Lecture on Aristotle & Virtue, Kant & Morals
Basics of Ancient World Cosmology:
Before
getting into Aristotle and his understanding of the virtuous person, it
is important to understand the world view of the ancient world. Many
ancient cultures (including the Babylonians, the Persians, the
Egyptians, the Indians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, and even
the Hawaiians) have a very similar cosmology. Cosmology is the term used
to cover the ancient study of the world, which included physics,
psychology, biology, medicine, philosophy, religion and most areas of
study all together as a single study by the educated and the wise.
The
world was thought to be like a big person (making the individual person
a microcosm or mini-cosmos within the larger cosmos or world). The
elements, including fire, air, earth and water stacked from lightest on
the top (fire and air) to heaviest on the bottom (earth and water). This
was not only observed in nature (star fire above, winds next, then
earth above water) but also in humans (the mind is fire and visions of
light, which heats and activates the breath in speech like orders and
commands, and the water in the lower regions and functions of the body
which often was identified with chaos). Order and reason were identified
with the higher elements (fire and air, mind and breath) and chaos and
desire were identified with the lower elements (earth and water, flesh
and fluid). When the stack of elements is in order the cosmos and the
individual are in order, and when the stack of elements are out of order
the cosmos and individual are out of order. The higher elements were
believed to be eternal just as the cosmos itself and Being are eternal,
and the lower elements were believed to be temporary like the
individuals and beings are temporary.
One
can find in religion and philosophy in ancient cultures (including
Christianity, Buddhism, Indian Philosophy, Greek Philosophy and Chinese
Philosophy) the same message repeated again and again: reason and the
mind must be placed above and in charge of desire and the body. The
eternal way of things is to be placed above the temporary ways and
wants. This gains the individual wisdom, reason and insight into the
workings of the cosmos. When the lower elements are in charge, there is
ignorance and destruction. This framework is important for understanding
each individual system of ancient thought as well as their overall
similarities and differences.
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Plato’s
student and the tutor of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy, Aristotle is
one of the most famous and influential of Greek philosophers. He was
primarily interested in biology and speciation, but his works on the
soul (mind, self), Logic, Ethics and politics became more important than
his works on the animal kingdom. He was a central influence on the
origins of Christianity, Islamic thought and European thought in the
middle ages. While he is sometimes called the first scientist and the
first logician, his views on these subjects expanded ancient world
cosmology and were not the birth of these subjects. Aristotle has been
claimed by the West as a founder, but the Islamic world also considers
him one of their own and he is depicted in different ways depending on
who does the illustrating (see the beautiful Islamic image in the
Wikipedia article that portrays him as a very dark skinned holy sage for
an interesting counter to Renaissance paintings).
Aristotle’s
conception of virtue and human purpose is entirely in line with ancient
world cosmology. He believes that everything has a single purpose for
which it is intended. It is as if the cosmos, Being itself, is a big
mind that creates things for particular uses, and individual beings
thrive if they are serving their purposes (ergon in the Greek, or
“work”, “job”). We are reasonable to the degree that we see the purposes
of things, serve our own natural purpose and use things in accord with
their natural purposes. This is known as the teleological view, as the
study of purpose is called teleology. Notice that teleology is very big
with more traditional people today (including evangelical Christians)
but modern Philosophy and Science have broken from this view and find it
quite antiquated.
For
Aristotle, having oneself in the proper stack and order is being in
accord with one’s nature, and this means putting theory and
soul/intellect on top and putting each lower element of our minds and
bodies in the service of the highest part of the mind, the intellect,
which corresponds to the highest good of the cosmos itself. Just as the
intellect should be pursued because it is the best and highest part, the
good itself should be pursued simply in itself and for no other
purpose. This is similar to Kant and Moral theory, but absolutely at
odds with Mill and consequentialism which believe that good is the end
of things but would not say that intellect should be pursued in itself
without regards to the consequences and practical ends. Aristotle does
believe that the human individual will naturally flourish and be happy
if they are stacked up right and in accord with the human purpose of
intellectual activity, but this is secondary and the byproduct of
serving ones purpose.
Similarly,
in matters of politics, Aristotle believes that the city is not
primarily a living arrangement but rather for producing the elite and
the virtuous. Thus, the city is not for making people happy but having
each individual do their natural job. Just like his teacher Plato argues
in his Republic, Aristotle argues that each person must have one thing
they do best and it is therefore best for them to do that thing and that
one thing only. Unfortunately, both Plato and Aristotle argued that
slaves and peasants are meant to serve the aristocracy and women are
clearly meant to serve men (Mill will strongly criticize these views,
one of the first and few outspoken critics of the subjugation of slaves
and women).
Consider
the example of lying. The moralist would say that lying is wrong in and
of itself, like Kant argues that lying goes against our reason by
categorical necessity. The consequentialist would say that lying has bad
consequences and results in pain and unhappiness. The virtue theorist,
however, would argue that the purpose of the mind and human being is
truth in and of itself and so lying is not in accord with righteous and
propper human nature.
Modern Virtue Theory
While
Aristotle’s virtue ethics and teleological theory were popular in the
middle ages in Europe, there was a decline during the 1700s and 1800s as
science rose to prominence and questioned teleology. Kant’s laws and
Mill’s consequences became the dueling positions of ethics. Recently,
however, there has been a revival of virtue theory that rose along with
increasing individualism and criticism of positivistic conceptions of
science. If we become critical of the idea that there are simple laws
that can be known, it opens a space for a return to the idea of the
virtuous person beyond airtight moral laws or the complete calculation
of consequences.
However,
if we do not believe that things have simple and singular purposes just
as we have grown critical of laws and calculation, virtue ethics has a
problem: what virtues should the virtuous person have? Often these
virtues are mental: intellect, wisdom, reason, and understanding. This
has been neglectful of the physical body (the home of the physical
brain, of course). Another issue that has come to light is the
interpersonal aspect of virtue. Virtue has typically been described as
personal, but the individual is naturally social (curiously Aristotle
argues this when justifying his political views of the city and its
proper organization). Confucius, one of the great moral geniuses of the
world, has a very interpersonal view of ethics and thus we will consider
his views next under the concept of balance (such as the balance of
self and other).
As a final note, consider Jain (the ancient Indian forerunner of Buddhism) anti-merit theory:
In
Hinduism and Buddhism, karma can be positive (merit and blessing) or
negative (demerit and sin). Thus, karma can either help you up or drag
you down. For Jains, karma is ALWAYS NEGATIVE, always weight that keeps
you down, always division or blockage between you and the ALL. Thus, one
tries best to avoid accumulating karma and to destroy the karma one has
already accumulated. Jains are famous for their doctrine of the
negativity of karma and the radical nonviolence that follows from this
principle. Jains wear masks to prevent insects from flying in their
mouths, sweep the ground to avoid killing insects (even though the
killing would be unintentional, it would still be an accumulation of
karma), influenced other Indian thought in promoting vegetarianism, and
even don’t eat root vegetables as it kills (up-roots) the whole plant
rather than that plucked from the plant. Thus, any accumulation of
virtue or merit is distinguishing and distancing oneself from the whole.
Sharing much with ancient cosmology and Aristotle, Jains would argue
that the purpose of the individual is to join the whole without
distinction and therefore we should work to LOSE merit and karma, not
gain it.
Kant, Principles & Morals
Kant
(1724-1804) was the European philosopher who argued for always
following morals and laws universally. His position is opposed by Mill,
who believed that morals are only in the service of getting good
consequences. This is one of the biggest oppositions of perspectives in
ethics. Should we create morals and laws and always stick to them, or
should we do whatever results in the best consequences?
As
Europe rose in the 1600s and 1700s, science had begun discovering many
new truths about the world. This created an opposition between
rationalists who believed that the world has absolute laws that we can
know certainly by reason and empiricists who believed that we can only
assume what we know and that the rules our reason finds could be wrong.
One of the most famous empiricists was Hume, who argued that one can
only assume that one billiard ball causes the other billiard ball to
move.
Kant
was "awoken from his dogmatic slumbers" by Hume. Kant wanted to balance
empiricism with rationalism, but he comes down on the rationalist side.
In all knowledge, including ethics, Kant believed we must use our
reason to figure out the universal laws of our rational and ordered
universe. Notice that Kant, as a rationalist, trusts that the world and
the mind are reasonable and that there are universal laws out there for
us to grasp.
The
central example we will consider is the moral "Do Not Lie". Kant
believed that one should never lie, and our reason can show us this with
certainty. He argued that one is seeking unconditional and universal
laws in ethics (as well as every area of human knowledge), which Kant
also calls categorical imperatives, and so one should only act in a way
that one could expect everyone to always act everywhere at any time. If
everyone lied all the time, then society would collapse. Therefore, Kant
argued, it is one's duty to not lie and hold to this moral and law.
Consider
the "guy with the butcher knife" thought experiment. Let us say you are
at home, and the doorbell rings. You answer it, and your friend runs in
looking afraid. A minute later the doorbell rings again, you answer it,
and a scary guy with a butcher knife asks you where your friend is.
Kant would allow one to shut the door and say nothing, but Kant would
argue that it is wrong to lie to the scary guy and say you don't know or
that your friend took off down the street the other way. Even though we
can assume that if you lie it would improve your friend's chances of
living, Kant would argue that this would be wrong. We can contrast this
with the position of Mill and utilitarianism, which would argue that in
some circumstances the lie is the lesser of two evils and one should
behave in accord with the ends of ones actions rather than stick rigidly
to morals and laws.
An
interesting issue here is that rationalists and positivists like Kant
believe that one should anchor ethics in good beginnings while
empiricists and skeptics believe one should anchor ethics in good ends.
Kant believes that one must start with good intentions and principles no
matter the consequences, while Mill believes that one should aim at the
best consequences no matter the principles or intentions one has. As
usual, both sides agree that one should have good intentions, principles
and consequences, but they come down on opposite sides when arguing for
what is really the essence or importance of the matter.
We
will come to Mill's position in the coming weeks. Another contrary
position to both Kant and Mill is Nietzsche, who we will also hear from
soon. Nietzsche does not trust human reason, so he trusts neither Kant
nor Mill. Nietzsche argues that people who believe they know the true
morals and people who say they know what led to the best consequences
for everyone are capable of deceiving themselves and thinking they know
what is best for everyone.
Lecture on Mill and Utilitarianism
The
last class focused on ethical concepts that focus on the beginning or
cause of an action rather than the end or consequence (with the possible
exception of balance, which suggests a medium of the two). Today, we
focus on consequentialism and its foremost school, Utilitarianism.
Thus, I had you read the first two chapters of John Stuart Mill’s
Utilitarianism. In this work, Mill argues that we should always look at
our actions and ask if the consequences are ethical (do good/make
people happy and reduce harm/pain). He specifically mentions Kant as
wrong about principle and mentions virtue ethics as well, claiming that
these two conceptions ignore how we use principle and virtue for
happiness and reduction of harm by taking each as a good in itself out
of context.
Mill notes: if you call it Utilitarianism, people think it is dry and boring.
If you call it Principle of Happiness or Pleasure first, people think its decadent.
This is why people called Epicurus decadent.
Brief Tradition of Consequentialism (included in Mill’s own text)
Epicurus (340-270 BCE)
Greek
philosopher who believed that happiness was the most important thing,
and all virtues, purposes and ends are subordinate to it. From him we
get the word ‘Epicurean’
as in ‘Gourmet’, one who appreciates the finer more pleasant tastes of
things. As Mill notes, Epicurus was attacked as a glutton in his time,
but he actually had a taste for thought, civilization, and what Mill
calls the ‘higher virtues’, mental pleasures in giving to others rather
than physical selfish pleasures of drinking every night. Mill argues
that Epicurus took the long view just as he did, so his opponents are
wrong to call happy principle people “swine”.
Jeremy Bentham (1750-1830 CE)
The first to come up with Utilitarianism, but Mill gave it the name.
Bentham believed in max happiness, while Mill complimented this with min pain.
Bentham
also believed that simple and common pleasures are just as good as
sophisticated, saying the common plays are just as good as fine opera.
Mill
rejected this, believing that fine society was of a higher happiness
than common culture, as mental pleasure is superior to physical, as
selfless pleasures (giving to others) makes one happier than selfish
pleasures (receiving from others).
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873 CE)
Born in London, Mill was influenced by Ancient Greek, French, and liberal thought.
His
father wrote a history of India, and Mill was for a time involved with
his father in the British East India company, the corporation that
helped Britain maintain their hold over India. Mill’s family was
friends with the Bentham family, from whom Mill took up his
consequentialist, ‘happy principle’ thought. However, it was Mill who
found the name ‘utilitarian’ in a Christian text talking about how evil
it was to fall into it rather than believe in the principle as good, and
he added the name and developed the thinking, becoming its famous
spokesman.
Mill is a central thinker in Logic, Economics and Ethics.
His
liberal social thought is his most famous. He argued for equal rights
for all, the end to the subjugation of women and slavery.
Mill’s text: Utilitarianism
Mill’s
harm principle as the principle to end principles, putting all focus on
harmful consequences. This is not simply ease or expediency in
limited personal vision, but the long view over time of what makes
people happy and saves them from pain.
Notice:
Mill completely agrees with Kant, we need a test for principles and an
overall principle to serve as this text. For Kant, this test is ‘can it
always be followed?’, while for Mill the test is ‘does following the
principle make people happy as a consequence?’. Both come up with a
supreme principle. Thus, for Kant, one should never lie because the
principle is most important as beginning or all good action, while for
Mill, one should never lie as long as this has good consequences because
this is the most important as end of all good action.
Kant says: Always follow principle, and you will likely be happy.
Mill says: Always follow happiness (self and others), and you will likely be principled.
Both
also come up with a pure ‘good in itself’: Kant’s is intention (the
good-in-itself beginning of an act) and Mill’s is happiness (the
good-in-itself end of an act). Both say that it is impossible to argue
for this good-in-itself, but it simply shows itself in us.
We
can see two sides to the Utilitarian Principle, maximizing positive and
minimizing negative. Bentham says: Always act to maximize happiness.
Mill agrees, but says the MOST important thing is to minimize the
negative (at least, this is what scholars concur in reading his writings
and comparing them to Bentham’s today). Thus, we see the whole
principle is ‘max happy and min pain’, but one can lean either way on
it. There are times when maximum happiness can cause much pain
(majority over the minority, which Mill speaks about vs. Bentham), and
there are times when minimum pain hurts maximum happiness
(overprotective parenting, insurance issues, have to break some eggs
etc).
Mill
admits that there will be continuous problems whichever way we use the
principle, but we are evolving in a positive direction slowly and we
should stick to the Utilitarian view even when there are problems if we truly (and he thinks we do) desire good consequences basically as human beings.
Attacks on Utilitarianism:
Mill addresses many of these directly in the text.
Interesting Paradox/Problem for Utilitarianism: the Good of the Bad as Example
Mill
notes this, as do other modern writers on Utilitarianism noting as Mill
does that this is a common attack against the Utilitarian principle as
ethical conception/system. COMPARE: PBS documentaries all the time on
slavery and the US overcoming slavery as freedom and our view as
Americans of the type of place South Africa is. COMPARE: Prosecuting
Attorney arguing that someone is a habitual criminal so latest normal
behavior is prime for relapse vs. Defense Attorney pointing at the same
evidence as reform and pulling one’s life together as normal from bad
upbringing and environment. Dennett uses three mile island as ex: this
caused good nuclear standards to follow, so we could say as a
utilitarian that the catastrophe was just as good as people simply
coming up with the standards without the disaster. Consider that we
love villains who go from good to bad and heroes who go from bad to
good. We can very easily see bad as good and good as bad. The attack
on Utilitarianism says that it is prone to confusing bad with good
especially compared to systems of principles or rights that are given,
not based on their consequences
Marx
attacks Utilitarianism with a common argument today: guess who are the
ones to tell you what is useful or makes us happy? Yes: the upper
class, who use the lower class as labor. Obviously, it is the task
master or overseer and not the worker who gets to say who is useful in
their place and how happy the system is overall.
Mill
in fact approves of war to advance civilization, and he approves of
colonialism as improving the uncivilized. Marx and us could criticize
him for this short sightedness.
HOWEVER,
Mill was a champion against the enslavement of Black people and the
second class status of women. He was an early champion of both, so this
is mixed.
He writes, in 1850 on ‘The Negro Question’ words I love:
“It
is curious, withal, that the earliest known civilization was, we have
the strongest reason to believe, a negro civilization. The original
Egyptians are inferred, from the evidence of their sculptures, to have
been a negro race: it was from negroes, therefore, that the Greeks
learnt their first lessons in civilization; and to the records and
traditions of these negroes did the Greek Philosophers to the very end
of their career resort (I do not say with much fruit) as a treasury of
mysterious wisdom.”
Defense against anti-environment challenge:
Many could say that ‘use’ and ‘happy’ can easily lead to how we abuse the environment.
More
relevant today, Mill loved deep forests and argued that wilderness was
necessary in the long view of use and happiness. We will read on
wilderness for environmental week. This poses us an interesting
question: when utilitarianism asks us to take the long view, how long a
view can we take? If we pollute the earth and ignore it for hundreds of
years, our long view can still be too short.
