PHL210 Midterm Review Answers PDF

**1. What is philosophy? What is ethics? What are some central questions in ethics?** Philosophy is the systematic study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It seeks to understand and critically examine the underlying principles of reality and hu...

**1. What is philosophy? What is ethics? What are some central questions in ethics?** Philosophy is the systematic study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It seeks to understand and critically examine the underlying principles of reality and human experience. Ethics, a branch of philosophy, focuses on the study of moral principles that govern human behavior. It examines what is right and wrong, good and bad, and explores concepts of justice, virtue, and moral responsibility. Some central questions in ethics include: - What constitutes right or wrong actions? - How should individuals live their lives morally? - What is the nature of justice and fairness? - Are moral values universal or culturally relative? - What is the basis for moral obligations? ---David Brooks and Leo Tolstoy **2. Explain the difference between what David Brooks calls the “resumé” virtues and the “eulogy” virtues. How could one read Tolstoy’s 'The Death of Ivan Ilyich' as illustrating this difference? How does Tolstoy argue that the eulogy virtues are more important?** David Brooks differentiates between "resumé" virtues and "eulogy" virtues. Resumé virtues are the skills and achievements that contribute to external success—they are what you bring to the marketplace. Eulogy virtues, on the other hand, are the qualities that define your character—they are what people remember about you after you're gone. In Tolstoy's *The Death of Ivan Ilyich*, Ivan embodies the resumé virtues: he is professionally successful, socially respected, and materially comfortable. However, as he confronts his mortality, he realizes that these accomplishments have not brought genuine happiness or fulfillment. The story illustrates the emptiness of a life focused solely on external success. Tolstoy argues that eulogy virtues are more important by showing Ivan's profound regret over neglecting personal relationships and inner moral development. Through Ivan's existential crisis, Tolstoy emphasizes the value of authenticity, compassion, and genuine human connections—qualities that enrich one's life beyond material success. --- **3. What does Tolstoy’s 'The Death of Ivan Ilyich' illustrate about our attitudes toward death and about the central questions of ethics?** Tolstoy's *The Death of Ivan Ilyich* explores the common tendency to avoid confronting the reality of death. The characters, including Ivan himself initially, treat death as a distant or abstract concept. This denial leads to superficial living, where societal expectations overshadow personal fulfillment. The novella raises central ethical questions about what it means to live a meaningful life. Ivan's suffering prompts him to reflect on his choices, revealing that his pursuit of societal approval led to an inauthentic existence. Tolstoy illustrates that facing the inevitability of death can inspire a deeper understanding of life's true value. By highlighting Ivan's internal transformation, the story underscores the importance of introspection, genuine relationships, and moral integrity. It suggests that acknowledging mortality compels individuals to prioritize ethical living and align their actions with their true values, addressing fundamental concerns in ethics about the good life and moral responsibility. republic **4. What is Cephalus’ definition of justice (331c) and what is wrong with it according to Socrates?** Cephalus defines justice as "speaking the truth and repaying one's debts." He believes that being honest and fulfilling obligations constitute a just life, reflecting traditional moral values centered on integrity and duty. Socrates challenges this definition by presenting a counterexample: if a friend lends you a weapon and later becomes mentally unstable, is it just to return the weapon? Returning it could lead to harm, suggesting that simply repaying debts without considering the consequences is not always just. Socrates argues that justice cannot be merely about truth-telling and debt repayment; it must also consider the broader implications of one's actions on others. Therefore, Cephalus’ definition is too simplistic and fails to account for situations where following the letter of an obligation may result in unjust outcomes. --- **5. What are Polemarchus’ definitions of justice (331e, 332a-b, 332d, and 335a) and what is wrong with them according to Socrates?** Polemarchus offers several definitions of justice throughout the dialogue: - **331e**: Justice is "giving to each what is owed." - **332a-b**: Justice is "benefiting friends and harming enemies." - **332d**: Justice is "doing good to friends who are good and harm to enemies who are bad." - **335a**: Justice is "benefiting friends who are truly good and harming enemies who are truly bad." Socrates critiques these definitions on multiple grounds: 1. **Uncertainty of Friends and Enemies**: Socrates points out that people can be mistaken about who their true friends and enemies are. One might benefit someone believed to be a friend who is actually bad, or harm someone thought to be an enemy who is actually good. This uncertainty undermines the reliability of Polemarchus’ definition. 2. **Justice Should Not Harm**: Socrates argues that it is never just to harm anyone. Harming others deteriorates their virtue, making them worse in terms of justice. Since justice is a virtue associated with goodness, it cannot be just to cause moral degradation in others. 3. **Contradiction with Virtue**: If justice involves harming others, it conflicts with the idea that justice is a virtue that promotes harmony and goodness. Virtues are meant to improve individuals and societies, not contribute to their decline. Therefore, Socrates concludes that Polemarchus' definitions are flawed because they allow for harming others and depend on subjective judgments about people's character, which is inconsistent with the objective and benevolent nature of true justice. --- **6. What is Thrasymachus’ definition of justice (338c)? What does it mean? Why does Thrasymachus think that justice is for fools, and why does he think injustice is better than justice? What is his picture or understanding of how justice and injustice function in society?** Thrasymachus defines justice as "nothing else than the advantage of the stronger." This means that those in power—rulers or governing bodies—establish laws that serve their own interests. Consequently, justice is whatever benefits the ruling class, and obeying the law is seen as just because it aligns with the desires of the powerful. Thrasymachus believes that justice is for fools because it requires individuals to act against their self-interest by adhering to laws that benefit others (the rulers) rather than themselves. He argues that unjust individuals, who prioritize their own advantage and are willing to break or manipulate laws, are wiser and more successful. He thinks injustice is better than justice for several reasons: 1. **Self-Interest**: Injustice allows individuals to pursue their own interests without being constrained by moral or legal obligations that serve others. 2. **Power and Success**: Unjust individuals can gain more wealth, power, and happiness because they are not hindered by concerns about fairness or legality. 3. **Exploitation of the Just**: Those who are just are exploited by the unjust, serving the interests of the powerful while neglecting their own. Thrasymachus views justice and injustice in society as tools used by the powerful to control the weak. Justice is a construct that benefits rulers by keeping the populace obedient and compliant. In his perspective, societal norms of justice are imposed to maintain the status quo, and those who recognize this manipulation can use injustice to their advantage, thereby achieving greater success and fulfillment than those who naively adhere to conventional notions of justice. republic ii **7. Explain the threefold division of goods (good for itself, for its consequences, or both) and give potential examples of each. Which kind of good would Thrasymachus think justice is? What kind does Socrates think justice is?** Plato divides goods into three categories: 1. **Goods desirable for their own sake**: Enjoyed inherently without consideration of outcomes. *Example*: Joy or harmless pleasures. 2. **Goods desirable for their consequences**: Valued for the results they produce. *Example*: Medical treatments that are unpleasant but lead to health. 3. **Goods desirable both for their own sake and for their consequences**: Valued both inherently and for their benefits. *Example*: Knowledge or health. Thrasymachus would categorize justice as a good desirable only for its consequences, viewing it as a constraint people endure to avoid punishment. Socrates, however, believes justice falls into the third category—it is good both in itself and for its consequences. --- **8. Explain Glaucon’s argument that justice is an intermediate position between the best case (getting away with injustice) and the worst case (having injustice done to you). Why does Glaucon think that people choose this intermediate position?** Glaucon argues that the best scenario is to commit injustices without repercussions, while the worst is to suffer injustices without the power to retaliate. To avoid the worst-case scenario, people agree to a social contract establishing justice as a compromise. They choose this intermediate position to protect themselves from being victims, not because they value justice intrinsically, but to avoid suffering injustice. --- **9. Explain the story of Gyges’ ring. How does the story (ostensibly) illustrate that justice is only good for its consequences?** The story describes a shepherd, Gyges, who finds a ring granting him invisibility. He uses this power to commit acts of injustice—seduction, theft, and murder—to seize the throne. The tale suggests that if individuals could act unjustly without fear of punishment, they would do so. This illustrates that people are just only to avoid negative consequences, implying justice is valued solely for its outcomes, not for its intrinsic worth. --- **10. Explain the challenge to Socrates about justice and what he will need to do to meet this challenge in the rest of the Republic. What does he have to compare, what does he have to show, and why?** The challenge is for Socrates to prove that justice is inherently valuable and leads to a happier life than injustice. He must compare the perfectly just person, who may suffer despite their virtue, with the perfectly unjust person, who may reap rewards despite their vice. Socrates needs to demonstrate that justice benefits the soul and well-being of an individual intrinsically, showing that a just life is superior regardless of external rewards or perceptions. This is essential to validate justice as a good desirable both for itself and its consequences. Republic IV 11. Explain Socrates’ “Internal Conflict Argument.” Why does Socrates think that the soul has parts? What premises does he use? Why does he think these premises are plausible? Give some examples. Do you think the argument works? Why or why not? Socrates' "Internal Conflict Argument" posits that the soul must have different parts because it experiences internal conflicts. The key premise is that the same thing cannot simultaneously perform opposite actions in the same respect. For example, if a person both desires and resists drinking water, these opposing impulses cannot originate from a single, indivisible soul. He observes that individuals often face conflicting desires: the rational desire to act prudently versus the appetitive desire for immediate gratification. Socrates deems this premise plausible because such inner conflicts are common human experiences. An example is when someone wants to eat a tempting dessert (appetitive part) but decides not to for health reasons (rational part). This internal struggle suggests multiple aspects within the soul. Whether the argument works is debatable. It compellingly explains inner conflict by dividing the soul into parts. However, some argue that conflicts could arise within a unified consciousness without necessitating distinct parts. 12. What are the three parts of the soul, according to Plato? Describe each part and what each part does. According to Plato, the soul consists of three parts: 1. Rational Part (Reason): Seeks truth and wisdom. It's responsible for logical thinking, decision-making, and guiding the soul toward knowledge and virtue. 2. Spirited Part (Spirit): Associated with emotions like anger and indignation. It drives courage and assertiveness, supporting the rational part in enforcing decisions. 3. Appetitive Part (Appetite): Relates to basic desires and bodily needs such as hunger, thirst, and other physical pleasures. It seeks satisfaction and material gain. Each part has its own desires and functions, contributing to the overall behavior of an individual. 13. What is justice, for Plato? Describe it in as much detail as you can. How does it connect back to the parts of the soul? How does it connect to other virtues (wisdom, courage, and moderation)? How is it related to what we typically think of as just actions? For Plato, justice is the harmonious structure of the soul where each part fulfills its proper role without interfering with the others. In a just soul: The Rational Part rules with wisdom. The Spirited Part supports the rational part with courage. The Appetitive Part is moderated and follows the guidance of reason. Justice connects to other virtues: Wisdom: Virtue of the rational part.  Courage: Virtue of the spirited part. Moderation (Temperance): Harmony between all parts, especially between desires and rational control. This internal justice leads to just actions externally. A person whose soul is ordered and balanced will naturally act justly in society, aligning personal virtue with social ethics. Republic, Book VII and the Symposium 14. What is Plato’s “Two-World Ontology”? How does this understanding of the world support the idea that the reasoning part of the soul should rule? Plato's "Two-World Ontology" divides reality into two realms: The Sensible World: The physical world perceived through the senses, characterized by change and imperfection. The Intelligible World: The non-physical realm of unchanging, perfect Forms or Ideas, accessible only through reason. This ontology supports the reasoning part of the soul ruling because only reason can grasp the true knowledge of the Forms. Since the rational part can understand the higher reality, it should guide the soul, ensuring that decisions are based on eternal truths rather than fleeting sensory experiences. 15. Describe the “Allegory of the Cave.” How does it illustrate Plato’s two-world ontology (the sensible and the intelligible)? How does it illustrate Plato’s philosophy of education? In the "Allegory of the Cave," prisoners are chained inside a cave, facing a wall. Behind them burns a fire, and objects pass between them and the fire, casting shadows on the wall. The prisoners take these shadows for reality. One prisoner is freed and exits the cave, initially blinded by the sunlight but eventually perceiving the true forms of objects. This allegory illustrates:  Two-World Ontology: The cave represents the sensible world of shadows and illusions. The world outside the cave symbolizes the intelligible world of true Forms. Philosophy of Education: Education is the process of leading the soul from darkness (ignorance) to light (knowledge). It involves turning away from deceptive sensory experiences toward the understanding gained through reason. The allegory emphasizes that enlightenment requires effort and that the rational part of the soul must be cultivated to perceive ultimate reality. Republic, Book VII and the Symposium 14. What is Plato’s “Two-World Ontology”? How does this understanding of the world support the idea that the reasoning part of the soul should rule? Plato's "Two-World Ontology" divides reality into two realms: The Sensible World: The physical world perceived through the senses, characterized by change and imperfection. The Intelligible World: The non-physical realm of unchanging, perfect Forms or Ideas, accessible only through reason. This ontology supports the reasoning part of the soul ruling because only reason can grasp the true knowledge of the Forms. Since the rational part can understand the higher reality, it should guide the soul, ensuring that decisions are based on eternal truths rather than fleeting sensory experiences. 15. Describe the “Allegory of the Cave.” How does it illustrate Plato’s two-world ontology (the sensible and the intelligible)? How does it illustrate Plato’s philosophy of education? In the "Allegory of the Cave," prisoners are chained inside a cave, facing a wall. Behind them burns a fire, and objects pass between them and the fire, casting shadows on the wall. The prisoners take these shadows for reality. One prisoner is freed and exits the cave, initially blinded by the sunlight but eventually perceiving the true forms of objects. This allegory illustrates: Two-World Ontology: The cave represents the sensible world of shadows and illusions. The world outside the cave symbolizes the intelligible world of true Forms. Philosophy of Education: Education is the process of leading the soul from darkness (ignorance) to light (knowledge). It involves turning away from deceptive sensory experiences toward the understanding gained through reason. The allegory emphasizes that enlightenment requires effort and that the rational part of the soul must be cultivated to perceive ultimate reality. You said: Republic, Book IX 16. Describe the final ‘soul picture’ in Book X: what image of the soul is given? How does a just soul differ from an unjust soul? Why, in the end, is justice better than injustice? Why is it valuable in itself? Explain as fully as you can. 17. Do you think Plato’s argument succeeds? Why or why not? ChatGPT Thought for 16 seconds Republic, Book IX 16. Describe the final ‘soul picture’ in Book IX: what image of the soul is given? How does a just soul differ from an unjust soul? Why, in the end, is justice better than injustice? Why is it valuable in itself? Explain as fully as you can. In Book IX, Plato presents an image of the soul as a composite of three creatures: 1. A Many-Headed Beast: Represents the appetitive part of the soul, embodying various desires and instincts. 2. A Lion: Symbolizes the spirited part, associated with courage and emotions. 3. A Human: Stands for the rational part, capable of reason and wisdom. A just soul is one where the human (reason) rules over the lion (spirit) and the beast (appetites). The lion aids the human in keeping the beast's unruly desires in check, creating harmony among the parts. An unjust soul occurs when the beast or the lion dominates, leading to internal conflict. The appetitive desires overrun reason, causing disorder and a lack of self-control. Justice is better than injustice because it brings inner harmony, enabling the individual to live a fulfilled and virtuous life. It's valuable in itself because it aligns the soul's parts properly, ensuring actions are guided by wisdom rather than base desires. This internal order leads to true happiness, irrespective of external rewards. 17. Do you think Plato’s argument succeeds? Why or why not? Plato's argument effectively highlights the importance of inner harmony and rational control for a just life. By illustrating how reason should govern the soul, he underscores the value of self-mastery. However, some may find the strict hierarchy limiting, as it downplays the positive roles that emotions and desires can play when properly balanced. Modern psychology suggests that integration, rather than strict control, leads to well-being. Overall, while Plato's argument succeeds in promoting justice as intrinsically valuable, it may oversimplify the complexity of human nature by not fully acknowledging the constructive contributions of all soul parts when harmoniously integrated. Nicomachean Ethics, Book I 18. Why are you answering this question right now? How would Aristotle use your answer to show that there must be some highest good? I am answering this question to assist you in understanding Aristotle's philosophy. Aristotle would note that my action aims at a good—providing help. He argues that human actions are goal-oriented, forming a hierarchy where some ends are means to higher ends. This structure implies the existence of a highest good that is the ultimate aim of all actions, giving purpose to our endeavors and preventing an infinite regress of goals. 19. Aristotle claims the highest good is happiness. What does he mean by ‘happiness’ (eudaimonia, flourishing)? In what ways does he use that word like our word happiness, and in what ways is he using it differently? Aristotle's concept of happiness (eudaimonia) refers to a state of flourishing achieved by living virtuously and fulfilling one's potential over a complete life. Unlike the modern idea of happiness as a fleeting emotion or pleasure, his view is: Similarities: It's the ultimate goal sought by all. Associated with well-being and fulfillment. Differences: Objective State: It's about actualizing virtues, not just feeling happy. Activity-Based: Involves continuous virtuous actions, not passive enjoyment. Life-Long: Assessed over the entirety of one's life, not momentary feelings. 20. Aristotle rejects, as candidates for eudaimonia, the lives of pleasure, honour, virtue, and money-making. Why does he reject each one? Pleasure: A life seeking only pleasure is fit for animals, neglecting the higher rational capacities of humans. Honour: Depends on others' recognition, making it unstable and external. Virtue: Simply possessing virtue isn't sufficient; one must actively practice it, and even virtuous people can suffer misfortune. Money-Making: Wealth is a means to other ends, not an end in itself, lacking intrinsic value. 21. Aristotle says that eudaimonia must be self-sufficient and complete. What does he mean by these? Self-sufficient: Happiness should be fulfilling on its own, lacking nothing, making life desirable and complete.  Complete: It is the ultimate end pursued for its own sake, not as a means to achieve something else. 22. What does Aristotle think the human function is? Why? Aristotle believes the human function is rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue because: Uniqueness: Rationality sets humans apart from plants (which grow) and animals (which perceive). Purpose: Fulfilling our unique capability leads to flourishing. 23. Explain Aristotle’s function argument. What are the steps? Why is each step plausible, according to Aristotle? What does Aristotle conclude about the nature of eudaimonia/happiness? What is eudaimonia/happiness for a human being? Steps: Everything has a function (ergon), including humans. The good for a thing is performing its function well, which requires virtue (arete). Human function is rational activity, since reason is unique to humans. Therefore, the human good is rational activity performed virtuously. Plausibility: Observing that fulfilling a function well (like a good flutist playing beautifully) leads to excellence. Rationality is evident as the defining human trait. Conclusion: Eudaimonia is living a life of rational, virtuous activity. For humans, happiness is achieved by exercising reason in accordance with virtue over a complete life. Nicomachean Ethics, Book II (and insights from Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung's work) 24. What is a virtue of character? Which part of the soul does it belong to? A virtue of character is a good habit or disposition that enables a person to behave ethically and respond appropriately to various situations. It belongs to the appetitive part of the soul, which is responsible for desires and emotions. This part can listen to reason but is distinct from pure rationality. Virtues of character help align our desires and emotions with rational principles, leading to harmonious action. 25. How do we acquire virtues of character? How do our actions influence our character? How do virtues of character influence our actions? We acquire virtues of character through habituation—by repeatedly performing virtuous actions until they become part of our character. Actions influence character because consistent behavior shapes our habits and dispositions. Over time, acting virtuously becomes natural. Once established, virtues influence our actions by making virtuous choices effortless and pleasurable. A virtuous person naturally desires to act rightly and does so with ease, reinforcing their virtuous character in a positive feedback loop. 26. What is the difference between acting from virtue (e.g., being temperate) and acting merely according to virtue (e.g., being merely self-controlled)? Why is acting from virtue so much better? How does pleasure show up differently in these two cases? Acting from virtue means that a person genuinely desires the virtuous action and takes pleasure in it. For example, a temperate person enjoys moderation and has no conflicting desires. Acting according to virtue involves doing the right thing but with internal struggle. A self-controlled person resists improper desires but doesn't necessarily enjoy the virtuous action. Acting from virtue is better because it reflects a harmonious soul where reason and desire are aligned. The virtuous person experiences pleasure in doing good, while the merely self-controlled person may feel deprived or conflicted. 27. What is the Doctrine of the Mean? Explain how Aristotle believes virtue is a mean, and how vices are extremes. Illustrate with either Courage/Bravery or Temperance/Moderation and the relevant vices. In what way is the mean "relative to us"? How does Aristotle advise us to approach the mean? The Doctrine of the Mean posits that virtue is the balanced midpoint between two extremes—excess and deficiency—which are vices. Using Courage as an example: Deficiency (Cowardice): Excessive fear, lack of confidence. Virtue (Courage): Appropriate balance of fear and confidence. Excess (Rashness): Too little fear, overconfidence. Virtue involves finding the mean appropriate to the situation and individual, hence it's "relative to us." What is courageous for one person may be rash or cowardly for another, depending on circumstances and personal capacities. Aristotle advises us to: Recognize our personal tendencies toward excess or deficiency. Aim consciously for the mean by adjusting our behavior. Seek guidance from practically wise individuals to determine the appropriate mean. 28. Aristotle says that virtue is (1) a state, (2) that decides (i.e., it is concerned with choice), (3) consisting in a mean, (4) a mean which is relative to us, (5) and which is defined by reference to reason, the reason of a prudent or practically wise person. Explain why each part is important for Aristotle's ethics. 1. A State: Virtue is a stable disposition, not a momentary feeling. It signifies a consistent character that reliably produces virtuous actions. 2. That Decides (Concerned with Choice): Virtue involves deliberate choices. Ethical behavior isn't accidental; it requires conscious decision-making aligned with virtue. 3. Consisting in a Mean: Virtue seeks the appropriate balance between excess and deficiency. This ensures responses are proportionate and contextually suitable. 4. Relative to Us: The mean is adjusted to individual circumstances and capacities. Virtue isn't one-size-fits-all but considers personal and situational factors. 5. Defined by Reference to Reason (of a Prudent Person): Virtue aligns with rational principles as understood by someone with practical wisdom (phronesis). Such a person can discern the proper mean in varying contexts. Each part underscores that virtue is about cultivating a rational and balanced character that makes wise, deliberate choices tailored to specific situations—a central theme in Aristotle's ethical philosophy. Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI 29. What are the two main parts of the soul for Aristotle? How do each of these two parts split into two further parts (for 4 parts total)? What does each part do? What are the virtues of each part (if they have any)? Aristotle divides the soul into two main parts: 1. Rational Part: Responsible for reasoning and thinking. Theoretical (Scientific) Reason: Deals with unchanging truths and knowledge for its own sake. Virtue: Wisdom (Sophia) Practical (Calculative) Reason: Concerned with decision-making about actions in variable situations. Virtue: Prudence (Phronesis) 2. Irrational Part: Lacks reasoning but can respond to it. Appetitive (Desiring) Part: Governs desires and emotions, which can listen to reason. Virtues: Moral Virtues (e.g., courage, temperance) Vegetative (Nutritive) Part: Manages basic life functions like growth and nutrition. Virtue: None applicable, as it's purely biological. Each part functions as follows: Theoretical Reason seeks knowledge of eternal truths. Practical Reason deliberates about actions and how to achieve good ends. Appetitive Part experiences desires and emotions, aligning them with reason through moral virtues. Vegetative Part operates automatically without influence on moral behavior. 30. Explain the relationship between prudence, cleverness, and virtues of character. How does each factor into action for Aristotle? Prudence (Phronesis): The intellectual virtue that enables one to make good decisions about how to act virtuously in specific situations. It involves moral insight and the right reasoning about practical matters. Cleverness: The ability to devise means to achieve goals, whether good or bad. It's a neutral skill that can be directed by either virtuous or non-virtuous aims. Virtues of Character: Moral virtues that shape one's desires and emotions, ensuring they align with rational decisions. Examples include courage, temperance, and justice. Relationship and Role in Action: Virtues of Character provide the right desires and emotional dispositions. Prudence guides the overall decision-making process, ensuring actions align with the good. Cleverness executes the practical steps to achieve the chosen ends. For Aristotle, proper action arises when virtues of character and prudence work together, using cleverness to implement virtuous decisions effectively. 31. Describe the relationship between scientific knowledge, wisdom, and understanding for Aristotle. Explain what each is. Scientific Knowledge (Episteme): Knowledge of universal and necessary truths that can be logically demonstrated. It involves understanding principles in fields like mathematics and natural sciences. Understanding (Nous): The intuitive grasp of first principles or fundamental truths that are self-evident and cannot be deduced from other knowledge. Wisdom (Sophia): The highest intellectual virtue, combining both scientific knowledge and understanding. It represents profound insight into the most significant truths of existence. Relationship: Understanding provides the foundational principles. Scientific Knowledge builds upon these principles through logical reasoning.  Wisdom encompasses both, allowing one to comprehend and contemplate the highest truths. Aristotle sees wisdom as the ultimate goal of intellectual development, integrating both knowing why things are and understanding their fundamental causes. Nicomachean Ethics, Book X 32. Why does Aristotle think political life is ‘happiest in a secondary way’? What is good about it, and what does it have that the life of study/contemplation does not? Try to explain as thoroughly as possible. Aristotle considers political life as the second-highest form of happiness because it involves the exercise of moral virtues in the service of the community. What is good about political life: Exercise of Moral Virtues: Political life requires virtues like justice, courage, and temperance. Contribution to the Common Good: It allows individuals to impact society positively. Engagement with Others: Fulfills the social aspect of human nature through relationships and collaboration. Recognition and Honor: Provides external rewards that can motivate virtuous actions. What it has that contemplation does not: Active Participation: Involves direct action and decision-making affecting others. Practical Impact: Offers tangible improvements in the lives of citizens. Community Involvement: Engages with societal structures and collective well-being. However, it's considered secondary because: Dependence on External Factors: Relies on societal structures and recognition from others. Less Focus on Intellectual Virtue: Prioritizes moral virtues over intellectual contemplation.  Potential for Instability: Subject to changes in fortune and political circumstances. 33. Why does Aristotle think that contemplation/study is ultimately the best/happiest life? Why is it better than the political life, specifically? Try to explain both as thoroughly as possible. Why contemplation is the best life: Exercise of the Highest Virtue: Engages the rational part of the soul at its highest capacity through intellectual virtues. Self-Sufficiency: Requires minimal external resources and is less affected by external changes. Continuity and Stability: Can be pursued consistently throughout life. Intrinsic Pleasure: Offers profound satisfaction from the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Divine Aspect: Reflects the activity of the divine, making it the most elevated human pursuit. Why it's better than political life: Less Dependent on Others: Does not require societal structures or the cooperation of others. Purity of Activity: Focuses solely on intellectual fulfillment without the complexities of politics. Higher Fulfillment: Fully actualizes the rational soul, which Aristotle deems the most significant aspect of humanity. Immunity to Fortune: Less susceptible to the unpredictability of political life. Contemplation leads to the most complete and enduring happiness by fulfilling our highest nature and providing intrinsic rewards that are stable and self-sufficient. 34. What do you think about Aristotle’s ultimate picture of the best life? To what extent do you agree/disagree? Why? Aristotle's vision emphasizes the importance of intellectual fulfillment and the pursuit of wisdom as the highest human good. This perspective highlights the value of knowledge, contemplation, and the development of reason. Agreement: Value of Intellectual Pursuits: Recognizing that engaging the mind can lead to deep satisfaction and personal growth. Self-Sufficiency and Stability: Appreciating activities that provide intrinsic rewards independent of external circumstances. Fulfillment of Human Potential: Understanding that realizing our rational capacities is a significant aspect of human flourishing. Disagreement: Overlooking Other Aspects of Life: The emphasis on contemplation may underplay the importance of emotional, social, and physical experiences. Accessibility: Not everyone has the opportunity or resources to engage in a life of contemplation. Balance: A well-rounded life might involve a combination of intellectual pursuits and active engagement with the world. In conclusion, while Aristotle's depiction of the contemplative life highlights essential elements of human happiness, a more holistic approach that includes various facets of life may offer a more comprehensive understanding of what constitutes the best life. 35. Explain the 'Self-Centeredness Objection,' the 'Action-Guiding Objection,' and the 'Contingency Objection' to virtue ethics as described by Solomon. Explain how Solomon responds to each objection in defense of virtue ethics. Self-Centeredness Objection: Objection: Virtue ethics is criticized for focusing on the moral agent's own character development and flourishing, potentially neglecting the well-being of others. It seems self-centered because it emphasizes personal virtue over actions that benefit others. Solomon's Response: Solomon argues that developing virtues inherently involves relationships with others. Virtues like compassion, generosity, and justice are other-regarding by nature. Therefore, virtue ethics fosters concern for others and is not self-centered. Action-Guiding Objection:  Objection: Critics claim virtue ethics fails to provide clear guidance on how to act in specific situations. Unlike rule-based ethics, it doesn't offer concrete principles or rules for decision-making, making it impractical. Solomon's Response: He contends that virtue ethics guides action through the cultivation of practical wisdom (phronesis). A virtuous person uses discernment to determine the right course of action in context. Virtue ethics emphasizes moral education and the development of judgment, which effectively guides actions. Contingency Objection: Objection: This objection states that virtue ethics depends too much on social and cultural contexts. Virtues may vary across societies, leading to ethical relativism and lack of universal applicability. Solomon's Response: Solomon acknowledges cultural influences but maintains that certain core virtues are universally valued, such as honesty and courage. Virtue ethics allows for cultural diversity while still promoting fundamental human goods. It balances universal principles with sensitivity to particular contexts. 36. How is Aristotle's ethics an instance of "Virtue Ethics"? What is "Virtue Ethics," how does it differ from other systems of normative ethics, and how does Aristotle's ethics fit into that category? Virtue Ethics Defined: Definition: Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory that emphasizes the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one's duty (deontology) or acting to bring about good consequences (consequentialism). Differences from Other Systems: Deontology: Focuses on adherence to moral rules or duties. Consequentialism: Focuses on the outcomes or consequences of actions. Virtue Ethics: Focuses on what kind of person one should be, cultivating virtues that enable one to live a good life. Aristotle's Ethics as Virtue Ethics:  Eudaimonia (Flourishing): Aristotle posits that the highest human good is eudaimonia, achieved through virtuous living. Virtues as Character Traits: Emphasizes developing virtues (courage, temperance, justice) through habituation. Doctrine of the Mean: Virtue is the mean between two extremes of excess and deficiency, tailored to individual circumstances. Practical Wisdom (Phronesis): Essential for making ethical decisions, integrating intellect with moral virtues. Focus on Being Over Doing: Prioritizes becoming a virtuous person over following rules or calculating consequences. Conclusion: Fit into Virtue Ethics: Aristotle's approach centers on character development and the virtues necessary for human flourishing, embodying the essence of virtue ethics and distinguishing it from other ethical theories. Augustine 37. What does it mean to use something, for Augustine? What does it mean to enjoy something? Give some examples of using and enjoying. What things does Augustine think we should use, and what should we enjoy? Why? Use (Uti): Meaning: Employing something as a means to achieve an end. Examples: Using a map to reach a destination. Utilizing tools to build a house. Enjoyment (Frui): Meaning: Valuing something as an end in itself, finding fulfillment in it. Examples: Enjoying a beautiful sunset. Delighting in a close friendship. Augustine's Perspective: What to Use: Earthly goods, relationships, and experiences should be used to move closer to God.  What to Enjoy: Only God should be enjoyed as the ultimate end and source of true happiness. Reasoning: Proper Ordering of Love: Misplacing enjoyment on temporal things leads to disordered love and unhappiness. Goal of Life: To return to God, using the world as a means to that end. 38. Augustine thinks that all virtue is love. Explain what he means by this. What sort of love constitutes virtue (or what must our loves be like if we are going to be virtuous)? What is vice, for Augustine? In what ways can our loves fall short of virtue? Virtue as Love: Explanation: Virtue is properly ordered love—loving God supremely and others appropriately. Characteristics of Virtuous Love: Directed Toward God: God is the highest good and ultimate object of love. Ordered Affections: Loving things according to their true value in relation to God. Selfless and Altruistic: Extends love to others as reflections of God's image. Vice as Disordered Love: Explanation: Vice arises when love is misdirected—loving lesser goods excessively or neglecting higher goods. Failures of Love: Inordinate Desires: Prioritizing wealth, power, or pleasure over spiritual well-being. Neglect of God: Failing to acknowledge God as the source of goodness. Selfishness: Loving oneself more than God or others. 39. What is the connection between love of God and of other people, for Augustine? In what ways does loving other people require or involve God? Connection:  Unified Commandment: Loving God and loving one's neighbor are inseparable; true love for others stems from love for God. Involvement of God: Image of God: Others are loved because they bear God's image. Divine Love as Source: God's love enables us to love others genuinely. Love as Participation: Loving others is participating in God's love. Implications: Ethical Duty: Love of neighbor is a manifestation of obedience to God. Spiritual Fellowship: Builds a community rooted in divine love. 40. How does Augustine think of temperance/moderation, fortitude/courage, justice, and prudence/wisdom as aspects of love? Temperance (Moderation): Love Preserving Itself Entire for God: Controls desires to remain devoted to God. Fortitude (Courage): Love Readily Enduring All for God's Sake: Faces trials and sufferings out of love for God. Justice: Love Serving God Alone: Orders society by giving each their due, rooted in love for God. Prudence (Wisdom): Love Discerning Well Between What Helps and Hinders Love of God: Guides decisions to foster deeper relationship with God. Overall View: Virtues as Expressions of Love: Each virtue is a facet of love directed toward God and others. 41. Explain how benevolence, equality, and universality show up in Augustine's ethics, and how this marks a shift from his predecessors. Benevolence: Emphasis on Charity: Centrality of loving others selflessly.  Shift: Moves beyond self-interest or personal virtue to active concern for others. Equality: All Equal Before God: Every person is equally valuable in God's eyes. Shift: Contrasts with hierarchical views of worth found in some ancient philosophies. Universality: Universal Scope of Love: Ethical obligations extend to all humanity, not just one's community or social class. Shift: Expands moral concern beyond local or national boundaries. Significance: Christian Influence: Integrates teachings of universal love and redemption. Ethical Transformation: Reorients ethics toward a global and inclusive perspective, emphasizing love as the foundation for all moral action.