ethics argument paper 1
Thought Problem #1: You're out and about in a large city (back when we could do this) and a panhandler approaches you for some spare change. How do you react, and why? What would cause you to react differently?
Thought Problem #2: You are out and about again, and you see a stranger being threatened with physical violence by another stranger. How do you react, and why? What would cause you to react differently?
The above thought problems refer to Aristotle's ethics, in general, not necessarily to what's going on in Book I. Aristotle is the key figure in virtue ethics. You'll see more explanation of this in your reading and in the links below. But keep in mind that Aristotle saw ethics this way:
Everything, including people, has a natural end--a final cause (telos)-- that is meant to be achieved. A ship is built for traveling on the water. When it travels on the water, it fulfills its end. An acorn is meant to be a tree. When it becomes a tree it fulfills its end. And a person is meant to be happy--but happy in the sense of living the right way and being the kind of person one should be. When a person becomes and stays this way, generally through the principle of the mean, the person has achieved her/his end.
I want to talk about philanthropy first because philanthropy usually involves utilitarianism--what is the best outcome for my investment of donated money or time? Or deontology--what are my obligations to others, especially if my organization requires service hours? But Aristotle says (as you'll soon see) in his Nicomachean Ethics that we need to find the mean between being stingy and being a spendthrift and become properly charitable people, regardless of outcome or duty.
Virtue ethics is less popular, even exceptional, in approaches to philanthropy, and some even distinguish between philanthropy (focused on societal changes) and charity (focused on immediate giving without as much concern with outcomes). Pope Francis once offered an example of philanthropy--or charity--as virtue ethics when he said to just be a giver without concern with how the money would be used: https://nyti.ms/2lG2OBl
Sometimes, when studying philosophy, it's fun and helpful to check out Crash Course in Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ And sometimes it's helpful to check out Carneades.org (but perhaps less fun because the narrator is always shouting): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNCBhI8T7Kg
Book 1
Chapter 3: As Aristotle is describing his careful method of inquiry, he aims to “look in each area for only that degree of accuracy that the nature of the subject permits.” He then offers a couple of examples of going outside proper disciplines to other, unhelpful disciplines, including, “demanding logical proofs from a rhetorician” (1094b). As one who has studied rhetoric, I wrote “ouch!” in the margin, but his point is that logic is the internal working out of issues (also called dialectic and generally symbolized by the closed hand) while rhetoric is the delivery of whatever has been worked out (generally symbolized by the open hand). In his work Rhetoric, Aristotle says that rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic (logic), so they’re not the same thing.
Chapter 4: Being happy is equivalent to living well and acting well. Arguing from first principles—these principles are the generally undisputed (but certainly disputed in real life) starting points of deliberation. There are ideas that are widely accepted, the “belief that something is the case, and if this is sufficiently clear, [one] will not need to reason why as well” (1095b—near the end of the chapter). Take this argument: We should be polite to our campus visitors because we want to be treated politely when we visit other campuses. Claim: We should be polite to our campus visitors Reason: because we want to be treated politely when we visit other campuses Unstated assumption or first principle: We should treat others as we want to be treated.
Although I listed it last, the unstated assumption is the starting point. A different unstated assumption—for example, that people should be true to their school—would yield a different reason. The starting point guides the actions.
In Chapter 6 (1096a) , Aristotle shows the shortcomings of Plato’s Forms, particularly of universality. What we need to take away from this part is that there are two kinds of good— something inherently good and something good as an end to something else that’s inherently good. In Chapter 7 (1097a,b) he says what is inherently good is complete. There is only one end that’s complete, and what it is we will discover when we’ve read this book.
Chapter 9 (1099b) begins to address the issue of where happiness comes from: learning? habituation? the gods? chance? We will see that he argues for the first two: we observe what virtuous people while they are being virtuous, and after learning it, we do it enough that it is internalized.
Chapter 13: Happiness is an activity of the soul. In this chapter, Aristotle (1102b) describes three parts of the soul, and they are essentially the three kinds of life he describes in other books: vegetative: takes in nutrition. animal: takes in nutrition and has feeling/desires human: takes in nutrition, has feeling/desires, can reason
What we’ll see is that Aristotle consistently advocates reason as a basis for virtue.