Sophie's World by Jostein Gardner

Sophie's World by Jostein Gardner - Sofie is an ordinary Norwegian girl. One day she recieves a video tape on which a certain Alberto Knox talks directly to her from ancient Greece. They then start to meet at different occasions and throughout the film, Alberto takes Sofie on an odyssey of the history of philosophy, from ancient Greece, over the Roman empire, the Middle ages, the renaissance, the enlightenment, the big revolutions and up to today. Throughout this journey, they start to realise that they are only fictions of a story writer's imagination and start conceiving a plan for escaping into reality.

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

KANT: Virtue and Vice

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

11. Virtue and Vice

Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being's will in fulfilling his duty” (6:405) and vice as principled immorality. (6:390) This definition appears to put Kant's views on virtue at odds with classical views such as Aristotle's in several important respects.

First, Kant's account of virtue presupposes an account of moral duty already in place. Thus, rather than treating admirable character traits as more basic than the notions of right and wrong conduct, Kant takes virtues to be explicable only in terms of a prior account of moral or dutiful behavior. He does not try to make out what shape a good character has and then draw conclusions about how we ought to act on that basis. He sets out the principles of moral conduct based on his philosophical account of rational agency, and then on that basis defines virtue as the trait of acting according to these principles.

Second, virtue is for Kant a strength of will, and hence does not arise as the result of instilling a ‘second nature’ by a process of habituating or training ourselves to act and feel in particular ways. It is indeed a disposition, but a disposition of one's will, not a disposition of emotions, feelings, desires or any other feature of human nature that might be amenable to habituation. Moreover, the disposition is to overcome obstacles to moral behavior that Kant thought were ineradicable features of human nature. Thus, virtue appears to be much more like what Aristotle would have thought of as a lesser trait, viz., continence or self-control.

Third, in viewing virtue as a trait grounded in moral principles, and vice as principled transgression of moral law, Kant thought of himself as thoroughly rejecting what he took to be the Aristotelian view that virtue is a mean between two vices. The Aristotelian view, he claimed, assumes that virtue differs from vice only in terms of degree rather than in terms of the different principles each involves. (6:404, 432) But prodigality and avarice, for instance, do not differ by being too loose or not loose enough with one's means. They differ in that the prodigal acts on the principle of acquiring means with the sole intention of enjoyment, while the avaricious act on the principle of acquiring means with the sole intention of possessing them.

Fourth, in classical views the distinction between moral and non-moral virtues is not particularly significant. A virtue is some sort of excellence of the soul , but one finds classical theorists treating wit and friendliness along side courage and justice. Since Kant holds moral virtue to be a trait grounded in moral principle, the boundary between non-moral and moral virtues could not be more sharp. Even so, Kant shows a remarkable interest in non-moral virtues; indeed, much of Anthropology is given over to discussing the nature and sources of a variety of character traits, both moral and non-moral.

Fifth, virtue cannot be a trait of divine beings, if there are such, since it is the power to overcome obstacles that would not be present in them. This is not to say that to be virtuous is to be the victor in a constant and permanent war with ineradicable evil impulses. Morality is ‘duty’ for human beings because it is possible (and we recognize that it is possible) for our desires and interests to run counter to its demands. Should all of our desires and interests be trained ever so carefully to comport with what morality actually requires of us, this would not change in the least the fact that morality is still duty for us. For should this come to pass, it would not change the fact that each and every desire and interest could have run contrary to the moral law. And it is the fact that they can conflict with moral law, not the fact that they actually do conflict with it, that makes duty a constraint, and hence virtue essentially a trait concerned with constraint.

Sixth, virtue, while important, does not hold pride of place in Kant's system in other respects. For instance, he holds that the lack of virtue is compatible with possessing a good will. (6: 408) That one acts from duty, even repeatedly and reliably can thus be quite compatible with an absence of the moral strength to overcome contrary interests and desires. Indeed, it may often be no challenge at all to do one's duty from duty alone. Someone with a good will, who is genuinely committed to duty for its own sake, might simply fail to encounter any significant temptation that would reveal the lack of strength to follow through with that commitment. That said, he also appeared to hold that if an act is to be of genuine moral worth, it must be motivated by the kind of purity of motivation achievable only through a permanent, quasi-religious conversion or “revolution” in the orientation of the will of the sort described in Religion. Kant here describes the natural human condition as one in which no decisive priority is given to the demands of morality over happiness. Until one achieves a permanent change in the will's orientation in this respect, a revolution in which moral righteousness is the nonnegotiable condition of any of one's pursuits, all of one's actions that are in accordance with duty are nevertheless morally worthless, no matter what else may be said of them. However, even this revolution in the will must be followed up with a gradual, lifelong strengthening of one's will to put this revolution into practice. This suggests that Kant's considered view is that a good will is a will in which this revolution of priorities has been achieved, while a virtuous will is one with the strength to overcome obstacles to its manifestation in practice.