Chapter 3 ethics.pdf

Chapter 3 - The Greek Ethics THE ETHICAL TEACHING OF SOCRATES Socrates is considered as the greatest moral philosopher of western civilization. His epistemology is always geared towards a moral life, to the effect that whenever he speaks of truth, he always sees to it that it is the same discourse...

Chapter 3 - The Greek Ethics THE ETHICAL TEACHING OF SOCRATES Socrates is considered as the greatest moral philosopher of western civilization. His epistemology is always geared towards a moral life, to the effect that whenever he speaks of truth, he always sees to it that it is the same discourse of the will and that whenever he speaks of knowledge, he always makes it a point that his audience will realize that knowledge is not an entity for its own sake but a means of ethical action. Socrates taught that knowledge and truth provoke the will to act for the good so that the person can live right or can live a good moral life. For Socrates, a person can act correctly if he knows what is good life. The philosopher argues that knowledge and virtue cannot be considered distinct from each other. So, a wise man, for Socrates, does what is right because he knows what is right. Action is taken by Socrates as the extension of knowledge, just as one cannot act correctly if one does not know what is correct action. It follows, therefore, that for Socrates the wise man is good, and the good man is wise. However, correct or right action does not necessarily mean good action, because correctness is different from go odness, just as wrongness is different from badness. The correctness and wrongness of an actions are based on existing principles, such that one's action is right or correct if it conforms to a given principle. On the other hand, goodness and badness of actions are based on the quality of the act. An action is good if it bears a good quality and bad if it yields a bad quality. Hence, an action for Socrates is right if it serves man truly- in the sense of enhancing his authentic happiness (eudaimonism). Now, Socrates says that knowing what is right means doing what is right. The tacit (implied) meaning of this is that no person chooses to do evil per se. ergo for Socrates, a person does evil out of ignorance. In other words, Socrates is telling us that correctness of one's action is a projection of the good. For him, the will of man always aims at the good. Noindividual person volitionally (desirably) does evil, because the will cannot aim at the bad or evil; Socrates believes that a person does evil only indirectly. Put in a moralspectrum, a person is not imputable (charge/credited) of doing a wrong action which he does not know. For the philosopher, the agent may fail to do what is right, because of his ignorance of what is right. Now, the query to be posited is " who is a wise person?" a wise person for Socrates is not a type of a mentally undisciplined individual, but that of a well-cultured person. A wise man, having known what is right, knows how to control himself; he is just and courageous. For the thinker, a wise person is happy. The measure of this happiness is not material possession, but in being moral. To Socrates, True pleasure (which is doing what is right) will offer a person lasting happiness, which will eventually make him a moral being. If one therefore wishes to be happy, he should be wise, for wisdom itself is its own rewards. In sum, Socrates is heading to an idea that ethics embodies a fundamental principle. This fundamental principle is man's supreme goal which is happiness which man can attain by doing what is right. Now, this fundamental principle (happiness)demands two things, i.e., goodness and virtue. Hence, an ethical life, is a happy life. An ethical person is happy because he does what is right and good. What enables him to do what is right and good is virtue which for Socrates is synonymous withknowledge. Virtue is knowledge and vice versa. Based on the foregoing, it is perceived that knowledge is the medium of an ethical life. Expressed differently, rational life implies ethical life or he who is rational enough should also live an ethical life. Otherwise, if one cannot be rational, one can never be ethical. ETHICAL TEACHING OF PLATO Plato contends that happiness lies in reason, in Plato's vein of thought, man actualizes himself if he tries to be rational. Before we discuss platonic ethics, we shall first of all investigate his philosophy in general, because we hope that this inquiry can give us a comprehensive view of his ethical teaching. Plato posits that there are to domains of reality, namely: the ideal (idea and phenomenal (phenomena) worlds. Idea is described by Plato as eternal, immutable, self- existing, and indestructible. For Plato, the zenith of idea is good which hedescribed as something beyond truth, beyond essence, and therefore, is like the sun that shines all throughout anything in existence. The phenomenal world, on the other world, on the other hand, is material, mutable, teleological, and destructible. Plato's concept of ideal and phenomenal worlds can be well related with his concept of man. According to the philosopher, man is a metaphysical dichotomy between body and soul. Man is the locus of the ideal and phenomenal worlds. In this argument, Plato maintains that man is soul using a body. It is from this thought- construct that Plato draws his idea that man's soul has three parts, namely: spiritual(feeling), appetitive (desire), and rational. Because man is a soul using a body, each part of the soul has a definite locus in the body. The spiritual soul is located in thechest, the appetitive soul in the abdomen, and the rational soul in the head. Precisely, the human body in platonic philosophy falls under the domain of the phenomenal world for obvious reasons, i.e., it is material and changeable; it has adefinite purpose, or it is teleological, and also destructible. The human soul, on the contrary, fall under the domain of idea or the ideal world. Of the three parts of the soul, Plato argues that the rational parts are the part that can establish balance in a person. Self-realization, therefore, is attainable by nurturing reason properly. Eventually, this becomes the "ought" in Platonic ethics. Plato, in his ethics, speaks of four basic virtues which are: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Wisdom arises in the rational soul. Courage in the spiritual soul, and temperance in the appetitive soul. Of all these virtues, it is wisdom that rules over other virtues just as the rational soul overrules the other levels of the soul in man. Because wisdom rules, its direct courage (here, Plato must have been hinting at courage de tete (memory, one's head) or intellectual courage) and temperance. For Plato, temperance means moderation. Now, justice can only come to the fore if there is a balance among wisdom, courage, and temperance. According to Plato, justice means" the observance of duty and righteousness; it is what is due to or from a person." thus, justice covers the whole field of the conduct of the individual as long as such conduct affects others. In his ethical teachings, Plato develops the concept that the life of reason (rational soul) is the happiest and the best form of life. For Plato, knowledge (function of rational soul) makes a well-balanced, man, because as we cited earlier, the virtue called wisdom arises in the rational soul. Reason establishes a balance because it rules passion (spiritual soul) and desires (appetitive soul). When this happens, there is aharmonious man. A harmonious man is a morally virtuous man who is rationally, biologically, and emotionally balanced. If one wants to be happy one should be aharmonious man: a man of virtue. Now, let us evaluate Plato's ethics. Based on our presentation, we can say that Plato develops a universal or absolute ethical theory just like his master, Socrates. Platonic ethics is an absolute ethical theory because for idea. He sees virtue as innate and knowledge as absolute, universal, and objectives. In this vein, we can say that for Plato moral laws are universal and absolute because virtue and knowledge are parts of the moral law. If the good is the summit of idea and if idea involves virtues (wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice) knowledge therefore enables a harmonious man to arrive at the good. In this case, to arrive at the good requires one to search for knowledge so that one would be able to establish a well-balanced personality. Since the good is the terminal point of a morally virtuous person, Plato says that the good is: The harmony of our native interest- to see, to know, to cultivate the affections ,to associate ourselves with the movement of the visible world, to find our true place in the community of the social group, then join to harmony the grace of symmetry, where variations of temper are subject to rational control, all excess being forbidden; and finally, to see to it that the good embodies the truth that have been won by analysis and experience. ETHICAL TEACHING ARISTOTLE If Plato, Aristotle's master, claims that ethics or morality is a matter of nature- because virtues for the former are innate- Aristotle claims that ethics is a matter of planning, purpose, and decision. A matter of character. For Aristotle, it is not natural for man to be moral, but for man to be moral is something demanded by nature. A reward in the end saying that there is no reciprocal exchange in Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy, in general, and in their ethical teaching in particular? Yes, this is exactly the case. But, we can neither say that Plato's ethical teaching is tailor-made or a stereo type simply because he admitted morality as inborn in man, nor can we say thatPlato's ethical has a lot of lacunae (gaps) while Aristotle's ethics is brimming(full/overflowing) with various ethical dogmas. The point at issue is that the two great thinkers understand ethics from different points of view. It is in this effect that we have to treat each of Plato's and Aristotle's ethics separately and if comparison is inevitable, then we have to do so. Indeed, Plato's and Aristotle's ethical theories stand in contrast to each other. Aristotle's theory, however, follows the same thread as that of his master (Plato) and his master's master (Socrates). What makes us claim this is because Socrates, Plato's, and Aristotle's moral teaching stress the supremacy of man's rational nature and teleological or purposive nature of the universe. Yes, it is true, Aristotle's ethics alsoemphasizes virtues, i.e., moral and intellectual, but he gives more weight tocontemplation which is for him the activity that enables man to attain the highest form of happiness and the teleology (purpose) for why man acts. The basic premise where Aristotelian ethical theory begins is the experimentinquiry:" What is the fundamental object of human desire?" Here Aristotle pragmatically posits the q uery:" What is that which man ultimately looks for?" "Is ithonor, wealth, achievement, or sensual pleasure?" Aristotle answer is negative; he believes that there is something fundamental behind fame, riches, success, andsensuality. This fundamental p rinciple for him is happiness. Because of thisconviction, he sets forth to investigate the nature of happiness, its requisites and condition for its acquisition. Since Aristotelian ethics is also an ethics of self-actualization, Aristotle cannot help but admit that happiness is dependent on one's self-actualization. Put differently, morality for Aristotle - which is centered in his happiness doctrine is exactly not innate but something which has to be developed by man. Thus, moral ideals aredeveloped. But if happiness depends on one's self- actualization how can thisactualization be done? Aristotle answer requires us to understand happiness in the context of reason, which is, for the pundit, man's distinctive activity or function. If happiness should be understood in the context of reason, where shall we put the connection between reason and virtue? For Aristotle, there a coherent linkage between reason and virtue inasmuch as reason is virtue and virtue is reason. Virtue, Aristotle maintains, is of two kinds. They are intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtue arises out of teaching or intellectual virtue surfaces through one's contemplation of theoretical moral truths and one's discovery of rational principles that ought to control our every action. On the other hand, moral virtue (which for Aristotle is not natural in us arises as a result of habit or moral virtue comes to the fore out of one's habitual choice of action in consonance with rational principles. Says Aristotle: Virtue, then, being of two kinds, intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue, in the main, owes bot hits birth and its growth to teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time) while moral virtue comes about a result of habit, which also its name ethike is one that is formed by slight variation from the word ethos (habit). From this, it is also plain that one of the moral virtues arising in us by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. In saying earlier that virtue is reason and reason is virtue, Aristotle, in effect, is telling us that a virtuous person is a person who lives in reason and a person who lives in reason is happy, because he is in active exercise of virtue. Virtue, for Aristotle, means the excellent of a thing to perform effectively its proper function. But the question is: "when can virtue occur? " " when can these moral and intellectual virtues happen?" For Aristotle, Virtue happens in the context of the mean. Says he: "Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice lying in a mean..."This means that if Virtue is a choice. it is, therefore, an activity in the sense that choice is the original cause of action. So, whether it is moral or intellectual virtue, it is always a choice: an activity. In the light of virtue as a choice or an activity, Aristotle puts forward his idea of the mean. Virtue is mean between two vices. The mean lies between vice in the context of excess and vice in the context defect. In saying this, Aristotle is also quick to recognize that this "Doctrine of the mean" cannot be applied to all actions. He, then, enumerates the action that are immune from the clutches of the mean due to their being ontologically bad. These actions are: shamelessness, envy, adultery, andmurder