
  • Can you explain the difference between these two attitudes toward justice?
  • How does this lead to a different conception of the role of the government in their political theories?

John Rawls (1921–2002) was a prominent contemporary American moral and political philosopher. He published A Theory of Justice, one of his most influential books, in 1971.

While Locke and Hobbes are both social contract theorists, their overall political philosophies are not at all similar. Note the different points of view Locke and Hobbes had in the sections, "the state of nature", "the social contract", and "violation of the social contract". Also, notice the different conceptions of justice listed under the role of the state.

To review, see A Theory of Justice and Locke versus Hobbes.

 

4c. Describe the concepts of fairness and justice as understood in social and political theory

  • What did John Rawls mean when he described justice as fairness?
  • How does Rawls' definition compare with other descriptions of justice we have considered in this course?
  • Can justice be unfair? What does it mean to describe justice this way?
  • What are some situations where you might apply fairness to justice?
  • Does fairness mean the same rules for everybody? Or should we consider the disadvantages some people have?
  • How does the idea of a starting point contribute to the idea of justice as fairness?
  • Would Hobbes think that Rawls' idea of fairness is relevant to the social contract? Why or why not?

John Rawls argued that utilitarianism was incompatible with the democratic values of freedom and equal rights, and created a theory of justice based on the idea of a social contract. He presented his concept of justice as fairness, the basis for a liberal and egalitarian society, in his book A Theory of Justice.

The first principle is that everyone in society should be granted equal rights and basic human liberties. The second principle places certain restrictions on social and economic inequalities: 1. everyone should receive equal opportunity to attain any position, and 2. any inequalities should grant the "greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society".

Rawls defended his arguments with a hypothetical, social contract-type thought experiment, which he called the original position, in which free, equal, rational, and unbiased individuals receive the opportunity to create the best possible society for themselves and everyone else. When given the choice, people living in the original position will choose to live in conditions of justice as fairness.

In A Theory of Justice, Rawls also introduced the concept of "reflective equilibrium" in which he argued that although people in the original position will choose to create a just society, we often need to step back to examine our commonly-held beliefs and assumptions about justice. In this way, we can achieve a "reflective equilibrium" in which all parties are satisfied.

To review, see A Theory of Justice.

 

4d: Differentiate among distributive, retributive, and restorative justice.

  • What are retributive justice and restorative justice?
  • What is the purpose of punishment and the relation between punishment and justice?
  • To what extent should reintegrating a wrongdoer into society be a priority for considerations of justice?
  • How do factors such as racism or police profiling influence responses to this question?
  • What are distributive justice and a distributive system?
  • How are economic benefits are distributed in modern capitalist societies?
  • Which examples would you say are rational? Are some irrational?
  • Which examples would you say are fair? Are some unfair?
  • Can you name some adaptations that would make the system of distribution fairer? Why or why not?

One way to think about the difference between retributive justice and restorative justice is that retributive justice focuses on the criminal's guilt and isolates them from society. Restorative justice focuses instead on restitution, leading to reinstatement and harmonious reintegration of the criminal into society. Restorative justice includes the characteristics of responsibility, self-involvement, damage repair, restitution, and early prevention.

To review, see Restorative Justice, The Restorative Justice System: An Alternative to the Official Criminal System, and What Do We Deserve?.

 

4e. Apply the concepts of justice to case examples like affirmative action and racial profiling

Income Inequality

  • What is income inequality?
  • Which era of modern American history is the current level of income inequality frequently compared to?
  • What events tend to precipitate the widening of income inequality?
  • What percentage of the wealth in the United States do the top 20 percent of earners own? The bottom 20 percent of earners?
  • Is this study of the widening income gap in the United States relevant to questions of justice, and distributive justice in particular? Why or why not?
  • What role do matters of race, gender, or privilege play in the question of income and distribution? Does this raise issues of justice?

To review, see U.S. Income Inequality Highest Since the Great Depression.

Affirmative Action

  • What is affirmative action?
  • Who was Cheryl Hopwood and what matter did she bring before the court? How did the court rule? (Hint: see the Grutter vs. Bollinger case)
  • What do you think of Hopwood's case and the court ruling? What do you think about affirmative action? Does it amount to racial discrimination?
  • Does affirmative action help redress a historical system of racial discrimination? What is the best way to move forward in our society today?

To review, see Cheryl J. Hopwood vs. State of Texas and Grutter vs. Bollinger.

Racial Profiling

  • What is racial profiling?
  • How does racial profiling relate to reputation?
  • How are reputations shaped or prefigured by race or by other external factors?
  • How does the theory of racial equality differ from the practice surrounding police activity, criminal activity, and racial profiling?
  • What practical suggestions might you make to find a just solution to the practical situations which police and judges face?
  • How do the three U.S. Supreme court decisions, Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Brown vs. Board of Education, tell a story about the development of social justice in the United States?
  • Do you believe this progression regarding race relations in the United States is complete? In what ways is it still incomplete?
  • How do you think these cases relate to Buntman's article regarding racial profiling?
  • In his article on racial profiling, what does the author Richard Chapell mean by moral progress?
  • Do you believe moral progress has occurred? What are some arguments that support it and some arguments that disavow the idea that our society has made moral progress during the past 100 years?
  • What is Chapell referring to when he describes the logic of generalization?
  • How does the logic of generalization apply to Chappell's evaluation of racial profiling?
  • What kinds of generalization would make sense and what kinds would not? What kinds might include racism or injustice?

To review, see:

 

Unit 4 Vocabulary

  • democratic values 
  • diffidence
  • egalitarian 
  • John Rawls
  • justice 
  • justice as fairness
  • liberal
  • original position 
  • restorative justice
  • retributive justice
  • social contract
  • state of nature
  • state of war

Unit 5: Ethics and Politics of Virtue

5a: Describe Aristotle's concepts of merit and justice.

  • What were Aristotle's concepts of the mean and virtue?
  • What was Aristotle's concept of justice?
  • What is the relationship between virtue and justice according to Aristotle?
  • What is the relationship between the concepts of virtue, distributive justice, and moral dessert in your society?
  • What is the relationship between these concepts according to Aristotle?
  • Do you think people today would consider Aristotle's views on these concepts to be different and a bit strange?
  • What type of people would "get the best flutes" in today's society?
  • Who should get the best flutes according to Aristotle?
  • Which response do you think is better?
  • What are some other ways society could use to determine who should get the best flutes?
  • What are telos and teleological reasoning?

As we noted in Unit 1, Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, believed that someone who leads a virtuous life creates happiness and human flourishing (eudaimonia). Our goal, end, or purpose as human beings is to live a good life.

What does it mean to live a good life? Leading a good life involves developing a virtuous character through education and practice, and by cultivating habits that come to engender elements of virtue. Virtue is a form of excellence that enables us to perform our function well.

Aristotle's doctrine of the mean consists of three pillars that work together to form a complete account.

First, a person who leads a good life lives in a sort of equilibrium, or balanced state. They may exhibit extremes or overreact to situations, but they are able to maintain composure. The second pillar states we should strive for a mean that is relative to us. For example, a gallon of water may be excessive for a small plant, but deficient for a tree. The mean will depend on the individual. The third pillar is that each virtue falls between two vices. One vice is on either end (excess or deficiency) and the virtue is in the middle.

Aristotle's concept of the mean (which some call the "golden mean") refers to the desirable middle ground between two extremes: one of excess and the other of deficiency. As we discussed in Unit 1, Aristotle and Plato considered the most important virtues to be wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Cultivating one's character includes learning to avoid vices, such as ignorance, cowardice (or brashness), intemperance, and injustice.

In his lecture, Sandel uses the example of the way society distributes the best flutes among different types of musicians. You can substitute other objects of value to consider different types of examples.

To review, see The Good Citizen, Book One of Politics, and What's the Purpose?.

 

5b. Explain Aristotle's connection between virtuous behavior and state policies

  • How does Aristotle define natural desire, natural ruler, and natural slave?
  • Do these things exist and do you agree or disagree with Aristotle's definitions?
  • How does Aristotle define family, village, and state?
  • Describe the key distinctions among these organizations according to Aristotle.
  • Describe how Aristotle's concept of the state relates to virtue and to ethics.
  • What are paternalistic laws?
  • What is the role of the state with respect to paternalistic laws according to Aristotle? What about for your state in today's climate? Which role is better? Why do you think so?
  • What is the purpose or telos of a human being according to Aristotle? Do you agree with Aristotle's characterization of a human being?
  • What does Aristotle mean by citizen?
  • Which communities that Aristotle examines in Chapter 1 would need to be governed?
  • What are some of the differences between these communities?
  • How do these characteristics help Aristotle define the role of a citizen?
  • Describe the relationship between the virtue of a good citizen and the virtue of a good man, according to Aristotle. Are they the same?
  • Can a state be good if it is comprised of bad people according to Aristotle?
  • Can the good citizen be good at making laws and good at obeying them, according to Aristotle? How do you think this applies to a modern democracy?

How you define citizenship provides an important foundation for how you define the meaning and purpose of the state. Aristotle described his concept of virtue in his famous work, Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle spells out his idea that moral virtue is a matter of habit in sections 1-3 of Book II. Good legislators should instill good habits in the citizens they govern, but they first need to know what it means to live virtuously to help citizens develop their virtues.

To review, see The Good Citizen, Aristotle's Politics, and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

 

5c. Compare and contrast Aristotle, Kant, and MacIntyre on the concepts of freedom and community membership

  • How does Kant disagree with Aristotle's regarding the purpose of the state?
  • What would Kant say the state cannot decide?
  • How are Alasdair MacIntyre's beliefs similar, and different, from Aristotle's?
  • Do you agree with MacIntyre's belief that we should discuss virtue ethics in the 21st century?

Michael Sandel differentiates Aristotle from the modern theorists we have discussed in this course: Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick who support libertarian rights, and Immanuel Kant and John Rawls who support egalitarian rights. Why do these modern thinkers believe that justice is not a matter of rewarding or honoring virtue, merit, or your moral and just desserts? (see below).

What is justice about according to Aristotle? Remarkably, Aristotle disagrees with all of these thinkers on this point. It is just to discriminate according to the relevant grounds of merit, moral desserts, or what the recipient deserves in terms of the relevant level of excellence. You have to consider the goal, the purpose, the end, or the telos of the item under consideration.

Michael Sandel says that Kant thinks Aristotle made a mistake. Kant and Rawls believed that it would be a form of coercion to base laws or principles of justice on any one particular conception of the good life – that would violate individual freedom. Kant believed the purpose of the law is to set up a fair framework of rights where people can determine the good for themselves. "Freedom is the capacity to act autonomously". Nietzsche would have agreed with this sentiment.

Alasdair MacIntyre (1929– ), the Scottish philosopher, supported virtue ethics in a quasi-Aristotelian sense but took it to another level. He discussed his concept of the narrative conception of the self in which human beings are storytelling creatures. We cannot seek the good or virtues as individuals, since we are part of our historical community.

"I inherit from the past of my family, my tribe, my city, my nation a variety of inheritances, debts, expectations, and obligations."

MacIntyre disagreed with contemporary liberals and individualists who believed our only responsibility pertains to who we choose to be, and the responsibilities we choose to assume.

For example, individualists believe we are not responsible for the actions of our parents and our community. MacIntyre and other communitarians argued that we cannot separate ourselves from our community's history. We have certain duties, loyalties, or obligations that are due in accordance with our membership to, and solidarity with, a certain group.

To review, see:

 

5d. Describe the philosophical arguments for and against major political issues, like accessibility accommodations for persons with disabilities, patriotism, and same-sex marriage

  • Do you think Casey Martin should be permitted to use a golf cart, given his disability?
  • Would this accommodation be fair to the other golfers, if they are not permitted to use a cart?
  • Would this accommodation defy the purpose or essential nature of the sport?
  • Can you extend this discussion to our understanding of justice, and distributive justice?
  • What are patriotism and nationalism? What is the difference?
  • Do citizens have a certain obligation or duty to their state, to demonstrate patriotism and nationalism?
  • What aspects of patriotism are positive, and what aspects might become negative characteristics?
  • How does this debate relate to Aristotle's beliefs about purpose, the state, and leading a good life?
  • To what degree is the state responsible, required, or permitted to define the good life on issues such as same-sex marriage?
  • How would Aristotle, Kant, and Rawls respond to this question?

Casey Martin was a professional golfer and coach. He suffered from a birth defect in one leg that hampered his ability to walk. In 2001 he sued the PGA over the right to use a golf cart under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Michael Sandel uses the Casey Martin story to argue why he believes Aristotle would disagree with the Supreme Court ruling because the requested accommodation would compromise the essential nature or telos of the sport of golf (which includes walking the course).

Sandal asks that if Aristotle's view of justice is about fitting people into certain social roles, and matching virtues with the appropriate honors and recognition, what role does teleological thinking leave for freedom? How does society's determination about what I should do (my purpose), leave me regarding my ability or freedom to choose my role and my purpose for myself? Kant and Rawls would argue that teleological theories of justice threaten the equal basic rights of citizens. Because people disagree about the nature of a good life, we shouldn't try to base justice on our answer to that question.

Sandel summarizes, "Much modern political theory takes that worry about a disagreement over the good as its starting point, and concludes that justice, and rights, and constitutions should not be based on any particular conception of the good or the purposes of political life, but should instead provide a framework of rights that leaves people free to choose their conceptions of the good, their own conceptions of the purposes of life".

The Supreme Court Case, Lawrence vs. Texas, which concerned the issue of same-sex marriage, provides an example of a recent debate about society's understanding of marriage, and its purpose or telos as a social institution.

To review, see:

 

5e. Explain the issue of cultural relativism and whether or not there can be an absolute moral standard applied to all cultures

  • Define cultural relativism.
  • What is Friedrich Nietzsche's most famous quote? How does it relate to cultural relativism?
  • Define cultural ethics. Can cultural ethics and absolute standards exist or are they mutually exclusive?
  • What does Nietzsche's eternal return of the same mean? What does it have to do with ethics and with cultural relativism?

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1800), the German philosopher, helped shape the idea of cultural relativism, a philosophical concept that contradicts Plato and Aristotle's view that an ideal or perfect understanding of everything exists and that we should act according to that ideal notion.

Nietzsche argued that our cultural background colors how we perceive things. For example, Nietzsche explored how our society determines what is good or bad when he examined the genealogy, or the origins, of how our morality is constructed. He said that we can go back in history and find examples of how the actions we now consider to be right, just, or noble, were once regarded as evil.

In the same way, Iván Szelényi says "tell me what you think is evil and I'll go back in history and I will show you instances of what you think is evil was actually admired and was seen as ethical". We need to critique our moral values and create our own thoughts about morality rather than simply accept what we have been told (Nietzsche is a strong critic of the church in this regard). Nietzsche said, "We are unknown to ourselves, we knowers and with good reason. We have never looked at ourselves".

in his 1887 book, The Gay Science, Nietzsche tells the story of a madman who proclaims that European society has killed the Christian notion of God and that "God is Dead" in favor of science, nature, and humanity. By killing God, people can now take steps to overcome dogma, superstition, intolerance, conformity, and fear provided they do not find a new slave master to enter into a new type of slavery.

In the same book, Nietzsche asked what we would do if we had to live our lives over and over again, "once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence".

Nietzsche suggested we should live our lives as if there is no Christian afterlife as if we will have to live with the consequences of our choices and actions over and over, regardless of whether we will receive an eternal reward, or get to heaven according to Christian doctrine. We should not act altruistically and with kindness simply because doing so will get us to heaven. We should act morally because we determine it is the right thing to do. This thought experiment is called the eternal return (or reoccurrence) of the same.

To review, see Nietzsche on Power, Knowledge, and Morality and Theories Responding to the Challenge of Cultural Relativism.

 

5f. Compare and contrast Nietzsche and Sartre on the existentialist concepts of freedom and responsibility

  • Why does Nietzsche describe Christian ethics as passive and subservient?
  • How has Christianity influenced our attitudes about ethics?
  • What does Nietzsche mean by will to power?
  • What does Nietzsche mean by a noble soul?
  • How are Nietzsche's ideas about morality similar and different from Aristotle and MacIntyre's virtue ethics?
  • What is existentialism?
  • What characterizes modern man more than anything else according to Jean-Paul Sartre? How does the answer to this question relate to existentialism?
  • What does Sartre's suggestion that existence precedes essence mean? Why is it especially pertinent for human beings?
  • What does the ethics of absolute freedom mean in Section IV of the lecture? How does it relate to Sartre's existentialism?
  • What are some similarities and differences between Nietzsche's and Jean-Paul Sartre's ideas about morality?
  • What is an existentialist? Are Nietzsche and Sartre both existentialists?
  • How do Nietzsche and Sartre differ from Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Rawls?
  • Do you think Nietzsche and Sartre help us describe moral and political theory? Or do they point us in the wrong direction?

Nietzsche wanted to find a middle ground between the repressive, prescriptive doctrine of Judeo-Christianity morality, and nihilism, which describes a world that lacks meaning, value, and purpose.

The death of God results in nihilism, but Nietzsche introduced the three metamorphoses in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Human beings can transform themselves from a camel (an obedient soul that carries and comes to resent its burdens) to a lion (a free spirit who is free from the past, tradition, and authority), to a child who wills its own will, knows the joy of life, and enjoys the innocence of perpetual creation. This spiritual transformation characterizes Nietzsche's vision of a flourishing life.

Nietzsche's will to power referred to the human desire to assert domination or mastery over others, oneself, or the environment. The will to power, as Nietzsche described, can be beneficial or hurtful and refers to a certain ambition, endeavor to achieve, or striving for excellence. For example, a philosopher or scientist directs their will to power to find the truth, an artist channels a will to create, and a businessman works to become rich.

In The Gay Science, Nietzsche writes, that a noble soul has reverence for itself. He writes, "But that the passion which seizes the noble man is a peculiarity, without his knowing that it is so; the use of a rare and singular measuring-rod, almost a frenzy; the feeling of heat in things which feel cold to all other persons; a divining of values for which scales have not yet been invented; a sacrificing on altars which are consecrated to an unknown God; a bravery without the desire for honour; a self-sufficiency which has superabundance, and impairs to men and things. Hitherto, therefore, it has been the rare in man, and the unconsciousness of this rareness, that has made men noble". (GS 55)

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), the French philosopher and playwright, is often associated with the term existentialism. He argued that, contrary to Aristotle's belief, humanity does not have a predefined essence or nature, so people must decide for themselves what it means to exist. In this way, existence precedes (or comes before or supersedes) essence. In other words, existentialists do not believe that human beings possess an inherent essence, nature, identity, or value. Individuals, through their consciousness, create their own values and determine their own life's meaning. Human beings are free to choose their own course. They cannot blame their environment, circumstance, or chance for their successes and failures. Rather their actions and choices make them who they are.

To review, see Nietzsche on Power, Knowledge, and Morality and The Ethics of Absolute Freedom.

 

Unit 5 Vocabulary

  • Alasdair MacIntyre
  • Aristotle's concept of the mean
  • Aristotle's doctrine of the mean
  • citizenship 
  • communitarians
  • cultural relativism
  • deficiency
  • eternal return (or reoccurrence) of the same
  • excess
  • existence precedes essence
  • existentialism
  • Friedrich Nietzsche
  • genealogy
  • God is Dead
  • individualists
  • Jean–Paul Sartre
  • justice
  • matter of habit
  • merit
  • moral desserts 
  • moral virtue 
  • narrative conception of the self
  • nature
  • nihilism
  • noble soul
  • purpose
  • state 
  • teleological thinking
  • telos
  • vices 
  • virtue
  • virtuous character
  • virtuous life
  • will to power