Philosophy Exam Midterm 2 Definitions: Good Will: the settled determination to do ones duty from the motive of duty

(from duty), in spite of temptations or inclinations to do otherwise Good without qualification (not intrinsic good) Good will is good in virtue of what it wills, not what it achieves Unconditional Good: the good will is good in all circumstances; its good is no way contingent upon circumstance A priori: knowable independently of appeals to sensory experiences, by reason alone (ex: definition, math) Kant wants only a prior because: o Metaphysics analyzes concepts o It is not contingent on different experiences and is from reason therefore it ensures universality Empirical: knowledge by appeal to sensory experience Prudence (vs. morality) Prudence Prudential deliberation: deliberate by calculating consequences as beneficial (or not) to me/ my endsin regard to self-interest (Utilitarian) Morality Moral deliberation: deliberate by hypothetical questions rather than calculating consequencesin regard to duty Moral worthKant starts with theory of the right (Theory of Universalizability) to the theory of the good Actions: (1) Wrong: not doing duty, no moral worth (2) Right: in accordance to duty (morally right, no worth) (3) Moral Worth: right, AND done from duty --1 and 2 are equally bad categorical imperative: command an action as necessary independently of its usefulness in promoting the agents end (moral deliberation). -Objective. -Morality: tells us what to do in all circumstances -The CI procedure gives us categorical imperatives Hypothetical imperative: commands an action as necessary as a means to an end the agent has (all are prudential deliberation). -Subjective and conditional upon circumstances -Types (1) Imperatives of skill: variable ends (if you want X, do Y) (2) Imperatives/councils of prudence Principle of Universalizability (3 Step Categorical Imperative Procedure) First formulation of the Categorical Imperative Act only on that maxim that you could at the same time will to become universal law 1. State your maxim (Circumstance + Action + Purpose) 2. Universalize it 3. Can I will (1) and (2) without defeating my purpose? 2 Ways Purpose can be defeat: (1) Contradiction in conception:

Imaging the world is not conceptually possible (definitions break down) If contradiction, perfect duty to not act on that maxim

(2) Contradiction in the Will Can imagine the world, but cannot achieve purpose If contradiction, imperfect duty to abstain Principle of Humanity: Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, in every case as an end in itself and never as means only Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative Perfect/Imperfect Duties Perfect Duty: one must always ( or never) do Action in Circumstance o To others: lying promise o To self: suicide Imperfect Duty: one must sometimes/ to some extent do Action in Circumstance (agent has some discretion) o To others: helping others o To self: developing talents Self-Respect (Boxill): fundamental (do not need to prove), can loose it by not recognizing own humanity, not earned, failures do not lessen it, successes dont increase it. Soul (Aristotle): psuche (1) Breath (2) That which makes a body alive Self-movement and changeable things have souls (magnets) Not divisible from physical Parts of Human soul: o Nutritive: nutrition, feeding capacity, and growth (shared with plants) o Appetitive: reproduction, sensation, movement, perception, emotion (animal soul) o Rational Soul Practical reasoning: means/end reasoning; some animals have Theoretical reasoning: distinctly human Virtue: excellence; a characteristic that enables a thing/being to perform its function well (ex: eye to see, knife is sharp to cut) Human virtues: ethical and intellectual It is a disposition, not an emotion, capacity, or knowledge Disposition: tendency to feel or act in certain, appropriate ways Eudaimania: Happiness; an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue The final good at which human life aims Distinctly human, mostly self-sufficient, active, pleasure, and to some extent depend on external goods Doctrine of the Mean: ethical virtuedisposition to choose the mean/intermediate (relative to us) between two extremes (of deficiency and excess) Voluntary/ Involuntary actions Voluntary: morally inexcusable; that which can be praised/blamed

(1) Done in the absence of compulsion (2) Done with knowledge Involuntary: morally excusable (1) Done under compulsion OR (2) Done from ignorance, agent pained by action Non-Voluntary: morally inexcusable (1) Done from ignorance (2) The agent is not pained by the action

Choice: a deliberate desire for things in our power (1) Are about means (2) About things in our power (3) Preceded by deliberation: rational mental process (do not deliberate about: necessary or impossible, not in our power, ends) --Only adult human beings --All choices are voluntary actions --Not all voluntary actions are choices Akrasia (incontinence): good judgment, bad passions/appetite. Passion wins. (worthy of blame) Two Types (1) impetuous: no deliberation. Act on passion and later feels regret (2) weak: deliberate, do wrong action because act on passion (conflict during decision and regret) Questions: 1. What, according to Kant, is the Good Will and why is it the only thing that is unconditionally good? Good Will: the settled determination to do ones duty from the motive of duty (from duty), in spite of temptations or inclinations to do otherwise Good will is the only thing good without qualification Good will is good without qualification (unconditionally good): good in all circumstances and not contingent upon circumstance (not intrinsic good) o Knowledge can be intrinsic good but not good without qualification because knowledge can be used badly Only thing o Kant sees Good Will as the condition for valuing other goods o Good will is the only thing guaranteed to get you to do the right thing. Other things can lead you astray o Other goods could be sacrificed or forfeited in order to do ones duty Forfeit happiness to do ones duty (ex: chores) 2. What makes an action have moral worth? Consider Kants four examples (the shopkeeper, suicide, the philanthropist, pursuing). Which of these actions have moral worth and why? Actions: (1) Wrong: not doing duty, no moral worth (2) Right: in accordance to duty (morally right, no worth) (3) Moral Worth: right, AND done from duty From dutyreason for doing right thing is that it is the right thing. Shopkeeper: should he give equal prices or cheat everyone? Decides to give good prices. (duty to others) o Reason (1) has a duty to treat others equally= moral worth o Reason (2) Generate more money. Kant: It is from the motive of self-interest (business ethics)= Morally right, but no moral worth Suicide: preserving your life. (duty to self) o Kant says always wrong, no moral worth.

Kant: preserving your life is morally right. But can have no moral worth because you do it for self-interest. o Objection: If it is a depressed person who does not commit suicide because they do it for duties sake (fought temptations), then it is morally right and has moral worth Philanthropist: (duty to others) (1) Sympathetic philanthropist: moved with compassion and giving feels good. Kant: right, but no moral worth. (Motive of sympathy, not duty) (2) Mad/grumpy philanthropist: indifferent to suffering, but helps out of duty Kant: moral right, and moral worth: no other inclinations **Evaluation: seems like only reason it has moral worth is because this person does not want to donate. We want sympathetic people to help more than grumpy Pursuit of happiness: Act Pursue happiness. No moral worth to Kant because no duty to pursue happiness. o Objection: securing own happiness is an indirect duty to self because if you dont, you are less likely to fulfill your other duties Objections: o Hospital Case: if you are in the hospital, friends duty to visit, but shouldnt the friend come out of love, not duty? Why isnt sympathy/love/compassion count as moral motives? o Mixed motives: cant someone have other motives along with duty? (Ex: philanthropist have sympathy and duty). KantNo, only one underlying motive. The person had other inclinations because good will wasnt sufficient (good will should be sufficient for duty) o

3. What is the Principle of Universalizability and what is the 3-step Categorical Imperative procedure? Go through Kants 4 examples (lying, suicide, helping others, and developing) and apply the CI procedure. Explain which examples are (or are supposed to be) contradictions in conceptions and which are contradictions in will. Principle of Universalizability (First formulation of the CI): Act only on that maxim that you could at the same time will to become universal law (1) State your maxim: general statement of intention (In circumstance, I will do action in order to achieve purpose [goal]) (2) Universalize Maximanyone in that circumstance will act like that to achieve that goal (3) Can I imagine it? Can I will (1) and (2) without defeating my purpose? a. Can I imagine it? No, then contradiction in conception. Therefore, perfect duty not to act on maxim. b. Yes? Then, can I will (1) and (2) and still achieve purpose? If not, there is a contradiction in the will. Then, there is an imperfect duty. c. If yes, then acting on maxim is permissible. Contradiction in conception: Imaging the world is not conceptually possible (definitions break down); If contradiction, perfect duty to not act on that maxim Contradiction in the Will: Can imagine the world, but cannot achieve purpose; If contradiction, imperfect duty to abstain Duty to others: o Perfect: Lying Promise (1) When I need money but cannot pay it back, I will make a lying promise. (2) Universalize (3) Contradiction in conception! Institution of promise making undermined. No one would make promises o Imperfect: Helping others (1) I will not help others in circumstances where I could in order to be freer (2) Universalize (3) contradiction in the will! No one would rationally consent to the world because then the whole world is not helping anyone. You cannot be freer because you must do all the work others did for you previously Duty to self:

Perfect: Suicide- (1) In circumstances where life promises more pain than pleasure, I will kill myself in order to end my pain. (2) Universalize (3) Contradiction in Conception! (supposed to be) Kant claims we have a perfect duty not to commit suicide. Only way to get a perfect duty is to get a contradiction in conception. However, you can imagine it. Kants Justification: contradicts a law of nature: The Law of Self-Preservation you should preserve thyself. Then the maxim itself contradicts the law of nature. In the same way a maxim of flying would contradiction law of gravity. [however, he never gives us why suicide is a law of nature] Imperfect: Developing talents (1) I will not develop my talents in order to have more leisure time. (2) Universalize (3) Contradiction in Will! If all lazy, defeats the purpose of leisure time because no one is developing talents and you will have to do all the work

4. Explain the problems of relevant act descriptions and the problem of omission for applying the Categorical Imperative procedure. Formula of Universal Law act only on that maxim which you could at the same time will to be universal law (3 step categorical imperative procedure) explain procedure Relevant Act Description Problems (Maxim description problem): you can describe a maxim (Act) in various ways. On some descriptions, it will be permissible to act on the maxim. On some, it will not. Kant does not tell us how to form the maxim; therefore, we can generate any result you want. o Packing the maxim add more details to eliminate contradiction Ex: When grading brown-hair boy with brown eyes with this name, I will grade unfairly. Eliminates contradiction in conception Response: Description must have explanatory power (can only include morally relevant details) Problem: how do I know if it is relevant or not, especially in controversy situations? Kant: Just rearrange the maxim to get right answer. Problem: how do you know what is right? o Invertible maxims positive and negative maxim fails the CI procedure (1) I will become a farmer to create a living. (3) Contradiction in willif all become farmer cannot make a living (1) I will not become a farmer in order to pursue other things (3) contradiction in willif no one is farmer, all will do other things and will now need to grow own food o Reiterable maximscannot fix maxim (1) I will go to my favorite restaurant at 12 to eat food (3) Contradiction in willif everyone goes too busy. Any time I put in the slot, there will be contradiction. Is it wrong to go to the restaurant? o Coordination problems we do things sometimes because no one else is doing them (1) I will play tennis on Sunday morning when most people are at Church in order to have a court to myself (3) Contradiction in willif everyone goes at that time, purpose is defeated. But not an immoral action Problem of Omission o Omission: act done from negligence, carelessness, recklessness o Premise: (1) Some acts by omission are morally wrong (2) According to the Categorical Imperative, an act can only be wrong if the maxim that it is part of leads to a contradiction. (3) Acts by Omission have no maxim of which they are part. (4) According to CI, omissions cannot be morally wrong. (5) So, there are some acts which are wrong but are not judged wrong by the CI. Therefore, CI is wrong because it does not cover acts of omission

o o

Critically evaluate: Challenge 1. Act and consequences from omission are not morally wrong. What is morally wrong is an act that was done prior. (ex: drunk driving and killing someone) Enabling duties? Amendment to Kant

5. What is the Principle of Humanity? What does Kant mean by humanity? What does he mean by treating humanity as an end and not as a means only? (Explain what sense Kant is using the word end). Critically evaluate. Principle of Humanity: Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, in every case as an end in itself and never as means only (Second formulation of CI) Humanity= rational nature: using reason, have self-directed rational behavior, ability to choose, ability to pursue ends o Must treat rational beings as ends because they have ends; to have an end, you have to choose something, otherwise just tend toward something. o Persons (beings with rational nature, treat as ends) vs. things (being without rational nature, treat as means) o Problem/ Critically evaluate: kids? Infants? Disabled? Elders? Are without rational nature, shouldnt they be treated as ends, not means? (Give thought experiments with direct duties for them Principle applies to wrong people) An end: respect autonomous agents that are rational as ends (1) as something we produce or achieve (not related to humanity) (2) as something we cultivate/develop (imperfect duties are to cultivate humanity) (3) negative, as something we dont act against/violate (perfect duties and limiting conditions) Means only sometimes we use people as means also (ex: employees, but still recognize ends (respect)) Main Objection to Formula of Humanity: Murderer at the door o Tells us not to lie to the murderer at the door. o Thought experiment: murderer at the door. Would say its ok to lie. o Therefore, it is a bad principle. Gets the wrong answer Critically evaluate 4 Cases under Second Formulation: o Gives us a better guideline/reason for right/wrong. (1) Lying (perfect) Rational person would not lend you money without manipulating their rational nature. Therefore, treating person as means not end, and violates humanity (2) Helping others (imperfect)Not violating rational nature, but not helping does not advance or cultivate their humanity. Therefore, not treating as end (3) Suicide (perfect) Using yourself as a means to an end, and violating humanity. (4) Developing Talents (imperfect)does not advance rational nature 6. Explain the case of the murderer at the door. What does Kant say by this case and why? (You can try applying the CI procedure and the Principle of Humanity to this case) Is there any way to amend Kants argument to get a different conclusion? Murderer at the door lying from benevolent motive. If you are hiding a fugitive and murderer comes to the door and asks where the fugitive is, do you have to lie or not. KANT says we must always tell the truth: if you lie, there is an off chance that the murderer decided to run and the murderer would find them, and then you are morally responsible because you did not do your duty Kant and Moral Responsibility o If you do your duty, then you arent morally responsible for bad and good consequences o If you do not do your duty, then you are responsible for the bad consequences (but no credit for good consequences) Categorical Imperative

When ^. (2) Universalize (3) Contradiction in conception: if everyone lied then purpose is defeated because murderer wouldnt believe lie o AMENDMENTS: Change the maxims purpose to (1) I will to make it difficult to cooperative in a murder (3) No contradiction because lie does not need to believed, then purpose is not defeated. You can lie. Packing the maxim problem: children vs. murderer lying at the door Principle of Humanity: Not lying is a perfect duty because must respect rational being as end o Lying violates murderers humanity/rational nature, therefore should not lie o Kant gets this wrongnot lying is the right answer o Kants moral responsibility: if you lie, you are morally responsible for death. If you do not lie, you are not morally responsible. Therefore, Kant says not lying alleviates moral responsibility o

7. Explain Aristotles concept of eudaimania. How is it different from Kants or Mills conception of happiness? Theory of the good: Eudaimania Eudaimania: Happiness; an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue The final good at which human life aims Learn about traits through 5 Kinds of life o Moneymaker: cannot be way to happy life because money is instrumental. Therefore must be final good Infinite regress argument: If no final good, there is no such thing as an instrumental good. Therefore, must be final good (happiness) o Life of Pleasure (bodily): cannot be happy life because it is the life of animals, and does not engage the entire human soul. Therefore, must be distinctly human. o Political life/honor seeker: cannot be happiest because honor is something others impart on you/demands on others. Therefore, good life must be (as close to) self-sufficient (as possible) o Virtuous life: Aristotles objections: Sleeping in a coma: these people have virtues but do not exercise them. Therefore, happy life is active Miserable sick or someone dying: can have virtues but do not enjoy exercising them. Therefore, happy life has pleasure and to some degree depends on external goods (ex: if generous, must have something to give) o Contemplative: life of philosophical reflection. Best life is contemplative but it is the divine life; therefore, we should aim for the virtuous life. Characteristics: (1) Distinctly human, (2) as close to self-sufficient as possible, (3) active, (4) pleasure, and to some extent depend on external goods (5) final good, not merely instrumental Comparison to Kant: Role of Pleasure o Kant would agree with (1) distinctly human because duty needs reason, (2) is self sufficient, (3) active (good will) o Kant disagrees with (4) depends on external goods (5) Good will is only thing that is unconditionally good o Kants highest good is the Good Will + (happiness). It not necessarily include happiness because main motive is duty (ex: sometimes sacrifice happiness for dutys sake), o Aristotles highest good is eudaimania, which includes some pleasure. To Aristotle, pleasure and virtue are not separate. If no pleasure in just actions, it is not virtuous. Comparison to Mills/ Bentham o Mill agrees self-sufficient, pleasure is final good o Mill disagreesDo not need activity (something we have, not something we do), not distinctly human (only higher level), does not require external goods,

o o

Mill/Benthams highest good = pleasure. Good life is good because it is pleasant Aristotle Good life is pleasant but not good because its pleasant.

8. What is Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean? What is a mean state? What are the extremes? Give three examples of virtues and show how they are mean states between extremes. Critically evaluate the Doctrine of the Mean. Doctrine of the Mean: ethical virtuedisposition to choose the mean/intermediate (relative to us) between two extremes (of deficiency and excess) Disposition: a tendency to feel and act in certain, appropriate ways Ethical virtues learned by habit, become virtuous by doing virtuous acts, neither in us by nature nor against nature Mean= Virtue o To find mean state: (1) chose domain: area of human emotion/interaction (2) put it between to extremes (deficiency and excess) (3) find the mean state (average between the two) o Mean means relative to us Doctrine of the mean is not a doctrine of moderation. It takes into account circumstance/person. Extremes = Vices (1) of deficiency (2) of excess o Vices are not too much/too little virtue Courage= Virtue o Domain (w/r/t): fear, confidence o Deficiency= cowardice (too much fear, too little confidence) o Excess=rashness (too much confidence, too little fear) o Should fear: disgrace and insult o Shouldnt fear: disease and poverty (out of our control) o Courage Proper: honorable cause and have control o Cases of Courage (most to least) Citizen soldier: closest life to courage (war): courage applies when facing a noble death and you can show skill Courage of wise: calling a bluff; not courage because only acting out of knowledge Courage of the passionate: not courage because out of emotion not nobility Courage of the ignorant: not courage because you wouldnt do it if you knew the facts o OBJECTION: gender bias Temperance= virtue o Domain= Bodily pleasures (food, drink, sex) o Deficiency= insensibility/self-deprivation Aristotle claims this is not human o Excess= self-indulgence Aristotle claims people tend toward self-indulgence o OBJECTION: culture(1) why does it include sex as an appetite, it has to do with relationships. (2) in Western society, certain individuals deprive themselves of food (vice of deficiency) Magnificence= virtue o Magnificent give to the right people, take from the right sources, give in the right way, give with pleasure. You must be rich. o Domain: giving lots of money o Deficiency= Cheapness (on a grand scale) Cuts corners o Excess = Vulgarity Giving money for the wrong reason, giving it in the wrong way, give in poor taste (ex: CEO benefits)

o OBJECTION: class bias Becoming Virtuous: Advice o Self Knowledge of tendencies (aim opposite of tendencies) o Moral perception (over reasoning) Challenges: (1) What gets to count as a virtue? i. Wrongful Inclusions: Pride and Anger ii. Wrongful Exclusions: respect, benevolence, patience iii. Virtues vary cross-culturally. Which are right? (2) Arbitrariness of Virtues (claim is they are random) i. Response: Aristotle gave us ways to formulate virtues. First your find domain, then vices, then virtue. (3) Cultural Biases i. GenderCourage applies to elite men (ex: war). Neglects solely female virtues (ex: parenting) ii. Classshouldnt virtues be available to all? Magnificence applies only to rich, poor cannot have this virtue (4) Theoretical Biases i. Favors autonomous activity over relations/cooperative activities ii. Focuses on acting over responding, but shouldnt some virtues be responses (ex: patience) (5) Action-Guidance Problem: does not give us a decision procedure, one over-riding rule, therefore it is not useful in practical situations i. Response: tell us how to become virtuous (aim opposite of tendencies, toward bulls eye of virtue.) Ethics are learned through habit

9. Explain and critically evaluate Aristotles conception of justice. 2 Sense of Justice: o Broad: behavior dealing well with other people o *Narrow: fairness= giving each his or her due Distributive justice: equally dolling out goods and honors/ handing common goods fairly (ex: communism, capitalism) Corrective justice: how do we rectify particular wrongs in order to achieve fairness? Voluntary transactions: selling/ buying loans, contracts, patent Involuntary Transactions: criminal acts (crimes that are coercive by force) o Clandestive: theft, false witness, poisoning o Violent: murder, armed robbery, assault Politica/Sociall vs. Household o *Political/ Social: justice between citizens (Aristotle is concerned with this) o Household: justice of the master or father (domestic violence?) Natural vs. Legal (Voluntary transactions) o Natural: same everywhere (ex: murder) o Legal: varies with locality (ex: taxes) Use Doctrine of the Mean-Justice as a mean= virtue o Deficiency= being unjustly treatedgetting less than fair share o Excess= acting unjustlygetting more than fair share o Domain= giving and getting shares Acting Unjustly (1) NOT a mistake or accident (guilty of nothing) (2) NOT done out of passion (guilty of self-indulgence) (3) IS calculated (premeditated) from desire to get more than fair share (ex: investment scam)

Being unjustly treatyonly when (3) is done to you Objections: Is Aristotle trying to hard to fit this as a virtue? o Is being unjustly treated a vice? All previous vices a personal mistake; however, this is an uncontrollable act done to you. Getting less does not make you vicious. Also you can get more without getting it unjustly o Systematic Injustice: certain groups suffer without anyone in particular actively calculating injustice (ex: racism) o Couldnt someone give up fair share? Then you have less and they have more, but they did not do something unjust. Giver is consenting to give more. AMENDMENT: deficiency could be giving less than your fair share Excess could be taking more than fair share/ you deserve Justice would be giving whats due and taking only what you are due o Distributive justice is neglected Aristotle assumes we know because we need to know distributive in order to do corrective

10. Explain and critically evaluate Aristotles distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions. Voluntary: morally inexcusable; that which can be praised/blamed (3) Done in the absence of compulsion (4) Done with knowledge Involuntary: morally excusable (3) Done under compulsion OR (4) Done from ignorance, agent pained by action Compulsion: moving principle is outside the agent and agent contributes nothing to the act o Ex: caught in a whirlwind, kidnapped Ignorance: o Morally inexcusable: ignorance of universals and laws o Morally excusable: ignorance of particulars [or contingent facts] o Acting from ignorance (of particulars): involuntary, excusable o Acting in ignorance: not involuntary (ex: choose to get drunk) Voluntary Action vs. choice o Choice: a deliberate desire for things in our power 1. Are about means 2. About things in our power 3. Preceded by deliberation: rational mental process (do not deliberate about: necessary or impossible, not in our power, ends) --Only adult human beings --All choices are voluntary actions --Not all voluntary actions are choices --Choices vs. wishes: wishes are about ends and things outside our power (health) Mixed Causes o Tyrant will kill your family unless you do some immoral act o Throw cargo overboard must throw over cargo or ship will sink o Aristotle: it is involuntary because they would not have done it in different circumstances. It is voluntary because moving principle is still inside the agent. Therefore, Aristotle says it is (more) voluntary because to him, compulsion is internal and not external. Objections: is there such thing as internal compulsion? What about coercion? Coercion: (Fryes definition) arranging options so that the one that is least unattractive to the victim is the one that the coercer wants the victim to do o Tyrant: would be coercion, because it is the least unattractive option o Amendment to Aristotle:

10

Involuntary: Done under compulsion with only one rational option, and done from ignorance Voluntary action: done in absence of compulsion, more than one rational option, and with knowledge Would eliminate seemingly involuntary acts

11. What is akrasia (incontinence)? Why is it a problem? How does Aristotle try to explain it? Critically evaluate it. Akrasia (incontinence): good judgment, bad passions/appetite. Passion wins. (worthy of blame) o Know what is right, but cannot bring self to do it Two Types (1) impetuous: no deliberation. Act on passion and later feels regret (2) weak: deliberate, do wrong action because act on passion (conflict during decision and regret) The Problem of Incontinence: How is incontinence possible? o Continent vs. incontinent both good judgment, bad passion (same input), but different outputs o Socrates: people are bad because of ignorance to him, no such thing as incontinence because if you do bad then you know something (Aristotle counter argues) o Cannot be explained by strength of desire (still do what many can resist) The Practical Syllogism Socrates explains actions with this (1) Universal Premise (2) Particular Premise Conclusion: act (choice) **Problem incontinent person does 1 and 2 (good judgment), but does not follow the conclusion. Therefore, the Practical Syllogism does not explain human action Aristotles response and challenges o Aristotle: Incontinence is like being asleep, insane, drunk. You still know knowledge, but not exercising knowledge. o Problem 1: We do not blame people insane/sleeping. Incontinence is supposed to be blameworthy. Therefore, bad analogy. o Problem 2: Aristotle is redescribing the problem of incontinence and not answering the question of how one is possible of incontinence Amendment: Another Possible Explanation for Weak Incontinence o There is a conflict between virtues (example: truthful vs. friendly) Truthful (1) Being untruthful is bad (2) telling my friend I like her boyfriend is untruthful Conclusion: Prima facie reason for telling the truth Friendliness (1) being unfriendly is bad (2) telling my friend the truth is unfriendly Conclusion: Prima facie reason to tell my friend I like her boyfriend o Therefore, conflict! Then must rely on all-things considered judgment Virtuous and continent person can make a good judgment Incontinent gets lost here, then act on bad passion Different virtues example: eating a cake Incontinent only has intemperance Continent has intemperance and others Problem: how can we explain same characteristics but different outcomes? --Answer: continent person favors good judgment, incontinent favors passion Why? Explanation: the incontinent person has stronger passions --Example: 2 people want cake, but the incontinent person just wants it more FALSE: Aristotle claims there are incontinent people with weak passions. Therefore, both can have weak passions and that does not explain incontinence.

11