Lecture 16

Lecture 16 From Kant to Aristotle

Plan for today

I

Kant: Review and critique

Plan for today

I I

Kant: Review and critique Aristotle: wellbeing and the good

Kant - Review and critique

Review

I

Morality is a source of requirements which are unconditional

Review

I I

Morality is a source of requirements which are unconditional So, Kant derives morality from a categorical imperative.

Review

I I I

Morality is a source of requirements which are unconditional So, Kant derives morality from a categorical imperative. It has several formulations, including these:

Review

I I I

Morality is a source of requirements which are unconditional So, Kant derives morality from a categorical imperative. It has several formulations, including these: I

The Formula of the Universal Law (FUL)

Review

I I I

Morality is a source of requirements which are unconditional So, Kant derives morality from a categorical imperative. It has several formulations, including these: I

The Formula of the Universal Law (FUL) I

Act in such a way that you could will the principle of your action to be universal law.

Review

I I I

Morality is a source of requirements which are unconditional So, Kant derives morality from a categorical imperative. It has several formulations, including these: I

The Formula of the Universal Law (FUL) I

I

Act in such a way that you could will the principle of your action to be universal law.

The Formula of the End in Itself (FEI)

Review

I I I

Morality is a source of requirements which are unconditional So, Kant derives morality from a categorical imperative. It has several formulations, including these: I

The Formula of the Universal Law (FUL) I

I

Act in such a way that you could will the principle of your action to be universal law.

The Formula of the End in Itself (FEI) I

Treat the humanity in people never merely as a means, but always as an end.

Clarifying the FEI, 1

I

What is this means/end distinction?

Clarifying the FEI, 1

I

What is this means/end distinction? I

a means is something done for the sake of an end

Clarifying the FEI, 1

I

What is this means/end distinction? I

a means is something done for the sake of an end I

the end makes the means worth doing

Clarifying the FEI, 1

I

What is this means/end distinction? I

a means is something done for the sake of an end I I

the end makes the means worth doing thus the means derives value from the end

Clarifying the FEI, 1

I

What is this means/end distinction? I

a means is something done for the sake of an end I I

I

the end makes the means worth doing thus the means derives value from the end

How does the means/end distinction figure in the FEI?

Clarifying the FEI, 1

I

What is this means/end distinction? I

a means is something done for the sake of an end I I

I

the end makes the means worth doing thus the means derives value from the end

How does the means/end distinction figure in the FEI? I

a mere means is something whose value derives entirely from something else

Clarifying the FEI, 1

I

What is this means/end distinction? I

a means is something done for the sake of an end I I

I

the end makes the means worth doing thus the means derives value from the end

How does the means/end distinction figure in the FEI? I

I

a mere means is something whose value derives entirely from something else an end-in-itself is something whose value derives not at all from anything else

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts:

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

I

Regarding 1:

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

I

Regarding 1: I

Humanity is the source of intrinsic value

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

I

Regarding 1: I I

Humanity is the source of intrinsic value So, when you do A for the sake of B, and B for the sake of C, etc., this chain comes to an end with a source of intrinsic value, and that end is humanity

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

I

Regarding 1: I I

I

Humanity is the source of intrinsic value So, when you do A for the sake of B, and B for the sake of C, etc., this chain comes to an end with a source of intrinsic value, and that end is humanity

Regarding 2:

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

I

Regarding 1: I I

I

Humanity is the source of intrinsic value So, when you do A for the sake of B, and B for the sake of C, etc., this chain comes to an end with a source of intrinsic value, and that end is humanity

Regarding 2: I

To treat someone as a mere means is to regard their value as instrumental

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

I

Regarding 1: I I

I

Humanity is the source of intrinsic value So, when you do A for the sake of B, and B for the sake of C, etc., this chain comes to an end with a source of intrinsic value, and that end is humanity

Regarding 2: I

I

To treat someone as a mere means is to regard their value as instrumental for example, to use them

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

I

Regarding 1: I I

I

Humanity is the source of intrinsic value So, when you do A for the sake of B, and B for the sake of C, etc., this chain comes to an end with a source of intrinsic value, and that end is humanity

Regarding 2: I

I

To treat someone as a mere means is to regard their value as instrumental for example, to use them I

to subordinate their interests to another project

Clarifying the FEI, 2 I

The formula has two parts: 1. do treat humanity as an end in itself, and 2. do not treat humanity as mere means

I

Regarding 1: I I

I

Humanity is the source of intrinsic value So, when you do A for the sake of B, and B for the sake of C, etc., this chain comes to an end with a source of intrinsic value, and that end is humanity

Regarding 2: I

I

To treat someone as a mere means is to regard their value as instrumental for example, to use them I I

to subordinate their interests to another project even if that other project has its merits

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem”

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down.

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down. In case 1, you can flip a switch, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will hit just a single person. Would you do it?

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

I

I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down. In case 1, you can flip a switch, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will hit just a single person. Would you do it? In case 2, you can push a bystander onto the track, stopping the trolley but killing that person

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

I

I

I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down. In case 1, you can flip a switch, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will hit just a single person. Would you do it? In case 2, you can push a bystander onto the track, stopping the trolley but killing that person

Most people say that it is wrong to intervene in case 2, but many hesitate about case 1.

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

I

I

I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down. In case 1, you can flip a switch, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will hit just a single person. Would you do it? In case 2, you can push a bystander onto the track, stopping the trolley but killing that person

Most people say that it is wrong to intervene in case 2, but many hesitate about case 1. I

What explains the difference?

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

I

I

I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down. In case 1, you can flip a switch, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will hit just a single person. Would you do it? In case 2, you can push a bystander onto the track, stopping the trolley but killing that person

Most people say that it is wrong to intervene in case 2, but many hesitate about case 1. I I

What explains the difference? One hypothesis:

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

I

I

I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down. In case 1, you can flip a switch, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will hit just a single person. Would you do it? In case 2, you can push a bystander onto the track, stopping the trolley but killing that person

Most people say that it is wrong to intervene in case 2, but many hesitate about case 1. I I

What explains the difference? One hypothesis: I

in case 2, you are killing the bystander in order to save other people,

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

I

I

I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down. In case 1, you can flip a switch, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will hit just a single person. Would you do it? In case 2, you can push a bystander onto the track, stopping the trolley but killing that person

Most people say that it is wrong to intervene in case 2, but many hesitate about case 1. I I

What explains the difference? One hypothesis: I

I

in case 2, you are killing the bystander in order to save other people, whereas in case 1, the death of the bystander is a consequence, rather than an instrument, of the action

Applying the FEI I

Consider the notorious “Trolley Problem” I

I

I

I

A trolley is hurtling out of control down the track. At the end of the track are five people tied down. In case 1, you can flip a switch, diverting the trolley onto another track where it will hit just a single person. Would you do it? In case 2, you can push a bystander onto the track, stopping the trolley but killing that person

Most people say that it is wrong to intervene in case 2, but many hesitate about case 1. I I

What explains the difference? One hypothesis: I

I

I

in case 2, you are killing the bystander in order to save other people, whereas in case 1, the death of the bystander is a consequence, rather than an instrument, of the action

Intervention in case 2 is clearly forbidden by the FEI

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws I

This is because morality is founded on reason alone

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws I

I

This is because morality is founded on reason alone

General laws, like UL and FEI, entail particular laws

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws I

I

This is because morality is founded on reason alone

General laws, like UL and FEI, entail particular laws I

e.g., lying is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws I

I

General laws, like UL and FEI, entail particular laws I

I

This is because morality is founded on reason alone

e.g., lying is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances

Can’t you imagine a circumstance in which lying is obligatory?

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws I

I

General laws, like UL and FEI, entail particular laws I

I

This is because morality is founded on reason alone

e.g., lying is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances

Can’t you imagine a circumstance in which lying is obligatory? I

If so then we have two options:

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws I

I

General laws, like UL and FEI, entail particular laws I

I

This is because morality is founded on reason alone

e.g., lying is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances

Can’t you imagine a circumstance in which lying is obligatory? I

If so then we have two options: I

either sometimes lying is not forbidden,

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws I

I

General laws, like UL and FEI, entail particular laws I

I

This is because morality is founded on reason alone

e.g., lying is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances

Can’t you imagine a circumstance in which lying is obligatory? I

If so then we have two options: I I

either sometimes lying is not forbidden, or there are actions you are both required and forbidden to do.

Critique 1

I

Kant holds that morality is a system of absolute and unconditional laws I

I

General laws, like UL and FEI, entail particular laws I

I

This is because morality is founded on reason alone

e.g., lying is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances

Can’t you imagine a circumstance in which lying is obligatory? I

If so then we have two options: I I

I

either sometimes lying is not forbidden, or there are actions you are both required and forbidden to do.

either way, it is now hard to accept that morality is founded on reason alone

Critique 2 I

According to Kant,

Critique 2 I

According to Kant, I

emotions have no moral significance, and

Critique 2 I

According to Kant, I I

emotions have no moral significance, and nor does character

Critique 2 I

According to Kant, I I

I

emotions have no moral significance, and nor does character

For example, suppose that Linus is naturally generous and sympathetic, and Minus is naturally stingy and unsympathetic.

Critique 2 I

According to Kant, I I

I I

emotions have no moral significance, and nor does character

For example, suppose that Linus is naturally generous and sympathetic, and Minus is naturally stingy and unsympathetic. Each has an acquaintance who is stranded at 3am on a country road

Critique 2 I

According to Kant, I I

I I

emotions have no moral significance, and nor does character

For example, suppose that Linus is naturally generous and sympathetic, and Minus is naturally stingy and unsympathetic. Each has an acquaintance who is stranded at 3am on a country road I

Linus gets pleasure out of situations like this, and so leaps out of bed

Critique 2 I

According to Kant, I I

I I

emotions have no moral significance, and nor does character

For example, suppose that Linus is naturally generous and sympathetic, and Minus is naturally stingy and unsympathetic. Each has an acquaintance who is stranded at 3am on a country road I

I

Linus gets pleasure out of situations like this, and so leaps out of bed Minus would prefer to keep to himself, but reasons that if he were stranded, he’d want help too, and so decides that he has to help

Critique 2 I

According to Kant, I I

I I

For example, suppose that Linus is naturally generous and sympathetic, and Minus is naturally stingy and unsympathetic. Each has an acquaintance who is stranded at 3am on a country road I

I

I

emotions have no moral significance, and nor does character

Linus gets pleasure out of situations like this, and so leaps out of bed Minus would prefer to keep to himself, but reasons that if he were stranded, he’d want help too, and so decides that he has to help

Kant says that since Linus is getting pleasure anyway, only Minus’s action is morally praiseworthy

Critique 2 I

According to Kant, I I

I I

For example, suppose that Linus is naturally generous and sympathetic, and Minus is naturally stingy and unsympathetic. Each has an acquaintance who is stranded at 3am on a country road I

I

I I

emotions have no moral significance, and nor does character

Linus gets pleasure out of situations like this, and so leaps out of bed Minus would prefer to keep to himself, but reasons that if he were stranded, he’d want help too, and so decides that he has to help

Kant says that since Linus is getting pleasure anyway, only Minus’s action is morally praiseworthy But is this right?

Goodbye Kant

Hello Aristotle

Plan for Aristotle’s ethics

1. Happiness as the good

Plan for Aristotle’s ethics

1. Happiness as the good 2. Virtues and pleasure

Plan for Aristotle’s ethics

1. Happiness as the good 2. Virtues and pleasure 3. Friendship and contemplation

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18 served as tutor to Alexander the Great for most of his adult life

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I I I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18 served as tutor to Alexander the Great for most of his adult life wrote the constitution of Athens

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I I I I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18 served as tutor to Alexander the Great for most of his adult life wrote the constitution of Athens developed the first broadly systematic European philosophy; his works ranged over

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I I I I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18 served as tutor to Alexander the Great for most of his adult life wrote the constitution of Athens developed the first broadly systematic European philosophy; his works ranged over I

anatomy, astronomy, geography, geology, meteorology, physics and zoology;

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I I I I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18 served as tutor to Alexander the Great for most of his adult life wrote the constitution of Athens developed the first broadly systematic European philosophy; his works ranged over I

I

anatomy, astronomy, geography, geology, meteorology, physics and zoology; aesthetics, economics, ethics, logic, metaphysics, politics, psychology, rhetoric and theology;

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I I I I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18 served as tutor to Alexander the Great for most of his adult life wrote the constitution of Athens developed the first broadly systematic European philosophy; his works ranged over I

I

I

anatomy, astronomy, geography, geology, meteorology, physics and zoology; aesthetics, economics, ethics, logic, metaphysics, politics, psychology, rhetoric and theology; education, anthropology, literature and poetry.

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I I I I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18 served as tutor to Alexander the Great for most of his adult life wrote the constitution of Athens developed the first broadly systematic European philosophy; his works ranged over I

I

I I

anatomy, astronomy, geography, geology, meteorology, physics and zoology; aesthetics, economics, ethics, logic, metaphysics, politics, psychology, rhetoric and theology; education, anthropology, literature and poetry.

we have records of his work only through lecture notes

Bio-capsule I

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was born in Macedonia I I I I

joined Plato’s academy in Athens at age 18 served as tutor to Alexander the Great for most of his adult life wrote the constitution of Athens developed the first broadly systematic European philosophy; his works ranged over I

I

I I I

anatomy, astronomy, geography, geology, meteorology, physics and zoology; aesthetics, economics, ethics, logic, metaphysics, politics, psychology, rhetoric and theology; education, anthropology, literature and poetry.

we have records of his work only through lecture notes throughout the middle ages the phrase “the philosopher” referred to Aristotle

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives So, ethics is not a theoretical science

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives So, ethics is not a theoretical science I

it does not involve any special technical knowledge

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives So, ethics is not a theoretical science I

I

it does not involve any special technical knowledge

the basic ethical question is: what is human wellbeing?

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives So, ethics is not a theoretical science I

I

it does not involve any special technical knowledge

the basic ethical question is: what is human wellbeing? I

wellbeing = happiness = “eudaimonia”

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives So, ethics is not a theoretical science I

I

it does not involve any special technical knowledge

the basic ethical question is: what is human wellbeing? I I

wellbeing = happiness = “eudaimonia” wellbeing is virtuous action over the course of a whole life

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives So, ethics is not a theoretical science I

I

the basic ethical question is: what is human wellbeing? I I

I

it does not involve any special technical knowledge

wellbeing = happiness = “eudaimonia” wellbeing is virtuous action over the course of a whole life

you make progress in the study of ethics by coming to understand how the different aspects of a good character work together in a well-lived life

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives So, ethics is not a theoretical science I

I

the basic ethical question is: what is human wellbeing? I I

I

I

it does not involve any special technical knowledge

wellbeing = happiness = “eudaimonia” wellbeing is virtuous action over the course of a whole life

you make progress in the study of ethics by coming to understand how the different aspects of a good character work together in a well-lived life this requires a good upbringing, plus patience and experience, plus good fortune

Aristotle’s ethics: an overview I I

For Aristotle, the point of the study of ethics is to improve our lives So, ethics is not a theoretical science I

I

the basic ethical question is: what is human wellbeing? I I

I

I I

it does not involve any special technical knowledge

wellbeing = happiness = “eudaimonia” wellbeing is virtuous action over the course of a whole life

you make progress in the study of ethics by coming to understand how the different aspects of a good character work together in a well-lived life this requires a good upbringing, plus patience and experience, plus good fortune it is not based on rules, and can’t be learned by powerpoint

The unity of the good, 1

I

Aristotle argues (p545) that there is something, the good, which is the single aim of all activity.

The unity of the good, 1

I

Aristotle argues (p545) that there is something, the good, which is the single aim of all activity. I

every action aims at some end

The unity of the good, 1

I

Aristotle argues (p545) that there is something, the good, which is the single aim of all activity. I

every action aims at some end I

e.g., the archer aims to strike the target

The unity of the good, 1

I

Aristotle argues (p545) that there is something, the good, which is the single aim of all activity. I

every action aims at some end I

I

e.g., the archer aims to strike the target

if each end were desired only for the sake of some further end, then the process would go to infinity, and our desires would be empty and vain

The unity of the good, 1

I

Aristotle argues (p545) that there is something, the good, which is the single aim of all activity. I

every action aims at some end I

I

I

e.g., the archer aims to strike the target

if each end were desired only for the sake of some further end, then the process would go to infinity, and our desires would be empty and vain so, something must be desired for its own sake

The unity of the good, 1

I

Aristotle argues (p545) that there is something, the good, which is the single aim of all activity. I

every action aims at some end I

I

I I

e.g., the archer aims to strike the target

if each end were desired only for the sake of some further end, then the process would go to infinity, and our desires would be empty and vain so, something must be desired for its own sake this one thing, desired for its own sake, is the good

The unity of the good, 1

I

Aristotle argues (p545) that there is something, the good, which is the single aim of all activity. I

every action aims at some end I

I

I I

I

e.g., the archer aims to strike the target

if each end were desired only for the sake of some further end, then the process would go to infinity, and our desires would be empty and vain so, something must be desired for its own sake this one thing, desired for its own sake, is the good

Isn’t this argument fallacious?

The unity of the good, 1

I

Aristotle argues (p545) that there is something, the good, which is the single aim of all activity. I

every action aims at some end I

I

I I

I

e.g., the archer aims to strike the target

if each end were desired only for the sake of some further end, then the process would go to infinity, and our desires would be empty and vain so, something must be desired for its own sake this one thing, desired for its own sake, is the good

Isn’t this argument fallacious? I

e.g., couldn’t there be many things desired for their own sake?

The unity of the good, 2

I

later philosophers think that an end is a product,

The unity of the good, 2

I

later philosophers think that an end is a product, I

you desire a product, and so act to produce it.

The unity of the good, 2

I

later philosophers think that an end is a product, I I

you desire a product, and so act to produce it. e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I want dough”

The unity of the good, 2

I

later philosophers think that an end is a product, I I

I

you desire a product, and so act to produce it. e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I want dough”

but for Aristotle, an end is usually a broader activity

The unity of the good, 2

I

later philosophers think that an end is a product, I I

I

you desire a product, and so act to produce it. e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I want dough”

but for Aristotle, an end is usually a broader activity I

e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I am baking”

The unity of the good, 2

I

later philosophers think that an end is a product, I I

I

you desire a product, and so act to produce it. e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I want dough”

but for Aristotle, an end is usually a broader activity I I

e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I am baking” “why am I baking?–because I am feeding my family”, etc.

The unity of the good, 2

I

later philosophers think that an end is a product, I I

I

but for Aristotle, an end is usually a broader activity I I

I

you desire a product, and so act to produce it. e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I want dough”

e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I am baking” “why am I baking?–because I am feeding my family”, etc.

if you think that ends are products, then it is hard to see why the good should be a single thing

The unity of the good, 2

I

later philosophers think that an end is a product, I I

I

but for Aristotle, an end is usually a broader activity I I

I I

you desire a product, and so act to produce it. e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I want dough”

e.g., “Why am I moistening the flour?—because I am baking” “why am I baking?–because I am feeding my family”, etc.

if you think that ends are products, then it is hard to see why the good should be a single thing but if you think that ends are broader activities, then it is natural to suppose that the ends of all activities eventually converge

what are we doing when we do ethics? I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful

what are we doing when we do ethics? I I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful the particular aim of ethics is the wisdom of understanding the single aim of all action

what are we doing when we do ethics? I I I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful the particular aim of ethics is the wisdom of understanding the single aim of all action so ethics not a theoretical science

what are we doing when we do ethics? I I I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful the particular aim of ethics is the wisdom of understanding the single aim of all action so ethics not a theoretical science I

its object is not knowledge or truth, but understanding of the good

what are we doing when we do ethics? I I I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful the particular aim of ethics is the wisdom of understanding the single aim of all action so ethics not a theoretical science I

I

its object is not knowledge or truth, but understanding of the good

cautionary note: every subject matter requires a degree of precision appropriate to it

what are we doing when we do ethics? I I I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful the particular aim of ethics is the wisdom of understanding the single aim of all action so ethics not a theoretical science I

I

its object is not knowledge or truth, but understanding of the good

cautionary note: every subject matter requires a degree of precision appropriate to it I

mathematics requires extreme precision

what are we doing when we do ethics? I I I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful the particular aim of ethics is the wisdom of understanding the single aim of all action so ethics not a theoretical science I

I

its object is not knowledge or truth, but understanding of the good

cautionary note: every subject matter requires a degree of precision appropriate to it I I

mathematics requires extreme precision physics somewhat less

what are we doing when we do ethics? I I I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful the particular aim of ethics is the wisdom of understanding the single aim of all action so ethics not a theoretical science I

I

its object is not knowledge or truth, but understanding of the good

cautionary note: every subject matter requires a degree of precision appropriate to it I I I

mathematics requires extreme precision physics somewhat less biology gets messy

what are we doing when we do ethics? I I I

if there is a single ultimate aim of action, then knowing about it would be useful the particular aim of ethics is the wisdom of understanding the single aim of all action so ethics not a theoretical science I

I

its object is not knowledge or truth, but understanding of the good

cautionary note: every subject matter requires a degree of precision appropriate to it I I I I

mathematics requires extreme precision physics somewhat less biology gets messy in ethics, there are only rules of thumb

Wellbeing as the good

I

According to most people, the good is wellbeing

Wellbeing as the good

I I

According to most people, the good is wellbeing But they disagree about what wellbeing is

Wellbeing as the good

I I

According to most people, the good is wellbeing But they disagree about what wellbeing is I

Pleasure?

Wellbeing as the good

I I

According to most people, the good is wellbeing But they disagree about what wellbeing is I I

Pleasure? Honor?

Wellbeing as the good

I I

According to most people, the good is wellbeing But they disagree about what wellbeing is I I I

Pleasure? Honor? The contemplative life?

Wellbeing as the good

I I

According to most people, the good is wellbeing But they disagree about what wellbeing is I I I

I

Pleasure? Honor? The contemplative life?

Aristotle will develop this commonsensical view

Objection

I

Recall Kant’s objection to the idea of wellbeing as the highest good

Objection

I

Recall Kant’s objection to the idea of wellbeing as the highest good I

Some happy people are a–holes

Objection

I

Recall Kant’s objection to the idea of wellbeing as the highest good I

I

Some happy people are a–holes

However: Aristotle will develop a conception of wellbeing (eudaimonia) which resists this objection

Objection

I

Recall Kant’s objection to the idea of wellbeing as the highest good I

I

Some happy people are a–holes

However: Aristotle will develop a conception of wellbeing (eudaimonia) which resists this objection I

For Aristotle, wellbeing is incompatible with being an a–hole

Next time

I

function of man

Next time

I I

function of man nature of wellbeing

Next time

I I I

function of man nature of wellbeing virtue and pleasure