Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 11 Enlightenment

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 11

Enlightenment


After the Renaissance, individualism was a powerful new force in the world. This was a time when people began to try to figure out for themselves how the natural world worked.  They stressed logical thinking and scientific experimentation.  This period in history is called the Enlightenment.  People became curious about everything, and wanted to study everything, including themselves.  As part of this, they began to look again at ideas about right and wrong.  But this time, they saw people as being part of nature, and subject to the same natural laws as everything else.

Benedict Spinoza

One important ethical thinker of this time was Benedict Spinoza.  Let's see what he had to say.

People living in nature have a right to life, and a right to do whatever is necessary to protect and better their life.  In other words, people will always protect themselves by trying to get what they think is good, and trying to avoid what they think is bad.  This is just common sense.  Problems arise because people are ruled by their emotions.  Emotions are powerful urges that motivate actions.  Because emotions are not carefully thought out, they are unpredictable and dangerous.  When people are ruled by emotions, they often argue and fight with each other. The only way to protect yourself from violence is to threaten greater violence in return. This is why nature is so insecure.

Spinoza, Ethics 4,XXXVI Note II, ParaphraseEthics Workbook I

What you think about Spinoza’s opinion of emotions? Is he right about emotions leading to conflict and to violence? Try to give some examples from your own experience.

People naturally look for a safer way to live.  This leads to the invention of governments and laws.  Laws are written as an artificial way for people to create peace and harmony.  This is the creation of what we call a state, and the people in it are called citizens.  Good and bad are created by the state in the form of rules that the citizens must obey.  Whatever promotes peace and harmony is good; whatever promotes discord is bad.  It's the rules that define right and wrong.  Good means to obey the law, bad means to disobey the law.

 Spinoza,Ethics 4 XXXVI Note II, paraphrase

Spinoza saw that force ruled in nature and that this solution of creating a powerful authority to govern was no better; one way or the other, force still ruled. This would changehe thought, if reason rather than emotions directed human actions.  Act according to reason, and everyone will agree. Harmony will result.  This sounds good.  But why should it work?

Like Aristotle, Spinoza believed that human reason, or the ability to think logically, was at the root of human nature.  In fact, to be human was to be able to think.  He concluded from this that human reason could never be out of sync with human nature, because reason

was the key element in human nature.  In other words, if your actions are ruled by reason, you won't ever act in a way contrary to your own best interests.  Here is how he said it:

Everyone, by the laws of nature, desires what they see as good and tries to avoid what they see as bad.  If their decisions are governed by reason, which is the basis of human nature, they can only do what is also good for human nature.

Now here's the tricky part.

So, whatever is good for an individual’s human nature must also be good for everyone else’s.  Therefore, when people act according to reason, and not emotion, they will always be in harmony with each other.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 XXXV simplified

This is a really good argument.  See if you can explain it in your own words.

And, he says that even though reason may require you to give up something personally because it would not be in the best interests of everyone for you to have it or to do it, that this would still make you happy.  In fact it’s the only way to true happiness. 

Promoting the good of others creates happiness because it leads to self-esteem.  When a person acts in another's interest and then thinks about it, he or she will approve of themselves.  Spinoza called this self-approval, which he said was the highest object for which we can hope.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 LII, note

Spinoza seems to be saying that true happiness results from feeling good about ourselves, having self-esteem, and being satisfied with what we did, not from any external thing we might get.  Think about this idea carefully.  Is it true? Then write a short essay telling what you think.

Here is one last quote from Spinoza:

People who are governed by reason don't want anything for themselves that they don't want for the rest of mankind, and because of this, they are just,faithful, and honorable in their conduct.

Spinoza, Ethics 4 VIII

Why does this look so familiar? Do you see a theme developing in the history of ethical thought? What is it? Prepare to discuss this.

Immanuel Kant

Remember we said that the Enlightenment was a time of science when people tried to figure things out by studying nature.  Not all people believed that right and wrong could be understood that way.  One very important philosopher of that time was Immanuel Kant. He believed that he could figure out rules of ethics with pure logic, and reason, without looking at the real world at all. Kant believed that if people studied the real world to figure out rules for right and wrong they would end up with different answers because they would be reasoning from different particular situations.  He wrote long and very complicated books trying to prove this.  His works became the most famous ever written about right and wrong.

Kant’s writing is complicated, but his conclusions are very simple. He wanted to find one rule everyone must obey all the time.  He gave this rule a fancy name, the Categorical Imperative. We will call it The Rule Everyone Must Obey All the Time. Here's how Kant said it:

I should never do anything unless I can honestly say I believe everyone else should always do the same thing.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 1Ethics Workbook I

What he came up with sounds a lot like the Golden Rule we've been seeing over and over again.  Only Kant believed he improved upon it.

Here's how Kant said it works:

If I'm in trouble is it OK to make promises that I don't intend to keep? It may be profitable in the short run to lie, but is it right? Let's word this in a different way, and then apply our ethical rule.  Should I lie to get out of a tight spot? Will this hold up as a rule that everyone must follow all the time? Can I say, “everyone should lie to get what they want?” If we put it this way, it's clear that I couldn't say this because it would mean that all promises would be no good.  No one could ever trust anyone else, and this would destroy society.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 2

The key to using Kant’s rule is that you must think carefully and logically.  Kant  and Spinoza both thought that as long as everyone relied on reason they would always agree.  Here are some more examples Kant gave to test his rule:

A man is very disappointed with his life and asks himself if it's OK to commit suicide.  The man says: “I want to act in my own best interests, since I see only pain and suffering ahead, I will shorten my life.”  Then he asks: “can  this be a rule everyone must obey all of the time?”  The answer is no, because it's a contradiction to say I will destroy a life in order to do what's best for that life.

You can also see what Kant means by logical thinking, and reason. Let's read another of his examples:

A man is rich and comfortable.  He wonders if he should help poor and suffering people.  He says: “why should I care?  I don't take anything from poor and suffering people, and so I'm not obligated to give them anything either.” Can this be a law everyone must obey all the time?  The answer is no because it would mean that you yourself could never expect any help, even if you desperately needed it.  It would be illogical for anyone to want the world to be like this. 

See how Kant is not using an argument based on the facts of any particular case, but looking only at pure logic.  Make up an ethical problem and see if Kant’s Rule works.  Try to think it through without using any specific details.

Compare Kant’s Rule: never do anything unless you can honestly say you believe everyone else should do the same thing, with Golden Rule stated: Do to others only what you would have them do to you.  Now reread Kant’s example about giving charity. Can you show any ways in which following the Golden Rule causes possible problems? Try to think of some other examples of ways that the traditional Golden Rule doesn’t work and see if Kant’s idea works better.

Dignity and Respect

Man's ability to reason was really important to Enlightenment thinkers, especially to Immanuel Kant.  Kant said that you could put a price on everything in the world except a human being.  A human being was of infinite value.  The reason for this was that humans were free, and ecided for themselves about the course of their lives.  They don't exist to serve any other person or for any other reason but to be free for themselves.  He called this human dignity.  People alone have dignity.

Here is how Kant put it:

People exist only to live their own lives as they  see fit, and must never be used by others just to further their own desires.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, section 2

Here is the important point.  Since all people view themselves as having dignity, Kant’s rule requires everyone to give everyone else the same standing.  In other words, if you don’t want to end up with a world full of users, you can never use anyone else only to further your own purposes.   This is what Kant meant by treating other people with respect.

That you must never use anyone else only for your purposes doesn't mean that it's wrong to expect someone to clean your table in a restaurant, or to ask a clerk to show you a pair of shoes in a shoe store.  The word  only is the key. Try to think of some examples of a person using another person in a way that would violate Kant’s rule of respect.  Do you think this is a good ethical rule to follow? How do you define respect? Why is having respect for other people so important?

Ethics Workbook I

©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 10.Renaissance

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 10

Renaissance

After about a thousand years of feudalism, people began to question some of its basic ideas.  This new period in history is called the Renaissance. It was a time of change in the way people looked at their relationship with the community they lived in. 

Communalism was losing ground to the idea of  individualism.  Individualism stresses the importance of the individual people, and places them above the group.  People began to believe that there was nothing wrong with striving to get things for themselves, and they became less concerned about their obligations to others.

The Renaissance was the beginning of what we call modern times.  We still live in the modern age, and our society today still stresses individualism.  So, this is a very important idea for us to study.  It's a new way to look at life, and it changes things a lot.

All through the Middle Ages it was assumed that, for the most part at least, people try to do the right thing.  In other words, people were by nature basically good.  This was one idea that was seriously questioned by Renaissance thinkers.  One famous philosopher at this time was an Italian named Nicolo Machiavelli.  He wrote a book called The Prince which gave advice to political leaders.  Let's see  what Machiavelli said about the natural goodness of people.

In general, people are ungrateful, unreliable, false, cowardly and greedy.  They will promise you anything, and then turn their back on you if things go wrong. 

And don't think that the person who is closest to you is more reliable.  Friendship is based on obligations, and people break obligations most easily.

Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVI simplified

What to do you think? Are people basically good or basically bad? Is Machiavelli right?

Now, if you believe that people are the way Machiavelli says they are, your ideas about right and wrong will change.

Machiavelli wrote his book as a guide for the leader of his country.  He believed that he government should not have to play by the same rules as ordinary people because the government cannot afford to lose.  Do you think governments should have the same standards of right and wrong as ordinary citizens? What about when governments deal with foreign countries?

Here is some of what Machiavelli wrote:

Everyone says that the leader should be honest and trustworthy and not be sneaky.  But it's easy to see that in the past leaders who get things done have paid little or no attention to this idea.  They have simply outsmarted the others, especially those who keep their word.  We all know that there are two ways of getting what you want.  The first is through the rules, and the second is to take it by force.  The leader must do both. 

The leader should be half lion and half fox.  The lion can't see the traps, and the fox can't fight off the wolves.  Great leaders don't rely on either one or the other, but use both.  Therefore, the wise leaders do not keep their word if it will hurt them or prevent them from getting what they want. If people were good this rule would not hold.  But, because they are bad, and will lie and cheat you, you are not obligated to be fair and honest with them. But, it is necessary to disguise your dishonesty and to pretend to be good. People like to think that they are upright, and they are very easy to trick.  You must appear to be virtuous, but only a fool actually is virtuous.  Pretend to be kind, reliable, fair, honest and loyal.  But be ready to do the exact opposite, as long as you don't get caught.  It’s always best to stay with the good if you can, but only if it works, if not, you must be ready to change tactics.  Remember, people must believe you are virtuous, so never give any hint that you are not.  People only see what you show them, not what's really there.

Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVIII simplifed

What was Machiavelli’s opinion of hypocrisy?

It seems that winning is the most important thing for Machiavelli.  How important is winning in the things that you do? Does the urge to win sometimes lead to unethical actions? Can you give any examples from your own experiences?

Machiavelli seems different from earlier writers, but there is a very basic way in which he is identical to all the others. Reread the following sentence.  See if you can figure it out? Why does he tell people to lie and cheat? What basic principle of ethics is he using?

If people were good this rule would not hold, but because they are bad, and will lie and cheat you, you are not obligated to be fair and honest with them.

Nicolo Machiavelli, T he Prince, Chapter XVIII simplified

Ethics Workbook I

©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 9. The Middle Ages

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 9

The Middle Ages

All of the societies we have studied so far have held individual people responsible for their actions.  In fact, we could say that ethics is about individual decision making.  But, we have also seen big variations in how people look at what's right or wrong. Next we're going to study a way of looking at right and wrong which stresses what's good for the group that the individual is part of.  This idea holds that what's best for the group is most important, and, it ends up being what's best for each individual as well.

Before we get started, think about this issue.  Should people try to do what's best for the group they belong to even if it might  not be, at least in the short run, what seems best for  them as individuals?

Feudalism

After the fall of Rome, the rule of law disappeared and Europe became a dangerous and lawless place.  People naturally banded together and formed groups for their own protection. The land was divided into many small territories, which were defended by castles. Nobles and knights ruled, while peasants and serfs farmed the land.  This so-called feudal system lasted for over a thousand years.

Feudalism’s ideas of right and wrong were based on what would best hold together a strong group.  We call this idea  communalism.  A commune is a group of people living together and sharing what they have.

In feudal society people freely agreed to be ruled by other people and to do what they were told in return for protection.  To seal these personal agreements, it was common to swear an oath of allegiance.  The greatest crime that you could commit was to go back on your word and not stand by your oath.  This was called a felony.  The word felony is still used today to describe the most serious crimes.

Let's look at one of these feudal oaths.

I swear before God that I will be your true and faithful servant and be at your command.  I will love what you love, and hate what you hate.  I will not think or do anything of which you disapprove.  In return you will stand by me, and protect me in all the ways we agreed to at the time I submitted myself to your authority.

Composite of several typical feudal oaths.

An oath is like a promise to do something.  How important is it to keep your promises? Should promises be kept no matter what?

Thomas Aquinas

During this feudal era, the  Catholic Church was very strong and most of the thinkers and writers were church people.  One great philosopher who had a lot to say about right and wrong at that time was a Catholic priest named Thomas Aquinas.  We're going to read some of his words and talk about them because they show the philosophy behind communalism.

Here is how Aquinas put it:

The parts of things exist for the sake of the whole.  If a person had an infected finger, and it was threatening to spread and kill the person, then it would be right and good to cut it off.  By the same reasoning, the person who is dangerous and infectious to the community can be rightfully killed to protect that community.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, 64 simplified

You can easily see how strong this idea of protecting the group was.  Think about the groups you belong to.  How important are these groups to you? Write a short statement about groups in your life and prepare for a discussion.

One question that puzzled people who believed in communalism was whether a person should make a profit by selling something for more than it was worth. 

Here is what Aquinas said:

It is wrong  to sell a thing for more than its just price because it is deceiving and injuring your neighbor. 

Buying and selling is intended for the common advantage of both parties.  Therefore, there must be equality between them.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II,77 simplified

This is different isn’t it?  Let's look closer at what Aquinas said.  First of all he uses the term just price.  This term means the same thing as fair price.  But what does that mean?

Well, for people at that time, it meant that if you were selling something to make a living, you could set your price only as high as was necessary to pay your living expenses.  In other words, you could expect to live comfortably at the level you were already at.  You could not get rich by making big profits.  For example, shoemakers had a certain lifestyle, as did carpenters and farmers, and so did everyone else.  You could sell your goods only at a price that kept you at that level.  The just price would change with people and places, but it was always intended to keep people from moving up, or down, the social ladder.

To sell anything for more than it is worth, or to buy anything for less than it is worth, is wrong and unlawful.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II,77

Compare this with the way trade is carried on today.

Thomas Aquinas had a lot to say about right and wrong. Let's see what he says about hypocrisy.  Remember that hypocrites pretend to be something they’re not.

The seriousness of the wrong will depend on what end the hypocrite has in view.  If the hypocrite intends to gain from it at someone else's expense, it is very serious, but if the hypocrite just enjoys pretending, then it's of lesser importance.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II,111,4

Here again we see that intent played a big role in how actions were judged.  Let’s think about this question again, maybe you’ve changed your opinion. Do you think that the reason that motivated a person to do something can determine if that action was right or wrong? 

©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 7 Ancient Rome

Ethics Workbook I: 

World History Chapter 7 

Ancient Rome 

The most important ethical philosophy that came from ancient Rome was called Stoicism. It influenced all later ethical thinking and added some very big new ideas about where the law comes from. Let's review briefly. Remember how Socrates believed the law came from the people and refused to disobey the will of the people even when it resulted in his own execution? Now, the problem with this is that if you believe the law is whatever the people say it is, there is no such thing as an unjust law, as Socrates found out. This was an area where the Stoics added something significant called natural law. We'll study this in more detail later, but for now, let's find out more about what the Stoics believed in generally. In the first place, they were practical. They wanted to live effective happy lives in the real everyday world. One of the leading Stoics was a man named Epictetus who wrote a “handbook” for life. According to Epictetus, the first lesson to learn is to distinguish between things, which are within our control, and things which are not. Some things are in our power and some are not. What are in our power are our desires, thoughts and actions. Not in our power are the actions and opinions of others. Pay attention only to what's in your power. If it's not in your power, don't be concerned with it. Arrian, Handbook of Epictetus Stoics believed that a person should be indifferent to anything he or she can't influence. What kinds of things are, and are not, in our power? 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. This will be, for many students, a new way of looking at things, and it introduces a greater level of abstraction in thinking. Stoicism can be oversimplified and its real value in ethics thereby diminished. Take the time to work students through the difficulties. Actions are not a problem for people but opinions about them are. For example, death is not bad, but the opinion that death is bad, that's what's bad. Arrian, Manual of Epictetus Is this true? Can you give any examples from your own experiences?

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. In order to live a happy and fulfilling life, the Stoics say it is necessary to stop worrying about things that are beyond our control. “Don't cry over spilled milk.” This is typical, practical common sense stoic advice. If you can't change it, such as the past, forget it. But, Stoicism isn't about indifference; it's about involvement, because if you realize that only a few things are really in your power, you know, as the Stoics did, that you must be good at controlling those. What do you think Epictetus is meant by the following advice? Do you want to win the Olympics? Me too. It would be fantastic. But before you begin, consider this: you must be disciplined, eat carefully, and stay away from sweets and exercise regularly even when you don't want to, in heat and cold, without water or wine. You must follow strict training rules, and face serious injury and defeat. Having considered this, if you still want to, go for it; or you can turn your back like a child, and play at this and that. Arrian, Manual of Epictetus

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. What is Epictetus trying to say here? What kind of a person do you think a Stoic is? Do you know anyone who acts like this? Give some specific examples. 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Students should begin to realize that Stoicism puts a tremendous burden on its adherents to work hard in the limited areas where they can make a difference. Stoicism really is about seeing and accepting your responsibilities. The relevance for our students is clear. So you see, Stoics take things very seriously, and accept responsibility for their lives. They believe that they must act decisively wherever they can, since most of life is beyond their control. Even Roman emperors, such as Marcus Aurelius, were Stoics. Here are some of the things Marcus Aurelius said in his writings. Think about how fast things pass by and disappear. Reality is like a river, constantly flowing and constantly changing. Hardly anything stands still. Only fools stake their happiness on such things. Think about how you will soon be nobody and nowhere, and all the things, and all the people you know will no longer exist. All things perish to be replaced by new things. Think about where you are standing, between two huge voids, the past and the future, into which everything disappears. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations These are powerful words by Marcus Aurelius. Do you concentrate too much on what's passed, or dream too much about what's coming, to be happy now?

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. This can be somewhat depressing for some students who may conclude that Stoicism is pessimistic. Try to work through this. The next quotation from Marcus Aurelius is particularly important because it introduces us to that very big idea that Stoics had, the idea that the law is not something handed down to us, but is a part of the nature of things. When you get up in the morning, and you don't want to, think about this. I am rising to do the work of a human being. Why wouldn't I want to do the things I was by nature intended to do? Or, maybe I was made to lie in bed and accomplish nothing? Can you look at the bees and ants, spiders and birds working diligently at their natural tasks and say you don't want to do the work for which you were created? Marcus Aurelius, Meditations There are laws, which are a natural part of life. The life of every living creature is an unfolding of that creature’s nature. Do you recognize some of Aristotle's ideas in this?

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. This is an important philosophical concept in ethics. It leads to the natural law and social contract philosophy of the Enlightenment, which is the basis for the American Constitution. Humans too are governed by these natural laws which the Stoics began to consider being the basis for all human laws as well. In other words, human laws had to be in keeping with natural laws. Or, put a different way, people have a right to live a natural human life without anyone interfering with that. This idea is huge because it says that people have rights, which are bigger than all laws. Did Socrates have any rights? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ancient Greeks lacked this concept. The most basic of these natural laws involved the right to live and to be free. It's really simple. People, because of the kind of beings they are, have a right to defend themselves against anyone who wants to kill or to enslave them. The Stoics said this was the basis of all law, and it answers the question that Socrates death raised: who says what the law is? The answer for the Stoics was, all human law comes from nature, and must be consistent with nature. We're going to see this idea again later, because it is the foundation for our own Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Students have no problem understanding the concept of their own rights. Try to refocus them on the idea of natural rights and if there is such a thing.

Ethics Workbook I: World History Chapter 6 Ancient India

Ethics Workbook I: 

World History Chapter 6 

Ancient India

 This idea that harmony can only be maintained in a society where everyone carries out his or her duty was also basic to ancient India. Remember, eastern cultures stress that life is interrelated, and that people are not superior to other living things. This blending of people, animals and gods into a single coexistence is typical of Indian culture. If a person acts in a way that is contrary to his or her rightful role in life, the delicate balance of nature would be affected. A good way of thinking of this is to imagine life to be like a band playing a song. When every musician plays the right notes at the right time, beautiful music results. But this only works if everyone cooperates and coordinates. Playing your notes at the right time is your dharma. In fact, in the case of important people, like princes and kings, great national catastrophes such as floods or droughts might occur if they don't do their dharma. This duty to play your part is very important in India. Indian people like to tell the story of a prince named Rama who lived even before Confucius. This tale is called the Ramayana, and it provided lessons for Indian children. Rama was the model for boys to follow, and his beautiful bride, Sita, was the model for girls. Like Aesop’s fables, the Ramayana was told and retold countless times and exists in many versions. We're going to retell some of the story. Your job will be to figure out from it what some of the duties of the characters were by analyzing their actions. In other words, what was their dharma, and would you have acted the same way. As you read or listen to the Ramayana make some notes on the following key characters. Each of them does his or her dharma all of the time. See if you can describe in your own words what each one’s dharma is. Also think about your opinion of their decisions. Students need the greatest amount of work on the concept of duty and obligation. This study should be expanded and enriched with as much contemporary and personal example as possible.

Ramayana Rewritten segment 

Long ago there was a peaceful and happy Kingdom named Kosala. The people of Kosala always did their dharma. Kosala , which was ruled by a wise king named Dasaratha, was protected by walls and moats, and was not threatened by the demons that ravaged the countryside around them. The ruler of these demons was Ravana, the vicious king of Lanka, who had magic powers which made it impossible for any human to kill him. The god Vishnu, who protected the universe, got tired of Ravana’s evil ways and decided to destroy him. To do this, he needed to take on a human form, and was reborn as Dasaratha’s this eldest son, Rama. Acting through Rama, Vishnu planned to end the murderous career of the evil king. Rama was strong and handsome with all of the qualities of a great prince. He and his brother Lakshmana often ventured into the lawless land around Kosala to fight Ravana’s demons and protect the people. One day the two brave brothers went deep into the forest until they reached of the land of King Janaka, whose daughter, Sita, was known far and wide for her beauty and grace. “You have heard,” said King Janaka, “that the man who marries my daughter must be a prince of the perfect virtue? I believe you might be that prince.” Rama smiled thinking of the beautiful Sita and the honor of having her as his bride. “The test is this,” challenged Janaka. “Only the strongest and most righteous young man can lift and string the mighty bow of Shiva. This test will tell if you are to marry Sita.” Sita watched from her throne as Rama waited in a huge assembly hall while a thousand warriors dragged the huge bow forward. She loved the handsome prince at first sight, and when their eyes met she knew he loved her too. Every one but Sita was stunned as Rama easily lifted the bow and strung it. She knew that the gods had brought them together. The people chanted, “Rama, Rama, Rama,” and the wedding ceremony was held immediately. The same chant echoed everywhere when Rama returned to Kosala with his bride. Rama and Sita were deeply in love, and they were incredibly happy. Old king Darsaratha saw this and decided to retire. “I will leave my crown and my kingdom to you Rama and your bride Sita,” he told his son. But when he told this to his third wife, who was Rama’s stepmother, she was not pleased. “Why are you angry,” asked Dasaratha, “Is it not my duty to retire when my eldest son is ready to became king?” The queen, who wanted her own son to possess the throne said: “do you remember a solemn oath you swore to me when I saved your life many years ago? You said you would grant me any two wishes. Do you remember?” “Yes,” the king answered. “Well here are my wishes. First you will declare my son, Bharata, to be king, even though he is the youngest, and then you will banish Rama into the forest for fourteen years.” “Please don't hold me to this” the King pleaded. But the queen did not listen. The sad king could not go back on his word, and so he told Rama that he had changed his mind; Rama would not be king, and he must leave Kosala at once. Rama looked into his father's eyes and said, “yes father.” As he turned to leave, his brother Lakshmana said: “I will stand by your side, and we will take this throne by force. “No,” answered Rama, “I must do as father said.” “I will go with you then,” said Lakshmana, “but Sita must remain here where it's safe.” “Yes,” said Rama. “No!” cried Sita, her eyes filled with tears, “I will go wherever you go, forever and always!” “Stop,” cried Bharata. “I should not be king, you are the true king, come back.” “I cannot,” said Rama “I will keep my word, I am banished for fourteen years.” “I will set your sandals on the throne so the people will know that you are the true king, and I will rule only in your name until you return. “ said Bharata. And so Rama and Sita and Lakshmana walked sadly into the forest. Now, the evil king knew that the three were in the forest and he used his magic to lure Rama and his brother away while he kidnapped Sita, and brought her to his castle. He tried every trick he knew to fool Sita into thinking Rama was dead. He wanted the beautiful princess to fall in love with him and be his bride. But she did not fall for his tricks and remained true to her beloved Rama. Meanwhile Rama and his brother made a plan to attack Ravana’s stronghold to free Sita. Rama knew that Ravana and his demons were protected by the gods, and could not be killed by humans, so he made an alliance with the monkey king, Hanuman, and invaded Ravana’s kingdom with an army of monkeys. Rama and Lakshmana and the monkey army fought many bloody battles with the ferocious demons. Ravana used all of his magic spells to defeat Rama, but in the end Rama was invincible, and using a magic arrow he killed Ravana. Standing over the dead body of his evil enemy he said “I order an honorable burial for Ravana, for though he was evil, he is now dead and death erases all enemies. He is now my brother, and deserves an honorable funeral. “ Sita, dressed in a silken gown, and looking more beautiful than ever, ran into Rama’s arms; the two lovers cried with joy. They were together again at last and the long years of exile had passed. But when they returned to Kosala, Rama sensed that something was wrong. “Why aren’t the people happy?” he asked his brother. “The people believe that Sita is bringing disgrace to Kosala,” said Lakshmana “But why?” asked Rama. “They believe that she has lost her virtue because she lived with Ravana. No one understands how you can take her back after she lived with another man.” “But she was faithful” Rama replied “These are lies, all lies.” “Yes, but everyone believes them, and you know you can't allow this to go on,” said the prince’s brother. Rama thought for a long time before he made his decision. “Take Sita into the forest and leave her.” “But she will surely die” protested Lakshmana. Rama only nodded and said “do as I say.” The following day it rained, and fog covered the land. Lakshmana brought Sita into the forest. 

Ethics Workbook I ©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

Ethics Workbook I: World History, Chapter 5 Ancient China

Ethics Workbook I:

World History Chapter 5

 Ancient China

 Now we are going to trace the idea of virtues from Greece across the world to China, and learn about a famous philosopher named Confucius. Confucius lived even longer ago than Socrates and Aristotle, and he was a teacher who had a lot to say about right and wrong. Remember that eastern civilizations like Egypt stressed balance between humans and the world around them. People were not expected to control nature, but to live in harmony with it. Keep this idea constantly in mind. When Confucius was growing up, China was a dangerous and unpredictable country. It was very violent and governments were corrupt. Confucius was worried about how people could live safe and happy lives, and like Socrates and Aristotle, Confucius believed that good government was the key. Confucius loved formality, and what he called propriety. He believed that people should be polite to each other, and should be treated with respect. This rule was the most important rule people could live by. All human relationships had rules of propriety or a formal code of behavior that dictated the roles people must play. How a father should act toward his son, for example, or how a younger friend should behave toward an older friend were all mapped out by Confucius. To upset this would be to upset the balance of nature. This idea is very typically Eastern in its way of looking at life. Confucius’s ideas became very influential in China and all over Asia. He wrote a set of rules for people to live by that was supposed to result in a well ordered, stable and happy society. Let’s see if we can figure out, from some of Confucius's words, more about what he believed in and then compare his ideas with the ideas of Socrates and Aristotle. This will be a good way to better understand the society Confucius was trying to create, and to decide what we think about it. The duke asked Confucius about government. Confucius replied, “there is government, when the Prince is Prince, and the minister is minister; when the father is father, and the son is the son.” 

Here’s that part about roles that we just mentioned. Think about this idea. Do people play roles in life? How important is it to play the part you’re supposed to play? See if you can give an example. Students should as much as possible relate concepts to their real lives and discuss issues among themselves. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Here is more of what Confucius has to say:

A man asked the master what was the first thing to consider when establishing a government and the master replied, “names.” If names are not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth. If language be not in accordance with the truth, affairs. cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties … do not flourish. When proprieties do not flourish, punishments will not be properly given. When punishments are not properly given, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. 

Now here’s that part about formality and politeness. How important do you think it is to be polite and respectful? What good does it do? What about names? Is it important what people call each other? Obviously many openings for discussion will emerge. Follow the discussion wherever students take it. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. But that’s not all there is in this quote. There are definitely clues about the kind of government Confucius was thinking about, and also about his opinion of average people. Write a short statement telling what you can learn about Confucius from these lines. Confucius has no confidence in the masses and expects a hierarchical elite to govern. Students will respond to this. Try to relate this to our  society today.

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Confucius’s view of the role of the people in government is certainly different from that of the ancient Greeks. Let’s look more carefully at some more of what Confucius had to say. Draw some conclusions from each of the following statements. Confucius said, “those who are born with the possession of knowledge are the highest class of people. Those who learn, and so readily get possession of knowledge are the next. Those who are dull and stupid, and yet can learn, are another class next to these. Those who are dull and stupid and do not learn; they are the lowest of the people.” The master said, “people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it.” The relation between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass; the grass must bend, when the wind blows across it. Confucius, Analects ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. From all of this you might conclude that Confucius believed that government must rely on raw power to maintain order. But this is too simple. Remember, Confucius was a great philosopher who studied right and wrong, and he was seeking a lasting way for all people to be happy. If you believe, as Confucius did, that people are vastly unequal in all respects, what sort of system do you think would promote peace and harmony? See if you can predict Confucius’s answer. A man asked about government and the master said, “the requisites of government are that there be enough food, enough military equipment, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.” The man said: “if it cannot be helped and one of these must be lost, which of the three should be given up first?” “The military equipment,” said the master. The man asked again, “if it cannot be helped, and one of the remaining two must be lost, which of them should be given up?” The master said, “part with the food. People die; but if the people have no faith in their rulers, the state itself will die.” Ethics Workbook I ©Anthony Tiatorio 1999 32 Confucius, Analects ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Knowing what you do about Confucius’s view of average people, why do you think he believed that the ruler needed their approval? Think about the eastern way of looking at things. Everyone has a place in society and everyone should be happy in it. Discord will lead to conflict and a breakdown of harmony. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Confucius believed that certain superior people should lead society by example. They should serve in government, and provide the leadership society needs. To be successful these superior people must be virtuous, and act with propriety. The master said, “he who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the North Pole Star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it.” Confucius, Analects What virtue do you think Confucius saw in this kind of behavior? Steadfast adherence to one’s duty. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. There are three principles of conduct which the man of high rank should follow: that in his words and actions he keep from violence; and he be sincere; and that he avoid bad language. Confucius, Analects How important is it for government officials to set a good example? What about other role models like athletes and entertainers, do they have any influence? Do you agree with Confucius that people are generally molded by what they see and hear? This is obviously a rich invitation to discussion. Try to avoid following the same strategy. For example, reports on heros and role models might work here.

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The Master said, ‘if the people be led by laws, which rely on punishments, they will try to avoid the punishments, but have no sense of shame.” If they be led by virtue, and by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good. 

The superior people display great virtues and lead by example. This sounds a lot like Aristotle doesn’t it? Read each of the following quotes from Confucius and explain why you think Socrates or Aristotle would agree or disagree. Treat this like a test. Be as specific as you can. Try to quote something directly from Socrates or Aristotle in your answer. The master said, “perfect virtue is according to the constant mean!” Confucius, Analects Who does this sound like? Remember, be specific. This coincides perfectly with Aristotle’s concept of the Golden Mean. Students should be expected to support generalizations with specific evidence and quotes from the readings. The master said, “by nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart.” Confucius, Analects What would Aristotle say? Again this is very much in keeping with Aristotle’s view that ethics is learned through practice and ingrained into habit. “What is called a great minister, is one who serves his prince according to what is right, and when he finds he cannot do so, retires.” Confucius, Analects Does this sound like Socrates? What do you think? This corresponds well to Socrates conclusion that he must obey the law or get out of the society. Chinese Tales Folk stories, tales and fables are a way to teach moral lessons. You already read some fables from ancient Greece by Aesop. See if you can figure out the message in the following tales from ancient China. That’s True Two men who had been arguing asked Confucius to settle the dispute. 

 “We disagree about whether the sun is closer to us at dawn or at noon. I say the sun is nearer to us at dawn,” one man said, “because when it comes up over the horizon it's much bigger than it is when it's overhead at noon. Everyone knows that a thing looks smaller when it’s further away.” “True” said Confucius. “Wait a minute,” the other man said, “I say its closer at noon because when it first comes up, at dawn, it's cool compared to how hot it is at noon. Everyone knows a hot object feels hotter when you get closer to it.” “That's true too” said Confucius. “I guess I can't help you with this.” Liezi, rewritten To get the right answer you must ask the right question. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. A Perfect Fit A man needed a new pair of shoes and wanted them to fit perfectly, so he measured his feet very carefully. Writing down the length, width, height and circumference. He even checked his arch and the distance between his ankle and his heel. Later that day when he stopped at the shoe store to buy the shoes he realized that he had forgotten the paper with the measurements on it. “I can't buy shoes today,” he told of the shoemaker. “How will I know if they will fit?” “Why don't you try them on?” the shoemaker said. “I wouldn't dare trust that!” the man answered. Hanfeizi, rewritten Don’t make things overly complicated. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ethics Workbook I ©Anthony Tiatorio 1999

Ethics Workbook I: Chapter Four The Ancient Greeks

Ethics workbook I:

World History Chapter Four

The Ancient Greeks

 You have already learned that the ancient Greeks gave birth to the idea of democracy. They believed that a vote of the people was the best way to make and to enforce the laws. While we saw that earlier civilizations had kings like Hammurabi to hand down laws, and used judges to decide cases, the Greeks introduced juries who voted by majority rule. This was an important change, and an improvement for most people. The Greeks believed that right and wrong were basically what the majority of people thought were right and wrong. This idea is called a group ethic, and it is still a big part of ethical thinking today. We’re going to look carefully at both the up and the down side of this. One of the most famous Greeks was Socrates. Socrates was a teacher who lived in Athens during the height of Greek civilization. He had ideas and opinions with which the majority of Athenians disagreed, and he was accused of trying to overthrow the government by promoting his views with the young students of the city. Socrates was convicted by a jury and ordered to drink a cup of poison and die. One of Socrates students was Plato. Plato wrote a famous account of the death of Socrates. His account was written as a kind of skit in which he tells what people said to each other. In order to make this conversation easier to understand it has been shortened and simplified. There are two characters in the play: Socrates and his friend Crito. First we’ll read, or act out, the play and then we’ll discuss some of the important ideas in it. Scene: A prison cell While Socrates waits for the hour of his execution, his good friend Crito visits him. Socrates: Why have you come so early Crito? What time is it anyway? 

Crito: It’s after sunrise.

Socrates: It’s a wonder that they let you in. Why didn’t you wake me up? 

Crito: I was amazed at how peacefully you were sleeping, considering that you’ve been sentenced to death. 

Socrates: At my age dying doesn’t seem so bad. Why did you come Crito? 

Crito: I came to convince you to take my advice and escape from here while you can. If you won’t do it for yourself then do it for me. If you die I will lose my best friend, and people will blame me for not saving you. 

Socrates: Why should you care what people think or say? 

Crito: You should know why best of anyone Socrates since it was the opinion of the majority that condemned you to die. And if you’re worried that your friends will get into trouble by helping you, forget it. We’ll have no problem paying off the right people. Just say the word and we’ll smuggle you off to where you’ll be safe. Listen to me Socrates, you can’t betray your friends, and your children and yourself by letting yourself die when you could so easily get away. 

Socrates: You’re a good friend Crito, but I don’t see it the way you do. I don’t care about the opinion of the majority, even if they can kill me. 

Crito: But isn’t that the point Socrates? 

Socrates: Maybe so but that can’t be the reason why I escape. I must know I am right in escaping. Will you help me think it through Crito? 

Crito: I’ll try. Socrates: Would you agree with me when I say that we should do no wrong? 

Crito: Yes, of course. 

Socrates: If someone injures us should we try to injure him or her back? 

Crito: No. 

Socrates: Then we shouldn’t try to pay evil back with evil? 

Crito: No. 

Socrates: Well we agree on everything so far. But that’s not what most people would say is it? 

Crito: True. 

Socrates: Well then, it seems we shouldn’t do what people want but what we hold to be right. Would you agree with that my friend? 

Crito: Yes, we should do what we think is right. Socrates: Then is it right for me to run away against the command of the law of Athens? 

Crito: I don’t know, I suppose it depends on if the law were just and the sentence fair, which you know they’re not. 

Socrates: Well what would be the result if people decided for themselves which laws to obey and which to disregard? 

Crito: But the sentence is still unjust. 

Socrates: All right then what about our rule that it’s wrong to pay back evil with more evil? Would you want me to destroy my country to get revenge? Besides, when I agreed to live here in Athens and benefit from its laws I also agreed to abide by those laws. I have clearly made a pact with the laws of Athens and I can't go back on my pledge. I will obey the law and I will gladly accept my fate. 

Crito was speechless. 

As the fateful moment neared, other friends arrived to be with Socrates at the end. Suddenly the jailer appeared carrying a cup of deadly poison. He handed it to Socrates who calmly drank it. His friends began to cry, and Socrates asked them to be quiet and let him die in peace. Socrates walked about until his legs began to fail and then he lay on his back. The man who gave him the poison pressed his foot hard and asked him if he could feel; he said no and the man said that when the poison reached the heart he would be dead. 

Socrates: Crito, I owe a chicken to Ascelpius, will you remember to pay the debt? 

Crito: The debt will be paid. Is there anything else?

There was no answer to this question. 

Let’s think about and discuss some of the ideas in this play. First of all, do friends owe friends something? Is Crito right to worry that people expect him to help Socrates?

Socrates says it’s wrong to retaliate against someone who does you wrong. Compare this with Hammurabi’s Code or the Old Testament where “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” were the rule. Why is it natural to believe in the need to pay back equally for what you receive, good for good and bad for bad? 

What happens if you don’t fight back against someone who hurts you? What if you never repay your friends for being loyal? But why does Socrates disagree with this?

The ideas of equality and reciprocity are very basic in the history of ethical thinking, and show up in a myriad of ways. They form the basic theme of this study of ethics, and as such should be kept constantly in mind as a readily comprehendible start for sound ethical decision making. What is a feud or a vendetta? How does this kind of behavior lead to a never-ending cycle? What examples of feuds can you give? According to Socrates how do you break out of the feud-revenge cycle?

Is it ever right to disobey the law? Socrates says no. Can you state his reasons in your own words? Do you agree? 

There is of course considerable opportunity here to pursue the idea of resistance to wrong through civil disobedience. Socrates makes a big point of keeping his word and meeting his obligations. Why does he think this is so important? What do you think about keeping one’s word and meeting one’s obligations? 

It is important to constantly challenge students to give reasons for their conclusions. Remember also that students have little difficulty understanding their own rights, it’s recognizing their responsibilities to others that needs work. 

We have studied a little about how ideas about right and wrong have developed in history, and how the idea of law has become established as a way for societies to enforce rules. At first a god or a king handed down these laws. The people had little or nothing to say about them. The Greeks decided that these laws should be made by the citizens of the state through the process of majority rule. This was a big advancement. For the Greeks, these laws were always right and moral because their definition of moral was anything the people customarily believed in or did. In other words the Greeks believed that their laws were right, no matter what. This may seem hard to understand, but it’s important. In fact, this is one of the big points Socrates was making. He believes that the law has a right to execute him, even if he’s not guilty. See if you can state in your own words why you think Socrates believed that he had to obey the law, even when the law was unjust. 

Socrates believed that for the law to work people had to freely agree to obey it, even when not coerced. It was a fair and equal bargain a citizen struck with the law because the citizen received security and prosperity from it by being freed from lawless violence. Again there is a quid pro quo involving equality and reciprocity. If he chose to disobey it he would encourage others to do the same and thereby undermine the authority of the law. Socrates also opened the door to questioning the law, and to following one’s own conscience, if it could be done without breaking the law. Another great Greek philosopher named Aristotle will take this idea a bit further. But before we get to him, let’s look again at the traditional Greek idea about morality. Remember we said that for the Greeks right was whatever the majority said was right. We named this idea a group ethic. Think about this, and prepare for a discussion. How good an idea is this? What are its strengths? What are its drawbacks? 

Obviously the drawbacks come for the minority. The Greeks never recognized this problem. Socrates says a lot about telling the truth, keeping your word, and being loyal to your friends. Most of us would agree that these are good to do. But why? First let’s figure out how the Greeks would answer this, and then we’ll give our own view. Greeks loved to tell stories. Most Greek stories had a moral or ethical point to them that the Greeks thought was important to understand, and to discuss. The story was intended to get people, particularly students, thinking and talking. One famous Greek storyteller was a man named Aesop who made up stories about animals that acted like humans. This kind of a story is called a fable. Next we’re going to read, or listen to, some of these, and see what the moral lesson is. That part will be easy. Then we’ll try to figure out why the Greeks believed it. That will be harder. The Fox and the Rooster rewritten As a hungry Fox trotted into a clearing in the woods, he spotted a rooster perched on a high tree branch. Thinking of a tasty meal, the Fox called to the bird and said “Hello friend rooster have you heard the good news?” “No” said of the rooster “What is it?” “All the animals have made a peace treaty, and have promised never to hurt each other again.” “What” said the rooster, “That's great!” “Why don't you come down and celebrate with me?” asked the Fox. Just then the Fox noticed that the rooster seemed to be looking intently off into the distance and asked: “What are you looking at?” “Nothing much,” answered the sly rooster, “only a pack of hounds running this way very fast.” “Oh no!” said the fox suddenly, “I just remembered something important and I have to go!” Ethics Workbook I ©Anthony Tiatorio 1999 24 “Why in such a rush friend fox” said the rooster mockingly, “we'll tell them about the new peace treaty, and you'll be safe, you'll see. “ But the fox ran as fast as he could and never looked back. This story is obviously about lying, and what lying leads to. In what ways does this story show the same reasoning as Socrates used to explain why he wouldn’t break the laws of Athens? 

By obeying the laws people were freed from the endless violence of the revenge cycle. People will seek equality and will act reciprocally. Aesop is saying the same thing. If people expect to be lied to, everyone will lie. 

The Lion and the Mouse rewritten One day a lion was sleeping soundly in his lair when a little mouse came along and thought he would have some fun. The mouse climbed up the lion's mane and danced on the lion’s nose. As the big beast snored, his mouth opened and closed, and the mouse delighted in jumping back and forth across the dangerous gap. The happy little mouse didn’t noticed the lion’s eye slowly open until he suddenly felt the huge teeth tighten around his little body. “Please don't kill me.” pleaded the pitiful mouse. “If you let me go I'll never forget you and someday I will repay you.” The lion was amused by the thought of this tiny mouse helping him, the king of beasts, but he admired the little animal’s courage and gently put him down. “You may go friend mouse, but next time be more careful where you play.” Many years later when the lion was old and walking slowly in the forest, he was caught in a net some hunters had set up. The lion struggled all night with the thick ropes but couldn't get free, and as morning came he smelled the approaching hunters. Thinking he was doomed, the lion roared a mighty roar. Nearby, that very same mouse heard him roar and came running. “Here's my chance!” thought the mouse as his sharp teeth gnawed through the thick strands of rope. Soon the lion was free, and the smiling mouse watched him disappear into the forest. Write a short essay about this story. What was the lesson Aesop hoped people would take from it. There’s more to the story than you might at first think. Try to get everything possible out of it.

This story is of course about reciprocity, keeping your word and meeting your obligations. But also note that the lion did not free the mouse because he expected to be paid back later, but only because he felt compassion for the mouse. The mouse is happy just to see the lion free and expects nothing more. It’s important to begin to think about reasons why people do good for others that go beyond self interest. 

An important Greek philosopher named Aristotle added some new thoughts about how to know what is right and wrong. He actually wrote a book about it, and we’re going to read some of it later. But since it’s very long and difficult to understand, we’ll start with a simplified summary of his key ideas. 

Aristotle believed that every living thing wanted to be happy, and tried to do things which would lead to happiness. 

Aristotle thought it was good to do this, and, in the case of animals, it was basically all they did do. For example: a hungry lion tries to kill a gazelle and the gazelle tries to run away. This is good no matter how it turns out because it represents the natural way of these animals. Animals actually can’t do wrong because they are ruled by instincts and don’t really make choices about what they do. A good lion is good at killing gazelles, while a good gazelle is good at escaping lions. 

It’s different for people. People are ruled by reason, and they do make choices. What makes them human is this fact. Humans are above animals because they can control their emotions and instincts, and decide logically what to do. 

Aristotle believed that this was what made us human, and to be a good human you had to be good at it. Aristotle based his ethical ideas more on doing what was right rather than not doing what was wrong. 

He believed that to be good was the same as being excellent at what ever you are supposed to be excellent at, something like the lion and the gazelle.

 For example: if you are a good athlete you are skilled and successful in contests. If you are a good doctor you cure your patient’s illness. But this was only part of it for people. People also must be good human beings. This means that people must exercise the characteristic which sets them above animals. That means being governed by reason, and  not by instincts or emotions. 

When you do this, Aristotle said, you avoid the extremes of behavior and act in a moderate way. Aristotle believed that it was the extremes of behavior that were bad, and the middle choice was good. He called this kind of behavior a virtue. 

Everyone should learn to live by virtues. Only humans can achieve virtues because humans alone can choose what they do. In other words, being virtuous is being truly human. Neat argument isn’t it? Here’s an example of how it works: Aristotle says that courage is a human virtue because it is midway between the extremes of behavior that a human could choose when faced with danger. At one extreme a person could be fool hardy and daring at the other extreme a person could be cowardly. These two extremes are bad. The person should choose the middle and be courageous. Being courageous is a virtue. 

For Aristotle being good means living according to all of the human virtues. Generosity is another virtue Aristotle thought good people possess. 

Try to think of the bad behaviors at both ends of this scale. Think of some other virtues you think are good for humans to possess and what the extremes might be for them. 

One last point about virtues before we move on. Aristotle believed that these virtues were learned through doing them over and over until they became a habit. People learn as children to do the right thing, and they could just as easily learn to do the wrong things. Upbringing and education were critical for Aristotle. What do you think? Do children learn to do good or bad by making habits that are hard to break? Write down your thoughts in the space below and prepare for a general discussion of this. 

The more students personalize this study the more impact it will have on their thinking and ultimately on their behavior. 

Let’s review briefly: See if you can figure out what’s new and different about Aristotle’s idea of what makes something right and wrong. 

Hebrews: The God you believe in tells you what’s right. 

Hammurabi: The ruler of your country tells you what’s right. 

Socrates: The majority of citizen’s in your country tell you what’s right. 

Aristotle:There’s a natural human law that determines what’s right. This is the first basis for a universal system of ethical standards. 

One of Aristotle’s most important human virtues was friendship. His view of what real friendship is adds another big idea to our understanding of ethics. 

Read from his book on ethics how important friends are to Aristotle. Friendship is a virtue that is necessary for life itself. No one can live without friends, even money, power and fame cannot replace having friends. In fact, the rich and powerful need friends most of all. 

Nicomachean Ethics Book 8, Chapter 1 rewritten and simplified 

Do you agree? Why do you think Aristotle thought having friends was so important? Write a thoughtful essay in the space below about what friends mean to you? Tell what you think true friendship is. 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 

Students should respond richly to this. Endless openings will emerge to direct discussion to key ethical concepts. 

Let’s see if you agree with Aristotle about friendship. Aristotle says there are three kinds of friendship. 

One is true and lasting and the other two are false and fleeting. One of the false friendships is based on utility, or the idea of usefulness. People become friends in order to get something useful from each other. They sort of provide each other with a service. For example, a person without a car might become a friend with a person who had a car but needed money for gas. This kind of friendship lasts only as long as it provides usefulness. Aristotle says old people often make this kind of friendship. The second false friendship is based on pleasure. Two people become friends because they have fun together. For example, two people both like to swim, so they become friends and go to the beach together. Again this friendship lasts only as long as the fun lasts. Aristotle said young people fall into this kind of false friendship. True friendship is lasting and is not based on what you personally get out of it but on what your friend gets. One friend is rewarded by seeing the other friend happy. Sounds great, but how can it happen? Well, Aristotle says it can’t unless the two people can really identify with each other and for this to happen certain conditions must be met. Let’s see if we can understand his reasoning, and if we agree with his conclusions, by reading some more of his book. We’ve condensed and reorganized it a little, and simplified some of the words to make it easier to understand. Perfect friendship happens between people who are good and alike in their virtue. People who wish their friends well for their sake, and not because they themselves will get something out of it, are the truest friends.