Introduction to Ethics

In the section on ethics, we ask and try to answer the question: What should I do? Ethics is what I call ideal
behavior theorizing. The question, What should I do? reflects how you see yourself as a good person and what you
think of as ideal behavior. This is similar to the question, What would I do? but the difference is that the former
question suggests that there is an ideal course of action and the latter refers to what happens in reality. Moreover,
should refers to an objective standard and involves thinking in an idealistic way about others (community) or perhaps
respect for laws. Would on the other hand reflects ones personal opinions and experiences and often involves the
way a person acts based on what is right for them at that moment or what means they have at their disposal. For
example, I have had a few dilemmas in my life that involved other people whose lives were in danger. A few years ago, I
was travelling on the 134 West coming to Valley College and heard a high pitched whiz of a motorcycle. The motorcycle
was moving at a high rate of speed and past me as if I were standing still. The motorcycle passed me and then went
around and tried to pass a slower moving white car in front of us. The motorcycle driver misjudged her speed and
ended up clipping her rear bumper. He went flying in the air and spun around and then splatted on the ground right in
front of my car. I immediately pulled over and rendered care to the driver. I was the first one on the scene and I was
not due at school for another 2 hours. But imagine if I was running late and in danger of losing my job? Then what
would I have done in that case? And I recall another scenario on a beach in South Vietnam, Nha Trang, where a
swimmer was drowning in rough surf. What should I do? I did not act because I did not want to endanger my life (I did
not have what I considered to be the right skill to rescue someone). There are of course examples where what you
should do and what you would do coincide. For example, you believe that one should give money to the homeless and
that is in fact what you would do. So I think would refers to what one thinks they are able to do given the
circumstances.
What I mean is that the word should implies that there is some best or optimal course of action. Best can be
interpreted in two main senses: In the first sense, best refers to what is most useful or beneficial to the greatest number
of people. In the second sense, best refers to some kind of higher idealbest in the sense that God himself would
approve of the action. This is what the Euthyphro was all about: Socrates challenging the idea that people knew what
God wanted for human behavior. This is an interesting dichotomybetween good ideally and good in the maximally
beneficially sensethat we will seek to understand as the semester progresses. So, the main question in ethics is
What should I do? It seems obvious that there are many times when we are not sure what to do and where we have
conflicting intuitions about right/wrong. Imagine the dilemma that faced President Truman when he was trying to
decide whether or not to use the A-bomb. He was faced with the dilemma: Should we drop a bomb and kill 200,000
people immediately? Or if not, then the war drags on potentially killing many thousands more; the projections were
actually in the millions. Dilemmas also involve scenarios that we could imagine ourselves in. A dilemma is a situation
where one has to make a decision, but must choose between two relatively unattractive options. Take for example the
heart-wrenching story about a young mother caught in the tsunami of 2004 where she had to decide which of her two
children to let go of. Can you imagine being in either position? Often one does not have the luxury to think long and
hard on what to dobecause time is a factor; but this section of material will give us the luxury to do just that: to long
ponder on the issues. In this section of material we will look at various theoretical frameworks; these are the main
ethical views of which we will base of much of the rest of the course on. They will present us with ways in which we can
begin to think rationally about how to ideally act. These theories will provide us with a reasoned basis for arguing about
the issues. The study of right and wrong is called moral philosophy.
The earliest evidencefrom the historical registryof a formal study of ethics comes from ancient Greece, where
there was a tremendous amount of interest in human social, ethical, and political matters.1 Socrates and the ancient
Greeks in general were engaged in a great amount of debate about what the good life is, what the good for humans is,
the ideal state, etc. I like to think that we are carrying on the project of Socrates and the ancient Greeks. The Greeks
began to use reason to question the morals and ethics of their society rather than simply relying on tradition and
authority. Their main questions were: What should one do to be good? And are there standards that we can identify

There are three major shifts that led up to ethics as we know it. The first shift was from hunting and gathering, to the farming and
domestication of animals. This led to relatively stable societies and brought with it writing, which initially was limited to keeping
track of grain and other surplus. The second shift was from trying to understand the origins of the universecosmogony, to trying
to understand the nature of the universecosmology. The final shift and the activity that we are presently engaged in involved
using logic to systematically try to understand ethics rather than relying on ethics from authority or religion.

that will guide us? I believe that the Greeks were concerned with trying to understand and identify what they could and
could not control and wanted to know what it is they had power over. The Greeks were responding to and studying
their emotions and the forces of nature, and from this study two words came that we use regularly: ethosfrom which
we derive the word ethics and which refers to the things we can control, for example our path to happiness, our moral
choices, our virtues to some extent, etc. And pathosfrom which derive words like pathogen and pathologywhich
refers to the things we cannot controlthe disease we are afflicted with, the emotions we experience, our passions, etc.
We dont typically hold people responsible for the diseases they contract or for the feelings that they have, but we do
hold people responsible for how they act on those feelings. Socrates and the Greeks of Classical Antiquity were the
first people to separate the questions of ethics from religion. This is why Socrates was charged with impiety and
corrupting youthfor which he was ultimately executedbecause he dared to question the common sense and
traditions of his fellow Athenians.
Philosophers engaged in the formal study of ethics often break the study down into several subcategories or
branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics is an investigation into the nature of ethical
statements which involves the conflict between moral absolutismthe idea that there are universal moral truths and
moral/cultural relativismthe idea that moral truths are culturally-based and as such are constantly changing and in
conflict. Meta ethics also deals with trying to understand the terms good and bad as is evidenced in the Platonic
dialogue Gorgias. Meta-ethics involves a deeper look into and investigates the nature of ethical statements and terms.
Can ethics be thought of as true absolutely? This is known as moral absolutism. Or are they relative to some individual,
society, culture? This is known as moral relativism or cultural relativism. Meta-ethics also looks into questions regarding
what the words "good" and "right" mean. Try and define good and you will see how interesting this study is. Metaethics also wonders whether we can and how we know what is right and good. Are moral values objective?
The study of normative ethics involves identifying and proposing standards of morality/moral codes to follow and
stands between meta-ethics and applied ethics. One arrives at practical moral standards regarding what is right and
wrong. Normative ethics is concerned with:
A. What a good life is?Aristotle and virtue ethics
B. The moral duties one should followKantian deontology
C. The benefits/consequences of an actUtilitarianism
Some common normative standards are the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and
the Utilitarian calculus "the right action is the action that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Normative ethics is between meta-ethics and applied ethics. and involves coming to practical moral standards that can
guide us in deciding. The following are more examples: "stealing is wrong" eye for an eye, etc. Normative ethics is
not the same as etiquette. For example, etiquette calls for one to hold the door for another. But if someone failed to do
so, you would probably not call them immoral. On the other hand, it is not a breach of etiquette to fail to give money to
a homeless person, but one could see it as immoral. I like to think of normative ethics as an effort to identify binding
codes that one can use as guides to apply in various dilemmas and situations one faces. In applied ethics one applies
normative ethical theories to specific issues/occupations. Questions like abortion, euthanasia, affirmative action, animal
rights, legalization of drugs, etc.? Several sub-branches of applied ethics involve examining ethical problems of different
professions: A. Business ethics B. Medical ethics C. Legal ethics

Ethical issues and dilemmas are seemingly endless and are quite fascinating. Just take a look at the following ethical
questions. A thirty year old patient dying, with healthy organs that can be used for people waiting for transplants; when
is it morally permissible to end their life to harvest the organs? Should we use executed prisoners collagen for lips or for
anything? In Iran, they stone to death women for adultery; is this morally permissible? In some parts of the world, a
clitorectomy is performed on young girls essentially rendering them unable to experience pleasure during sexual
intercourse. How can this be seen as right? A young girl is seeking asylum here because her parents are forcing her to
marry. Should we intervene and grant asylum? They give the death penalty for dealing drugs in Malaysia; isnt that
extreme? Is this not barbaric? Can we say? Take a look at the Schapelle Corby case. Is it okay to steal if you are
hungry? What should you do if you find another persons wallet? In India, they are dropping babies from a tower 200
feet; of course there is a safety net and they are caught. They do this because they believe it to be good luck, but is this
sane?
The following are the theories that we will look at over the next couple of weeks:

1.) Relativism states that there are no moral absolutesno objective standards; that one moral truth is as good as
another. This position states that moral values are decided culturally and that there is nothing in them that necessarily
extends them to other cultures. This has deep implications on international business, the safety of workers, child labor,
and acts such as bribery, as well as the general problemif values are relative then a course in business ethics would
end up being a survey rather than a serious intellectual inquiry. If values are relativethen there is no satisfactory way
to answer the moral questions we will look at. For example, in international businessshould one follow the host or
home country practices? Bribery is seen as criminal here, but not so in other cultures. Relativism also raises the
question, Can we ever say another culture is wrong? Then if we say they are wrong, can we intervene? Nonintervention in the world sounds tolerant. But what about genocide? Can we put a number on lives lost before we think
that its okay to intervene? Relativism as such is not a moral theory; it is rather a standpoint that makes general claims
about the nature of moral claims and the nature of moral acts.
There are a number of problems that I see with relativism, both practical and logical:
1.) Practical problems with relativism:
A.) We take relativism as a kind of default true position without investing much thought to substantiate it one way or
another. I think that part of this is because we are taught, and perhaps rightfully so, that we should be tolerant of each
others cultures, lifestyles and other such differences. But I think there is a big gap between respecting someones
difference of opinion and accepting their wrong behavior. And given that this is often peoples default position, which
implies that they have without any conscious choice and deliberation.
B.) Take a cultures practice of stoning a woman to death for adultery. This seems to me to be unconditionally wrong.
But a relativist might respond, Well thats just how they do things in that culture. In fact, there seem to be plenty of
acts that qualify as morally wrong regardless of where one comes from. Take for example slavery. What is slavery?
Define: forcing someone to work for you against their will and without freedom; they lose their freedom, their right to
liberty. The relativist says that slavery is wrong means that slavery is wrong to a particular cultural. But it seems to
me that it is always wrong, everywhere to enslave someone. Relativism means to believe in ethics that there are no
absolute moral truths. According to Russell, this view is untrue, and it has the effect of robbing philosophy of its value.
There are some things (e.g., rape) that are absolute moral wrongs, no matter what culture or who is doing the act.
Take murder as well; murder is the unlawful killing of an innocent person. One thing is to be tolerant, accepting of each
other, one thing is standing up for moral truth. Murder strikes against the right to life, against the belief that we hold to
life. Slavery strikes against the right to liberty. Morality is something thats part of our make-up, part of who we are. If
something is true, its not true because we believe it, because we take it to be true, but because it is true. Kant, like
Plato believed that the real is non-physical. For Plato mind allows us to understand metaphysical or super reality.
2.) Logical problem with relativism:
To say, There are no absolute moral truths is a logical contradiction. If you say there are no moral truths, then are we
then obligated to accept at least one moral truth, that being that there are none. The same holds for the statement, All
is relative. This can be taken as an absolute. A logical contradiction involves assert and deny at the same time and
same place; logically speaking you cant do this. There are no absolute moral truths = logical contradiction. Example of
logical contradiction: This sentence is false. Is it true that this statement is false? If it is true that the statement is false,
then how can it be false?

2.) Virtue Ethics philosophical thinking about the good life. It gives no guidelines for action, but asserts that one
must develop their virtue and character, developing habits that aim at the mean between the vice of excess and the vice
of defect. The virtuous personhaving the proper needs in live, will then is able to choose correctly. Aristotle is
prominent advocate of virtue ethics and is particularly concerned with human happinesstaking it as the highest goal
for humanity and as an intrinsic good; this is what his ethics are focused on. Epicurus and Epictetus are other
philosophers who were engaged in trying to understand how to have a good life. Virtue ethics involves the question,
apart from religious beliefs, on how to have and what is a good life.
Kant and Mill offer reasoned principles towards making right/good decision.

3.) Kantian/duty ethicsis a continuation of the Socratic projectthe quest for moral absolutes. Kant asserts that we
are bound by duty to act regardless of outcome, and so in this regard it is opposed to utilitarianism and is form of anticonsequentialism. I describe Kantian ethics as Christian ethics rationalized. Please note an important distinction
between excusing and act and justifying an act. This can help you as you try to answer the introductory dilemmas:
Excusingyou believe your act is wrong, but give reasons for why you think it is excusable. For example: You eat animal
flesh. You do it and you think it is wrong, but you excuse your behavior because you reason that humans need animal
meat to live and that there are no comparable food substitutes as nutritious as animals flesh.
VS.
Justifyingyou believe your act is right, and give reasons for why you think it is right. For example: You eat animal
meat. You do it and you do not believe it is wrong. You justify your act by saying that God gave humans the Earth and
all its inhabitants.
Kantian duty Ethics emphasizes that a human being is never to be used as a mean to an end. Humans have dignity and
rights. You should never knowingly perform a known evil to avoid a future or anticipated evil. E.g., allow this patient to
die when there is a minuscule amount of hope, because human beings have dignity and rights. We have inalienable
human rights and as such those rights cannot be compromised.

4.) Utilitarianism states that an act is right if produces greater happiness in society. It is whats called consequentialism
and it involves calculating, so in this regard it is very practical. It states that we cant find moral absolutes, but since we
know that pleasure and happiness are good, we have a ready guide for pointing us in the right direction. Technically,
this is not an ethics, but rather a way of deciding that involves projected benefits and burdens. Utilitarianism = a
practical strategy. Provide us with useful standards in making this decision. Practical standards = principles that we
develop to assist us. Utilitarianism = they dont deny humans have rights, but regardless, they say the practical standard
is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. In ethics you are asking what is good and what is bad.
When you talk about ethics, you are talking about ideal behavior, theorizing dilemma.
5.) ImmoralismNietzschemorality is perspectival and for Nietzsche, it involves the expression of the will to power.
He is seen as a modern Thrasymachusreformulates Sophists intuitions. Ethics, in the search of good and evil, is
rooted in the sublimation of the will to power.
6.) Contemporary EthicsManningcare is central to ethics. She takes modern understandings of human psychology.
Being in a web of relationships were bound to care for each otherwhich means meeting each others needs including
the needs of animals and other people far away parts of the world.
Over the course of this semester we are going to be asking many more questions than for which we will have answers.
But the point of philosophy is not really to answer the questions, but rather for us to become sensitive to how
complicated they are and how unanswerable they seem. This produces a kind of humility and attitude that ironically
then places one in the best possible position to be able answer a question. This humility is reflected in Socrates famous
quote, I know that I know nothing. Can a course in ethics make someone act ethically? Probably not. But that is not
really the point of this course. A course in ethics, at least from this writers point of view, involves raising awareness
awareness of our own thought processes and an evaluation of behavior. All of this goes towards making us more
mature and better educated, which may or may not make us more ethical. Welcome to the course and may your study
be enjoyable and informative!

Aristotles Virtue Ethics

Click here for more information on Aristotle:
Http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Click here for more information on Virtue Ethics:
Http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Aristotle, born in Stagira, was the son of a physician (Nichodemus) and tutor to Alexander the Great. He was an heir
to a tradition that started with Socrates and Plato where reason was applied to try and understand what the good life
was. Aristotle was not looking to understand what people subjectively felt was, but wanted to see if there was any way
to think of a good life in an objective sense. Often people render the term that Aristotle useseudaimoniato mean
happiness so this inevitable lead people to think that he is referring to what one subjective thinks/feels to be
happiness. So in this sense someone who was sleeping on the streets and dumpster diving for a meal could subjectively
feel that they were living a good life. But could we really think someone living like that could be living a good life. So,
while self-reporting that one is having a good life is part of it, that is not the end all be all of the equation. Yes, the
subjective sense that one is living a good life is important (it would seem odd if it were not) but it is not the end of the
story. The good life, or happiness as modern humans think of it, often is conceived in terms of subjective emotions, a
state, or perhaps even as something to pursue. But for Aristotle it is more of a disposition, a byproduct of a number of
components in place (here byproduct does not mean a throw away). The term Aristotle employs, eudaimonia, literally
means good spirit. And like the good cataloguer and observer that he was, he lists what he sees as the main contenders
for the good life with his aim to ultimately show what that is for humans.
Ari mentions three main kinds of contenders for the good life: the ordinary life, the political life, and the contemplative
life. Aristotle says that ordinary peoplethose he refers to as vulgarfavor a life of consumption and see that as the
end goal of life.2 He says that they are living lives that are akin to grazing cattle. I think Aristotle is referring to a
contemporary group who believed that the key to living a good life was to indulge ones senses to the greatest degree
possible, to get as much pleasure as possiblethe hedonists. They believed that the key to living a good life was to eat,
drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die. While, Aristotle is far from saying that one should not seek pleasure;
that would be odd for someone to say that they were living a good life and not experiencing more pleasure in their life
than pain. But for Aristotle, as we shall see, it is all about moderation. So Aristotle falls in the spectrum between the
hedonistswho pursue pleasure at all costs, and the asceticswho eschew pleasure as corrupting and believe that a
life where one abstains from worldly pleasures as helping to attain a high moral/spiritual life. Ordinary people generally
see the good-life as one of max pleasure minimal pain.
Another common idea held by ordinary people is that the more money they have, the happier they will be. And
indeed empirical studies seem to bear this idea out as trueto an extent. One study that I have read showed that there
is a significant report in the increase of happiness from people who go from $50,000.00 to $100, 000 per year in salary;
but that after that, say from 100,00 to 200,000 the sense of the increase in happiness reported is not that much greater.
Aristotle was said to be the first economist and discusses economics in two different senses: Oecinomicus and
Chrematsike. Oecinomcus was the art of acquiring and managing a household budget. So herein lies his ideas on how
much money one needs. It depends on what your role/purpose in the community was. So for example, if you were a
surgeon, your budgetary requirements are going to be different from the budgetary requirements for a bricklayer. The
surgeon is going to have to pay back student loans, is going to have a great deal more of responsibility/liability and job
importance than the bricklayer, and will require more money to manage her house. The bricklayer on the other hand
like all peopleneeds to be able to keep food in her fridge and also make sure that she is able to keep up her household
and all that entails: think: soap, toothpaste, toilet paper, light bulbs, cable bills, etc.
For Aristotle, human beings were deeply social in nature. Our lives, he believed, were inextricably bound with the lives
of the others in our community. Aristotle says that we need each other and says that even when that need is satisfied,
we find sweetness in engaging with each other: community, friends, and family. Those who do not have this need are
either beasts or gods. With the term oecinomicus, Aristotle alludes to what he sees as the purpose of the city, which is
mainly to provide for the safety of its citizens, to assist in the cultivation of virtueas Aristotle says, To provide one
with opportunities to perform acts of virtue and to help its citizens to grow and flourish (to achieve the good life). As

If this sounds elitist, it is. Aristotle is writing in period where there idea of equality among humans was non-existent. In fact,
Aristotle argues that humans are naturally unequal, some marked from the moment of their birth to serve and others to rule.

the ancient Greeks were fond of saying, to live the good life, one must live in a good city. With his concept of
oecinomicushousehold trading, Aristotle recognizes not only that trade is essential to any complex society, but that it
is needed both to preserve the family and to achieve the good life. Chrematsike on the other hand was profiteering or
money making for the sake of money-making and was for Aristotle totally devoid of virtue. Chrematsike is trade for
profit that goes well beyond what one needs. I think Aristotle is referring to jobs where one deals only in exchange of
currency and which provide no real service or product: stock trading, lending with high rates of interest, currency trading,
etc. Aristotle thinks of those who pursue profit for profits sake as parasitic. Think of what a parasite is: a being that
lives solely off the labor or effort of another without any contribution. So these folks take, but do not give. Also, people
who have too much money will be distracted by luxuries and uninterested in engaging in the affairs of the city. On the
other hand, if one is too poor, they will spend their time trying to stay afloat and also will to be unable to participate.
So for Aristotle, money is needed, but only the amount of money required to manage ones household.
To help clarify Aristotles position, he makes an important distinction between an intrinsic good and an instrumental
good. An instrumental good is something which the name suggests; it is good for its value as an instrument, or as good
for something else. So we think of a tool, take for example a hammer, as good for some other thing, like pounding or
extracting nails. Unless one is a collector, people dont generally think of a hammer as something that is good in itself.
He contrasts this with an intrinsic good, and this is something that is good in itself without reference to some further
thing. For example, Aristotle saw the good life as an intrinsic good. He wanted to emphasize that it is wrong to think
that money has intrinsic value. Money, for Aristotle, is only valuable as an instrument, in terms of how it can help one to
achieve the things that they need to provide as a basis for the good life, but not for the good life itself. Education is
something that one could think of in both senses. Some people study, not because they will gain any definite skill set or
life advantage, but simply because they find the pursuit of knowledge something valuable in its own right. On the other
hand, many people think of education as something that is important in terms of advancing in their career or making
more money. This is expressed well in a banner that flew at the entrance to our sister school, LA City College at
Vermont and Melrose in LA. The banner read, LA City College: An Oasis of Learning. Learn More to Earn More. As
Aristotle says, The life of the moneymaker is chosen under compulsion of need, and wealth is clearly not the good we
are looking for, since it is useful, and for the sake of something else. (390) Simply put, for Aristotle, money only has
limited instrumental value.
The second kind of good life that people pursue is the political life. And as the title suggests, these people are involved
not only in affairs of the state, but also in positions that involve dealing with the public and being in the public spotlight.
Aristotle says that one of the big motivators that stirs people to pursue this kind of life is the praise and honor they
receive from others. These people pursue positions in the public spotlight because they desire to be seen and
appreciated by others. As Aristotle says, they seem to pursue honor to be convinced that they themselves are good.
The problem with this is that as soon as the praise is gone, they no longer feel that they are good. Aristotle says the
good life from this approach overly involves what others think. It is like getting a compliment, it does make you feel
good, but to become dependent on others for this can be a great impediment to living a good life. As Aristotle says, the
good life will involve a degree of self-sufficiency, but with the political life, the good-life is superficial and fleeting than
what we are looking for because it seems to be located in those doing the honoring rather than in the person receiving it.
To properly understand what Aristotle thinks of as the good life two things need to be considered first. Aristotles ideas
on the soul (psyche) and his ideas on purpose/function (telosa things towards which). If we understand our purpose,
then we have something to aim for, a target. For Aristotle, all living things have a soul and as such, believed that there
were three kinds of souls, the vegetative (required for movement and possessed by all living things including plants), the
sentient soul (required for feeling and possessed by some animals and humans), and the rational soul (required for
thinking and possessed only by humans). It is the rational soul that makes humans unique and it is here that the good
life is to be realized and our function found. Moreover, Aristotle says that of all things, that they have a purpose/
function. Aristotles question: if our parts (arms, legs, fingers, heart, etc.) have functions and purposes, then why not

our entire being? The unique/characteristic activity is where our function is to be found; the characteristic activity of
human beings is to reason. Aristotle expresses human purpose oddly as activity of the soul in accordance with reason
and a little more clearly as activity of soul in accordance with virtue. So then the good life is one where we are
exercising our characteristic activity in line with virtue. The main component involves the exercise of reason and having
a certain kind of balance within. This is when the organism is functioning properly, having the ability to reason and not
being overly disturbed by passion.
In our continuing analysis then, we need to understand what virtue is. For Aristotle, a virtue is a positive feature of
ones character that comes about when one has good habits or is taught well. On page 393, Aristotle talks about
intellectual virtues, what I think of as learning, critical thinking, acquiring knowledge and facts, the various intellectual
skills such as math and logic, etc. and virtues of characterpatience, courage, generosity, gratitude, etc. Intellectual
habits come as a result of teaching and character virtues are a result of habit, having good training, nurturing as a child,
and by using reason to control ones passions and urges. According to Aristotle, one becomes virtuous by acting
virtuously This is similar to the same way that one would become good at playing a sport or an instrument, say playing
the pianothe more you play, the better you get. But Aristotle points out how this seems to be a paradox: if you are to
act justly to become just, then at some level you are already just. Temperance is a prominent virtue and it involves
knowing how to properly negotiate a persons relationship to behaviors and substances that are pleasurable: sex, food,
etc. A person is said to be temperate when she neither indulges too much (the vice of excess), nor too little (the vice of
defect) in the sensual pleasures. As Aristotle says, virtue lies in the golden mean between excess and deficiency and so
is best described by use of a golf metaphor: virtue is hitting the sweet spot. Other well-known virtues are: courage,
justice, prudence, generosity, compassion, etc.
Virtue involves the conflict between action and emotion. When one is virtuous there is the right amount of action and
the right amount of emotion. Lets explore this idea through another examplecourage. Courage, contrary to what
people often think, is not the absence of fear, but rather involves having the right amount of fear so that you know
when to act and when to retreat. If you have too much fear/too little action you will have the vice of cowardice. If you
have too little fear/too much action, then you will have the vice of foolhardiness/rashness. One needs just the right
amount of fear so that they can be courageous. How does one have the proper amount of fear? Well, this is where
upbringing comes in. If one is raised well, they will have the right amount of fear. Another example is with the virtue
of compassionwhich means the proper concern for another. The virtue in its excess is what one might refer to as
overly caring; one might describe such as person as having a bleeding heart. The deficiency of caring is callousness and
indifference. To use Aristotles language, the virtuous person feels at the right time, on the right occasion and in the
right fashion, so is able to act virtuously. Moreover, So too then is it with the Virtues: for by acting in the various
relations in which we are thrown with our fellow men, we come to be, some just, some unjust: and by acting in
dangerous positions and being habituated to feel fear or confidence, we come to be, some brave, others cowards.
Finally, there the so called paradox of virtue; Aristotle says that for the things we must learn first before doing, we learn
first by doing. This paradox is also expressed in our text as Aristotle suggests some irony in the idea in the irony in that
in order to become just one must act justly; but if one is acting justly, then are they not already just? For the things we
must first learn before doing, we learn first by doing. Its a paradox. We learn by doing ultimately? How do you learn to
become a teacher? You teach. How do you learn to be a lawyer? You lawyer? Take a look at this brief list of virtues: A
few examples taken from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Book II):
VIRTUE AND THE GOLDEN MEAN
According to Aristotle, the moral virtues lie between the extremes of excess and deficiency. Virtues are basically good
habits or dispositions to act appropriatelythat are intended to help one to have a better life.

VICE (Defect)

VIRTUE (Mean)

VICE (Excess)

Cowardice
fear)

Courage

Rashness (overly confident)

Temperanceproper/controlled
desire for pleasure

Self-indulgence (too much

pleasure)

Meanness or Stinginess
(too little giving)

Generosity

Prodigality or Wastefulness
(too much giving)

Undue
Humility
enough pride)

Pride

Vanity (too much pride)

Apathy(too little anger)

Even Tempered

Irascibility (too much anger)

Surliness

Friendliness

Flattery

Insensibility
pleasure)

(too

(too

much

little

(not

Finally, there is a brief but important contrast that must be made between Aristotle and Socrates. There was an
ongoing debate in ancient Greecewhich continues to this dayregarding the place of knowledge in helping one to
control their passions/emotions. Socrates and Aristotle were representative of two of the main conclusions that the
ancient Greeks came to regarding the place of knowledge. For Socrates, knowledge was enough for one to be virtuous.
So in this regard we can say that for Socrates, knowledge was both necessary and sufficient for a person to become
virtuous. But for Aristotle, knowing absolute was not enough; knowledge was necessary, but insufficient in itself. Take
for example smoking. Socrates says that if you knew that smoking was bad for you, really knew, then you would be able
to stop smoking. But Aristotle recognized what seems to be an obvious truth, that people often act contrary to what
they know to be good. Aristotle accounted for this with his concept of akrasiaor what is loosely translated to mean
weak will. Weak will according to Aristotle was the result of an improper upbringing. Again, for Aristotle, a person
needs knowledge, but as I mentioned previously, one also needs good habits, community, parents, money, health, etc.
Aristotle emphasized how important it is to have the right kind of upbringing: So then, whether we are accustomed this
way or that straight from childhood, makes not a small but an important difference, or rather I would say it makes all the
difference. So then to define what is a good person, for Aristotle, it is not so important what you do in a particular
case; it is rather more important how you live your whole life. So ones goodness is measured in terms of the full range
of their lifespan rather than at any one particular phase. As Aristotle says, The appearance of a single swallow does not
indicate the arrival of spring. For Socrates knowledge was necessary and sufficient for virtue. If you had the knowledge,
it would point you in the right direction. For Aristotle knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Aristotle says that
people do know, but they lack strength of will, will power to be able to conquer their afflictions. For Aristotle you need a
lifetime of experiences to become virtuous = one swallow (a bird) is not enough to announce spring. For a single
swallow does not make spring, nor does a single day *
Various notes: proston-kairon is a term associated with virtue ethics. It means to act as the occasion demands, even as
the occasion is changing, which to me calls to mind the ability to, as we learned in the Marine Corps to adapt, overcome,
improvise.

Kantian Ethics
Click here for more information on deontology:
Http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
Kants philosophy challenges one to Do the right thing! Kant (1724-1804), will be a persistent presence in all of our
discussions and his ideas will present problems. He says we should do the right thing regardless of reward/loss. Is not
this counter-instinctual? Kants greatest contribution to ethics involves the idea of the rights and dignity of persons.
Well talk about this later. Here is a brief biography: Kant worked as a university lecturer and it has been said that he
never traveled more than 10 miles from home. Kant suffered from poor health and at age 30 he was told he only had 3
years to live. So he began to take long walksso regular that the housewives in his town would set their clocks to his
walks. Kant is said to have had an admiration of the bourgeoning science of his timeespecially Newton mechanics.
People were excited because they, and Kant, believed that science was revealing to mankind the essential structure of
Gods universe. Newtonian mechanics was all about gaining predictive powers over nature and about learning about the
behavior of particles, pendulums, gravity, etc. Newtonian mechanics revolutionized Kants philosophy and made him
wonder how our moral life could conform to this mechanics. A famous quote by Kant that reflects his interest in this is:
The starry heavens above and the moral law within. Kant wondered about the law within and also wished to know
how to reconcile laws of physics with human nature and human moral life.
Kantian Ethics is a revival of/rededication to Christian ethics and an attempt to show that Christian beliefs were
rational. Kantian ethics emphasizes principles and being good. Its not about happiness now, its about doing good and
being good and thinking about ideal behavior. Kant is interested in identifying the supreme principle of morality. He
wanted to show how Christian beliefs are still relevant in the light of recent scientific discoveries, for example that the
Earth was not the center of the universe. Kant wants to defend the Christian ideals that he has inherited. Part of that
tradition involves the general belief that people should resist their desires and inclinations. We will explore this in detail
later on. Nietzsche as we will see will stand in direct opposition: he will try to show the irrationality of and will want to
destroy Christianity. Where Kant sees order, Nietzsche questions this assumption by asking: do you have enough chaos
in you to give birth to a dancing star? It amounts to fundamental differences of perspective. Nietzsche says that it
destroys a person to be an automaton of duty. An automaton is a robot, a being that acts automatically, without will or
choice. For Nietzsche our virtue has to be our greatest creation and he emphasized the power to choose.
There were a couple of streams that were beginning to gather some steam in Kants time. One of these streams was
scientific thought. One of the features of scientific thought is that it contains skeptical protocols; meaning that the
method challenges people to abandon beliefs that are contrary to the evidence or non-evidenced. There is an entire
shift in the way that people were trying to understand the world around them. It was a stream that gathered, gained
momentum in Kants time. Also, Kant was a prominent member of what was called the Enlightenment; these
Enlightenment thinkers believed that human beings could exercise their ability to use reason to understand the universe
and themselves. They believed that by the exercise of reason and the human capacity for thought, that they would be
able to understand human life and the universe. Kant was deeply influenced by both of these movements. Kant thought
that these ideas presented by the science of the period were revolutionary. He wanted to apply this knowledge to
human interior moral life and to show that the natural world mirrors or parallels human moral life. Again, the starry
heavens above and the moral law within suggests that there is form for how we work inside.
Kant begins his famous work Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morality with the assertion that the good will is
paramount. He says, Nothing is good in itself but the good will. He says that other goodssuch as wealth, beauty,
intelligence, and happiness all have the potential to be perverted, but only the good will is good without qualification.
Kant is saying that being moral concerns the action of a certain kind of willa good willthat is free and aligned with
right reason. This calls to mind the concept of good intentions. There is something spot on and interesting about
Kants concept of the good will. It does seem to be good in itself. Compare this to the distinction we made when
discussing Aristotle between intrinsic good and instrumental good.
In general for Kant, the defining feature of a moral act involves acting for the sake of the goodness of the act, because
its right, regardless of reward. This calls to the front the idea of duty. There are ordinary duties that one has, and then
there are higher or moral dutiesthese are often associated with religion. There are different ways of performing duty:
You can conform to the duty (doing it automatically, or to gain a reward or to avoid some negative consequence) or you
can embrace (from) the duty. For Nietzsche doing whats right depends on whats in your best interest, what you see as
best for yourself. But not so for Kant who gives the example of a shopkeeper: a shopkeeper has a duty in terms of
pricing, to keep the prices fixed, which means to have same price for everyone (Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of
Morals, p. 411 of the textbook). This is actually a form of honesty. I have travelled to many places in the world where

they charged a locals price and a visitors price. Even Amazon was doing this a few years back. They would follow
your direction on the website and get a sense of what a good price was for you and then send you items in your price
range. This is what is called dynamic pricing and they have since halted this practice. There are two ways to do it: You
conform which means you have to do it because everyone else is doing it; or you do it to avoid some consequences, for
example not wanting to get a reputation among your customers as being dishonest. An act that conforms has an
ulterior motive. On the other hand, when you embrace a duty, you do it because it is the right thing to do. It involves
treating people with dignity, as rational beings with rights. An act that conforms to duty is not morally praiseworthy.
An act done from duty is the essence of morality. The shopkeeper that keeps his prices fixed because its the right thing
to do and not for any increase in sales or reputation, is acting morally. To embrace ones duty at some level is the
hallmark of Christian faith. It is selflessnessan act without the self-involvedaltruism. Kant tells us how we should,
not how we can be. With Kantian Ethics you have the epitome of ideal behavior theorizing.
Take for example finding a wallet; we can discuss this in terms of what our inclination to do is versus what we should
do. You may wish to keep the wallet and may reason that the owner may not miss or even need the wallet. You may
think it is a greater benefit to return it and you may even give the money to a charity. Or you may say that the owner
may spend the money frivolously. It does not matter, in any event, there is only one right thing to doyou should
return the wallet. So for Kant, we act on duties: hypothetical imperatives help us to acquire an end, while categorical
imperatives are required per se. Interestingly, the outcome of an act could be the same, but the way we got there, our
intents or motives, could be quite different. For example, a young man may give up his seat on the bus for an elderly
passenger. One does this simply because it is the kind and thoughtful thing to do; while another does it because others
are scowling at him, and still another does it to look good in front of his girlfriend.
Kant talks about ways to bind humanityhow to get principles of behavior that apply to us all. So for this we inquire
as to what it means to be reasonable and what part reason has in morality. Acting according to reasonsays Kantis to
act in the way one estimates that any reasonable person would act. We develop principles using reason. But there are a
few ways to think about principles, in terms of maximsthat is a rule that one follows, and universal lawsrules that all
follow, also called the categorical imperative. Maxims are easily understood and all of us refer to maxims, either ones
that weve developed ourselves or ones that weve been taught. People develop maxims to help them decide in
financial mattersfor example the maxim I never mix friendship and money. Maxims are also used in mundane
matters such as dating. A few years ago, one student told the class that she would not go out on a second date with a
gentleman suitor who would not pay for her meal!
Regarding imperatives, things are a little more complicated. Kant says that there are two kinds of imperatives:
hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives involve means end reasoning. For example if you want good
grades, then you should study hard. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, are required per se. These imperatives
are not concerned with outcomes and are thus described as anti-consequentialist and are said to bind one to act
regardless of the outcome. There are several formulations of the categorical imperative. 3 The first formulation states
that one should, Act such thatones act could become a universal law of human action. This is similar to the
Golden Rule. For example, one cant say that lying is wrong for others but okay for oneself. Things like lying, stealing,
cheating do not stand up to the test of the categorical imperative captured by the simple moral question, What if
everyone behaved like that? Kant says that the heart of immorality is in thinking of ones self as an exception. The
test for this involves asking yourself if your act can be extended to others similarly situated, without contradiction, to all
of humanity. Imagine you are in a crowded movie theater and the usher comes in to tell you that there is a fire. And
then asks that everyone move in an orderly fashion to the exits. You want to bolt for the door and get out before
everyone else. Well, can your desire to bolt be universalized? That is, could you in that instance, without contradiction,
will that everyone act on their impulse to get out of the theater by bolting? The short answer is no. If everyone bolted,
then your bolt would have no value. There is another example that involves waiting your turn in line. The violations of
the categorical imperative involve one thinking that their lives or situations are exceptions, which again for Kant is the
heart of immorality.
The second formulation is, One ought to treat others as having intrinsic value in themselves, and not merely as
means to achieve ones ends. It implies that individuals have dignity and rights and thus cant be used, seemingly no
matter what the gain; it emphasizes respect for persons. A good way to illustrate this is by thinking about friendships:
Do we have friendships because we like or love people for themselves and because they have intrinsic worthor for

our text lists the first two formulations of Kants categorical imperative.

what they can do for us? The second formulation conflicts with utilitarianism. For Kant, one is to never perform a
known evil to avoid a future of supposed evil. The third and final formulation of the categorical imperative is, every
rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of
ends", where he lived in a community where he was both sovereign and subject. The third formulation brings together
the first two formulations and gives one an image about the kind of society one would ideally want to live in.
One notable application of Kantian ethics to business is the so called Open Book Style of Management. With the
Open Book Style, one makes transparent the inner financial workings of the company so as to give employees the
greatest amount of knowledge and respect. The company gives the employee knowledge of their inner workings so they
have the ability to make informed decisions about their employment.
Here are just a few criticisms of Kantian ethics. The main problem the idea of good intentions is how do we know
what we or others really intend? You may help another to cross the street, thinking its a good deed. But are you doing
it for goodness sake or because you want to be liked? Can we isolate one intention in any act? Are there not mixed
motives in what we do? And at times we are unaware of what our true motives are even if we think deeply about them.
Also, do not people do very bad things with good intentions in mind? Take the following case: A company publicly
makes a donation to charity. It is clear that they have self-interested motives: getting publicity for doing good in the
community. Nevertheless, a charity will benefit when it otherwise would not have. For Kant this is not moral. But does
it not seem that there is more good in the world because they did what they did than if they hadnt been charitable?
Shouldnt we praise such actions (especially if the comparison is not with pure charity but none at all)? Is there room in
business for rules that go beyond gain and exist simply because of what Kant says, because they are good and right?
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche rejects Kants attempt to make a morality that applies to all by emphasizing
universality and duty. He says of Kant's ethics: "It destroys a person to act as an automaton of duty" and that "A virtue
has to be our invention, our most personal defense and necessity."
Moreover, Kant seems to suggest that people can repress their own personal needs and desires in the pursuit of
doing good. But are we really free to act contrary to our own personal desires and do we really do things out of duty?
In this regard, Kantian ethics seems to separate morality from the pursuit of happiness. Being moral for Kant is not
about being happy. But this seems odd. When do we really act on principle regardless of consequence? Do we do this?
Should we? Take this example from a student in one of my past classes. In the fishing industry, there is a great deal of
competition among the fisherman. The captain of boat X, is in a relatively good spot and he is catching large amounts of
fish, but a competing fisherman is having trouble catching anything at all. He contacts his competitor and asks him if he
is having any luck or if there are any good spots where he is. By assisting and telling the truth because it follows the
Kantian dictate of doing the right thing, his fellow fisherman will make his means of business and income; but he must
be willing to jeopardize himself and his crew and catching less fish themselves which translates to making less income.
(Andy Hul, CSUN student FA08)
General notes on Kant. Kantian Ethics is also known as Duty Ethics. The way you behave is by identifying supreme
principles of morality and then acting without regard to consequences. Kant declares that he wants to seek out and
establish supreme principles of morality. Maxim is a principle that you develop for yourself = a principle for one.
Categorical imperatives = a principle that applies to everyone. Principle = a law that you make or identify or use, by
which you guide your personal behavior; a rule, a standard by which you gage, judge other peoples behavior and your
own. Categorical imperatives bind all of humanity = a principle for all. Human moral principle against lying: Kant says
there is a categorical imperative against lying. Categorical imperative = be honest, tell the truth. First formulation of the
categorical imperative = the principle is something that applies to everyone equally; principle for all as universal laws
(Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 416 of the textbook). A lie is only effective when its an exception to
a rule. For Kant the heart of immortality is to think of yourself as an exception. Categorical = it applies to an entire
category = humanity Imperative = its a command Categorical imperative is a principle that applies to everyone equally.
Truth telling is a categorical imperative. The reason for that is that lying isnt something that can be extended to all
humanity. A lie only works when you think no one else is lying. You hope everyone else is telling the truth. Lying is only
effective when it is an exception. Kant says that in order to have a system of morality, there should be principles that
bind everyone. Kant admonishes to never perform a known evil to avoid a future or supposed evil. Can everyone do
this and it make sense. Compare and contrast Aristotle and Kant on intrinsic goods. For Kant, the good will is the only
thing that is good in itself. For Aristotle, this was happiness. Take note of why Kant thinks happiness is not the thing
that is good in itself. For Kant, it is all about being a good person; while for Aristotle it is all about having a happy life.
There are times when our duties seems to conflict, when what is good seems ambiguous. For example, there is a duty

not to kill oneself. But what if by killing yourself you could save the lives of 300 people? Reason reveals the rightness or
wrongness of an act.

Utilitarianism
Click here for more information on Utilitarianism:
Http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

There was a dam project in Malaysian Borneo that stood to bring a great deal of electricity to the Malaysian Peninsula,
but at the cost of the way of life of the people on Borneo. This raises a number of questions notably does the benefit of
a large number of people justify the burden to a few? In this instance, the people on the Malay Peninsula will be greatly
benefitted by the new power resources, but the indigenous peoples will be incredibly inconvenienced and their
traditional lifestyles will be uprooted. Is it worth the boon to the Malay Peninsula? Is it ever okay to think about
cost/benefit when it comes to people? Can we sacrifice one life if it benefits 5 others? For example, if there are 5
people on one rail and 2 on the other, does not reason suggest we should take out the 2 to save the 5? Or is it more
complex than that? Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics from around the late 18 th to early 19the century that raised
the question, can the ends justify the means, or can an act be justified if it results in a big enough reward.
Utilitarianism is a system of ethics and is roughly based on calculating or measuring benefits versus burdens. In
regards to ethics, the choice one takes is the one that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. It sounds
very appealing and democratic, and does seem to provide an intuitive and practical guide for deciding in moral dilemmas
and a ready formula in business; this is what is so attractive about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism amounts to a
cost/benefit analysis. Some of the main expressions of utilitarianism are ones action should aim at the largest possible
balance of pleasure over pain and the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In the case of business application,
and provided one is within the law, the choice one would make is the one that will bring the greatest financial gain.
Does this not seem like a perfect framework for guiding business decisions? According to our text, business is utilitarian
in nature (88). The point of a business is to make a profit, not to make everyone happy. But isn't it our call as human
beings to think of ways of improving on the way things are? Cant we rethink the point of business?
utilitarianism was inspired in part by movements that took place in ancient Greece, notably hedonism and
Epicureanism. Epicurus preached that by seeking modest pleasures and abstaining from rich foods and too much sex,
one could become happy. Ataraxiafree from fear and aponiafree from pain. Utilitarianism requires that we use a
practical standard, that is, whether an act brings pleasure or not. Some of the assumptions that are made in
utilitarianism are that pleasure is intrinsically good and that people have innate concern for others. It is good to contrast
utilitarianism with egoism/hedonism. While both are concerned with pleasure, hedonism is pleasure/happiness for one
whereas utilitarianism is pleasure/happiness for all or the greatest number. 4 Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill are
the original proponents of utilitarianism and thought their theory was revolutionary and that it could bring great change
to the world. They believed that their system was one of great appeal because of its egalitarianism. For the Utilitarians,
the calculus is to be applied indiscriminately and is irrelevant to ones social position one is to measure pleasures &
happiness society-wide.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) preceded JS Mill. Jeremy Benthams Utilitarianism began as a social movement.
During Benthams time there were distinct upper & lower classes. Only the upper classes went to college. But Bentham
believed that education should be widely available and he helped pass laws help lower classes. It was unusual in
Benthams time to see the rich concerned for the poor; and especially against his own class. Bentham was considered
radical because of this and also because he wanted to rid England of its aristocracy and the Anglican Church. Monarchs
were considered divine during the time of Bentham and Mill, and wealthy people enjoyed great privilege (e.g.,
education). Bentham wanted to bring an end to upper class privilege and for this he was considered radical in his time.
Why radical? People didnt want to lose control. Bentham was part of the upper class, the aristocracy. For Nietzsche this
is absurd. He thinks even weak people seek power and once they have it they dont want to let go. Exploitation is the
primal fact of life. Bentham was also in the belief that humans should not use animals as food sources.

The hedonists were famous for saying Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die.

Bentham developed a way of measuring pleasure and thought that utilitarianism could be scientific in its
application. To this end, Bentham developed what is called the Felicific Calculus.
Benthams Felicific Calculus. Bentham believed that pleasures are experienced in terms of seven categories:
1. Intensity (how intense is the pleasure?)
2. Duration (how long does the pleasure last?)
3. Certainty (how sure is the pleasure?)
4. Proximity (how soon will the pleasure be experienced?)
5. Fecundity (how many more pleasures will follow?)
6. Purity (how free from pain is the pleasure?)
7. Extent (how many people will experience the pleasure?)
It is the final category, extent, which makes Bentham's hedonism social. Bentham believes that most of our choices
are individual, but occasionally we have the opportunity to be benefactors to large numbers of people. An example of
how the felicific calculus could be applied is an emergency room triage. Imagine that a pregnant mother, a father, and
an old man were all badly injured and in need of care. How does Benthams calculus dictate who should be seen first?
This is a triage scenario that doctors and nurses in emergency rooms face all the time. The pregnant woman is carrying a
new born who has the hopes of experiencing a lifetime of happiness. There is something particularly important about
the experience of childbirth in terms of the great pleasures that are to come. It is true that childbirth is terribly painful,
but the deep and abiding joy that will come is undeniable. The injured father would be next. He has obligations to take
care of a family and to bring happiness/pleasure to a group. The old man would be considered last on the calculus for
obvious reasons; he has lived a long life and although he may have more in store, the fact that he has lived so long and
has had presumably much pleasure, makes him last on the triage.
As a final note of interest regarding Bentham, he was considered quite eccentric and in his will he requested that his
body be preserved for all ages. He was embalmed and now he is taken out for meetings at University College in London.
If you visit London, you can see the body on display. I actually had a student in the past go there to see him and she sent
pictures back. Quite a sight!
JS Mill (1806-1873) who came a generation after Bentham differs from Bentham in 3 significant ways. First, Mill
says that we need to be concerned with the quality of pleasure over sheer quantity. One of Mills most famous quotes
regarding this is that it is Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. 424 textbook. What he means is that
an animals pleasure is inferior to the kind of pleasure that a human can experience. An animals pleasure only includes
physical gratification, while humans have intellectual faculties. What is a quality pleasure? For Bentham it is all about
quantity (the greatest amount): push-pin is as good as poetry (push-pin = old game of England). These quotes are
quite revealing as to their respective approaches. Mills position is the one that Epicurus advocates as well, which is that
there are finer pleasures. Bentham did not seem to make a big fuss about the higher pleasures in the way that Epicurus
and Mill did.
Secondly Mill says that it is unrealistic and tedious to calculate pleasures each time, so one should rely on time tested
maxims that had their rise in the making things better and happier overall. For example, the general moral rules that
have developed in society against lying, stealing, cheating, murder, etc. See Mosaic Lawthe Ten Commandments.
These are laws, that when applied may not immediately bring the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number
of people, but in the long run will do so.
Finally, Mill believes that there is some need to be concerned about human selfishness. While Bentham believed that
we have a natural concern to increase the pleasure of others, Mill thought that this was true to an extent, but thinks
we must also be educatedvia laws and social institutionsto enhance our social concern. These laws and social
institutions must be geared towards making the interests of the individual aligned with the interests of the community.
My happiness is intimately linked to your happiness = selflessness = impartial and disinterested about our own
happiness, so as to manifest the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. We are part of a
social web.
General notes: With utilitarianism you have the recognition that pleasure and happiness are intrinsic goods and the
assumption that human beings are all concerned with pleasure and happiness. They play a central role in how we
conduct our lives. Utilitarianism is based on the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This is not about ethics,
i.e., thinking about what ideal behavior is. It is based on an ancient theory called Hedonism, which is basically the
greatest amount of happiness and pleasure to one. It is also based on the philosophy of Epicurus, who believed that the

individual ought to indulge to the greatest degree in the things that bring him/her pleasure. So in some ways,
Utilitarianism is a social application of hedonism. There are two approaches: John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham
(friend of Mills father). Two great progenitors (original espousers) of utilitarianism; approaches. Bentham was the
first to write articulately about utilitarianism. Utilitarianisms direction is to garner the greatest amount of benefit,
happiness for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism represents a novel way of thinking about society: whenever
you apply utilitarian calculus the social class and position are to be considered as largely irrelevant. Utile means useful.
Q. to what degree is our happiness linked to peoples happiness around the world?
Some general criticism of utilitarianism:
Some people argue that the happiness and pleasure to different people is different and immeasurable. They argue
that pleasure is subjective, and thus a felicific calculus would be impossible in practice. And although utilitarianism
seems to strike one as intuitively correct, there are a number of flaws that the following questions expose: What is most
pleasurable or bring the greatest happiness might be wrong in principle. Is being ethical only about gain and profit? As
Kant will suggest, dont people have intrinsic value? In this regard, utilitarianism does not even seem like a system of
ethics, but rather some kind of enhanced system of pragmatic thinking. Also, what about minority interests? It seems
one could justify the majority living well if we made slaves of 2% of the population seems justifiable. So this is the most
serious objection to utilitarianism: It is unable to account for justice. Individual rights seem to go out the door with
Utilitarianism (81). The book gives an example of a company making a deal and breaking it, and people breaking
promises to each other, but at the same time can be happy in a world where trust and honor have not been upheld, and
a contract not respected.
Some final questions that add to the criticism: To what extent are we or should we be concerned with the pleasure or
happiness of others? What if making others happy conflicts with making ones self happy? Dont we favor those we
know and love? Is there anything wrong with favoring family and friends? What about the welfare of future
generations? Do potential people deserve consideration? If so, that might dramatically alter the course of ones decision.
Doesnt intention matter? Or is it the case that alls well that ends well? Sodo the ends justify the means? Can any
act be justified if the benefits are great enough?
General notes on Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is in stark contrast to Kantian ethics which advices one to identify
principles and to stick with them regardless of the benefits or burdens.
Distinctions between normative/rule-based ethical theories (Kantian ethics and utilitarianism) and virtue-based theories:
Virtue based:
(1) important to develop virtue rather than acting in accordance with moral rules
(2) good acts flow from the right kind of character
(3) morality involves being a certain kind of personperhaps a good person
Action/rule-based:
(1) emphasize proper action and conformity
(2) if one has virtue, then they can perform good acts, but this doesnt define the
good act
(3) people are judged based on how they act, not whether theyre a good person or not
Nietzsche
click here for more information on Nietzsche:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/
Friedrich Nietzsche was born on October 15, 1844. Friedrich Nietzsche was the son of a Lutheran minister. He has
been accused of being a misogynist, an anti-Semite, gay, an atheist, etc. He was like Socrates in that he was certainly
ruffling the feathers of his contemporaries, but he went much deeper than Socrates could. He is certainly one of the
most controversial figures in the history of philosophy. He has been called the father of existentialism, a philosophy that
emphasizes our aloneness, our individuality, and our existence. Nietzsche is unquestionably one of the most remarkable
minds in human history. Nietzsche often wrote using aphorismsbrief statements of principle and belief. As a
philosopher, he is quite approachable in his writing style and in terms of the questions that he tried to answer: he was
focused on human problems. How different he is from others we have studied. Nietzsche was said to have suffered

from various ailments his lifelong and was known to self-medicate for things like insomnia and headaches using chloral
hydrate and opium. He was also said to have suffered from inconsolable feelings of loneliness. He would take long
walks in the forest and this is where his mind was most active and alert. He often wrote about the Engadine, a beautiful
part of the Swiss Alps.
With Nietzsche the lines between philosophy and psychology become blurred. He believes we have an unconscious
mind that moves and shapes our beliefs. In Thus spoke Zarathustra, which contains many allegories, there is a wise man
filling his cup of wisdom, and he wants to share it, but nobody wants it. This section is called The Tree on the Hill and he
does come upon a young boy who wants to know about his wisdom. Nietzsche articulates his understanding of this
mighty river that in within every one of us, but that we are not aware of. Within every one of us there is a series of
thought processes that we are not aware of and that are sublimated; that is, they take place below the level of
consciousness. In The Tree on the Hill he comes upon a young lad and explains to him that it is by forces we cannot see
that we are twisted and tortured the greatest, like the wind (we cannot see). So the message here that he is trying to get
across is that one needs to live a life of consciousness to live a better life; not living by unconsciousness.
While Kant was engaged in trying to find a morality that would have universal applicability via his concepts of
universality and duty, Nietzsche was trying to do the opposite and patently rejects Kants universal approach to ethics.
Nietzsche says of Kant's ethics: "it destroys a person to act as an automaton of duty" and "a virtue has to be our
invention, our most personal defense and necessity". Kant was trying to restore Christianity; to show that the beliefs of
his forefathers have been rational, while Nietzsche was trying to destroy Christianity, to show that the beliefs of his
forefathers were irrational. Nietzsche saw Christianity as Platonism for the massesan infection and scourge that we
needed to rid ourselves of. He called Jesus Christ the most fatal and seductive liar ever. 385 GS Nietzsche asked
instead how you would moralize if you were strong and how would you moralize if you were weak. Nietzsche, like
Christianity, was interested in providing hope for humanity, but for him this lie in a more organic and real sense; he
envisioned a human future that lie in the liberation of our own subconscious minds, rather than in ideas of God and
moral laws. And also like Christianity, Nietzsche was concerned with eternitybut in a different way. Nietzsche, like all
of us, wanted eternity too.
On the need for eternity:
O man! Take heed!
What saith deep midnight's voice indeed?
I slept my sleep
From deepest dream I've woke and plead:
The world is deep,
And deeper than the day could read.
Deep is its woe
Joydeeper still than grief can be:
Woe saith: Hence! Go!
But joys all want eternity
Want deep profound eternity!
The Eternal Return of the Same:
"Halt, dwarf!" said I. "Either I- or you! I, however, am the stronger of the two:- you knowest not my abysmal thought! Itcould you not endure!"
Then happened that which made me lighter: for the dwarf sprang from my shoulder, the prying sprite! And it squatted
on a stone in front of me. There was however a gateway just where we halted.
"Look at this gateway! Dwarf!" I continued, "it has two faces. Two roads come together here: these has no one yet gone
to the end of.
This long lane backwards: it continues for an eternity. And that long lane forward- that is another eternity.

They are antithetical to one another, these roads; they directly abut on one another:- and it is here, at this gateway, that
they come together. The name of the gateway is inscribed above: 'This Moment.'
But should one follow them further- and ever further and further on, think you, dwarf, that these roads would be
eternally antithetical?""Everything straight lies," murmured the dwarf, contemptuously. "All truth is crooked; time itself is a circle."
"You spirit of gravity!" said I wrathfully, "do not take it too lightly! Or I shall let you squat where you squat, Haltfoot,and I carried you high!"
"Observe," continued I, "This Moment! From the gateway, This Moment, there runs a long eternal lane backwards:
behind us lies an eternity.
Must not whatever can run its course of all things, have already run along that lane? Must not whatever can happen of
all things have already happened, resulted, and gone by?
And if everything has already existed, what think you, dwarf, of This Moment? Must not this gateway also- have already
existed?
And are not all things closely bound together in such wise that This Moment draws all coming things after it?
Consequently- itself also?
For whatever can run its course of all things, also in this long lane outward- must it once more run!And this slow spider which creeps in the moonlight, and this moonlight itself, and you and I in this gateway whispering
together, whispering of eternal things- must we not all have already existed?
-And must we not return and run in that other lane out before us, that long weird lane- must we not eternally return?"Thus did I speak, and always more softly: for I was afraid of my own thoughts, and arrear-thoughts. Then, suddenly did I
hear a dog howl near me.
Nietzschesays that humans make 4 errorsweve been educated by:
1.) See self incompletelydont like what see
2.) Fictitious attributesimmortal soul--rights
3.) False rank in relation to animals and world
4.) Always inventing new tables of good and bad and for a time think they are eternal
Russell responds to these later on.
In terms of his ethical thought, Nietzsche asks, Is it evil when stronger cell wants to assimilate a weaker? According
to Nietzsche, morality is the expression of the needs of the herd. In historyhe assertsnothing was more terrible than
for one to stand alone. He would have asked something like, When will we be done with our caution and care? He
says that we should naturalize humanity in terms of a pure, newly discovered, and newly redeemed nature. We have
a creative power, but we are unaware of it and it is acted out in our moral valuations. The properly routed will to power
is not an urge to control others or their surroundings, but actually an urge to create, to be creators.
Nietzsche thinks that the belief in God is a sublime expression of the will to power. The idea is that you feel weak, and
you are not aware of your weakness, and that leads you to believing in God. Nietzsche will argue that there is no God
and as such, there are no moral absolutes. For Nietzsche morality is the sublime expression of the will to power. What
does this mean? Nietzsche asks if you were strong, what would you see as good? And if you were weak? In those
questions I think lay the heart of what Nietzsche thinks about morality. Rather than saying what morals are, he takes a

genealogical or historical approach to describe the dominant ethical system. He says that history shows not a morality,
but rather moralities. Nietzsche thought that there were no moral absolutes--only evaluation and perspective and that
Judeo/Christian ethics went contrary to instinct. He despised Christianity and offered up one of the first psychological
deconstructions and explanations of religion in Western culture. One of his most famous proclamations that God is
dead is often one phrase that most people have heard even if they do not know Nietzsches name. Nietzsche believed
that religion is evidence of our human history of self-misunderstanding and lack of consciousness. Like Freud will later
say, God is a daddy in the sky and this delusion keeps us from our deeper selves. The God myth was a way to empower
the weak with the belief that He will take our revenge when we cant take it ourselves. According to Nietzsche, the
instincts for revenge that cannot be vented directly are sublimated and redirected. This is what Freud later on will call
neurosis.
To give argument for his idea that morality is the sublimated will to power, Nietzsche discusses two moral systems:
the morality of the weak (slaves) and the morality of the strong (masters). We have access to part of this argument from
his book entitled Beyond Good and Evil. According to Nietzsche, slave morality is born in a pathos of resentment. That
is, the slave, lacking the ability to vent his anger and power directly, bleeds it out in feelings of resentment that involves
a long and complicated revenge fantasy. This is the essence of slave morality. Ultimately a desire to get back at the
master. Master morality on the other hand is born in the pathos of distance; the master realizes he is powerful and this
is based on a rank ordering between himself and weaker men. He appreciates strong/master morality because its more
of a conscious manifestation of the will to power. In slaves its only an unconscious wish to overcome the master. But a
point that is largely missed is that Nietzsche thinks both are really off base. For a proper future, humans will was
revaluate all values. To say that something is good/evil is an expression of power. And for Nietzsche, western morality
is a battle between two great systems of ethics: the ethics of Judea vs. the ethics of Greece/Rome, or what he calls
master ethics vs. slave ethics---rich vs. poor ethics
Master ethics employs a good and bad dichotomy. The master is one who seizes conquers, overcomes his
environment and his morality is conceived from a pathos of distance, which amounts to a belief that he is better
thana feeling of superiority. The good man is noble, magnanimous, and a creator of values. They judge
themselvesand act on feelings of power. They are not prone to pity, but help from an overabundance of power. They
in fact despise the pity of the vulgarfor the slave it is all about relieving suffering. The bad manon the other hand is
vulgar or common--originates from lowest elements of society: he is abused, oppressed, insecure. The noble man is like
the Sipo Matador climbing plant. He wraps around the mighty oak so as rise to the heights. According to Nietzsche in
Beyond Good and Evil, exploitation is the essence of lifepg. 434. The history of Europe is flawed. It is riddled with
evidence of the sublimated will to power. The slave ethics on the other hand based on good/evil dichotomy. They are
the poor and unestablished pg. 436. Their evaluations are conceived in what Nietzsche refers to as the pathos of
resentment. They envy the powerful and their evaluations are reflective of that envy. According to Nietzsche, slave
morality is the "will to the denial of life". Good is all that helps to alleviate their suffering. Evil, in a word, is the master.
Thus in a play for power, as Nietzsche says, "not so subtle desire on the part of the weak to undermine the power of
strong the slave reverses all estimates of value.
Nietzsche thinks there is the morality of the weak (slaves) and the morality of the strong (masters).
Slave morality
Mater morality
He appreciates strong/master morality. In the strong its more of a conscious manifestation of the will to power. In
slaves its only wish to overcome. Because of this some have accused Nietzsche of inspiring and endorsing Nazism.
Nietzsche was not advocating a political ideology. He does talk about a Blond Beast but he is using a metaphor and he
is trying to reach the free spirit from all societies. He was trying to reach individuals to become ubermensch, godlike in
they do not fear their own end. The have the actualized will to power and not the sublimated will to power.

Master ethicsGood= noble, magnanimous, creative, act on feelings of power

Bad=vulgar, common, oppressed, insecure
Slave EthicsGood = all that helps to alleviate their suffering

Evil=the master

Read what Nietzsche says about the death of God:

The Madman
Have you not heard of that madman who a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the marketplace, and cried
incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God" As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he
provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? cried one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he
afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? Thus they yelled and laughed.
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We
have killed himyou and I. All of us are his murderers. But 'how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who
gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were ye doing when we unchained this earth from its sun?
Whither t is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward,
sideward, ; forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?
Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not
need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God?
Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we
have killed him. "How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all
that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there
for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness
of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been
a greater deed; and whoever is born after usfor the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history
hitherto."
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in
astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early,"
he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the
ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require
time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant starsand yet they have
done it themselves."
It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up
his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all
are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?""
In place of the God myth, Nietzsche proposed a new myth, one that would bring about a new kind of health and hope
one based in his idea that human beings have the will to power. Reached the end of usefulness of the god mythneed
new myths that reflect a new future and new feelings. As he said, the will to power belongs to the nature of the living
being as a primary function. The Will to power represented in attitudes & behavior of ubermensch. In proclaiming the
death of godwe have killed him, you and I. All of us are his murderers read this aloud to the class; this is an awful yet
exhilarating thought. Gone is our protector, yet new world of possibility is open. Free spiritsthe ubermensch will:
overflow with gratitude & expectation.
The future man:
The Ubermensch:
I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even
go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment.
And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from
worm to man, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.

Whoever is the wisest among you is also a mere conflict and cross between plant and ghost. But do I bid you become
ghosts or plants?
Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the
meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to
you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and
poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.
The ubermensch is an Instinctual man. If there is a natural inclination, then that inclination is realized in the
ubermensch. Not evolution of a greater man; the Darwinian interpretation is erroneous. This is rather a revolution. The
ubermensch is a challenge to humanity. Man according to Nietzsche, is something that has to be overcome and asks
rhetorically, whats an ape to man? Laughing stock. So too will man be to the ubermensch. Nietzsche suggests that the
ubermensch will have mastery over oneselfmastery of her desires and creative use of her power. The ubermenschs
greatest creation will be himself. Nietzsche says that the ubermensch will be the most ambitious project in the face of
the death of god. As Nietzsche says, man is a rope, fastened between animal and ubermensch, a rope over an abyss. A
dangerous going across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking back
Nietzsche writes an aphorism in the Gay Science called the Horizon of the Infinite.
We have left the land and have embarked. In the horizon of the infinite. We have left the land and have embarked.
We have burned our bridges behind us indeed, we have gone farther and destroyed the land behind us. Now, little
ship, look out! Beside you is the ocean: to be sure, it does not always roar, and at times it lies spread out like silk and
gold and reveries of graciousness. But hours will come when you will realize that it is infinite and that there is nothing
more awesome than infinity." Oh, the poor bird that felt free and now strikes the walls of this cage! Woe, when you feel
homesick for the land as if it had offered more freedomand there no longer is any land.
he says on page 63 --Thus is a star thrown out into the void and into the icy breath of solitude.and you will cry I am
alone..
You lose your anchor; initially you feel fear; eventually that will give way to hope and expectation. Finally, its possible to
die. The boundaries, horizons have been broadened. The limitations are infinite. The metaphorical sea that lies within
your mind is open. Nietzsche says that even if there was no God, we would invent one. At last horizon seems free to
us again, even if it is not bright. At last our ships can be put out again, no matter what danger. The sea, our sea is open
to us again. Perhaps there has never yet been such an open sea

Nietzsche is one of the first to articulate a theory of the unconscious. In Thus spoke Zarathustra, which is an allegory,
there is a wise man filling his cup of wisdom, and he wants to share it, but nobody wants it. Except in the Tree on the Hill,
where he finds a young boy that wants to know about his wisdom. Nietzsche articulates his understanding of this
mighty river that in within every one of us, but that we are not aware of. Within every one of us there is a series of
thought processes that we are not aware of or sublimated = below the level of consciousness. the early twentieth
century Sigmund Freud brought psychology to the forefront of discussion about the mind. Freud and his theories set to
discount the philosophy of his predecessors. Freud believed that all thoughts could be traced to the subconscious and
that because of this philosophy was somehow tainted and proven moot. The poets and philosophers before me
discovered the UNCONSCIOUS; what I discovered was the scientific method by which the unconscious can be studied,
(Sigmund Freud
In the Tree on the Hill: it is by forces we cannot see that we are twisted and tortured the greatest, like the wind (we
cannot see). You need to live a life of consciousness to live a better life; not living by unconsciousness.

The boundaries, horizons have been broadened.

The limitations are infinite.
The metaphorical sea that lies within your mind is open.
Even if there was no God, we would invent one.

If anyone will piously and soberly consider the sermon which our lord Jesus Christ spoke on the mount, as we read it in
the gospel according to Matthew, I think that he will find in it, so far as regards the highest morals, a perfect standard of
the Christian lifeSt Augustine
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.