Competency 1 Ethics CBE 9.17.23 Final revision
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
South Texas College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2306
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by arodr383
Assignment Content
1.
Question 1
What is Aristotle's definition of "virtue?"
Your Answer
“The definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right
an extreme.”
It currently serves as a ground between two vices—those that depend on excess
as well as those that depend on defect, in the context of both passions and acts, the vices fall
short of or go beyond what is good, but virtue can be closer to one extreme than it is to the
other.
[3/3]
2.
Question 2
What is Aristotle's definition of "the mean?"
Your Answer
Aristotle's definition of "the mean" is between two extremes of excess and deficiency. The idea of
being virtuous between excess and deficiency
.
For
example, he states, the
mean of the virtue of
courage lies between the vices
of rashness and cowardice, representing excess and deficiency.
Aristotle sees courage as a means of virtue that deals with emotion and actions. Approaching
matters when we face them with inculcated virtue and fair dose of practical wisdom. Aristotle
believed that achieving the mean or balance between excess and deficiency is not easy.
[With the changes, 3/3]
3.
Question 3
What is Aristotle's definition of "incontinence?"
Your Answer
Aristotle addresses incontinence as a person’s knowledge of knowing what they
do. The weakness of will is acting against their own judgment or failing to act
accordingly with it. Incontinence is the performance of an action in a class which
one considers wrong. People who judge correctly can be incontinent. Giving the
suggestion that incontinence men have ethical knowledge but are not exercising
it. The lack of self-control or discipline will result in further bad outcomes. It's like
adding fuel to the fire. For a tobacco smoker who knows cigarettes cause
illnesses, continues to smoke, then ends up being diagnosed with an illness. He
had known this was the result but continued to do it.
[2.5/3]
4.
Question 4
Explain Aristotle's answer to the question as to "whether incontinent people act
knowingly or not."
Your Answer
Incontinent people know what is wrong but choose to not use their knowledge to refrain from
wrong doings due to the desire which fuels them.
Aristotle classified incontinence into two
types: incontinence with qualification and incontinence without qualification. Incontinence with
qualification is driven my wealth, achievement, and honor. Whereas incontinence without
qualification is driven by the desire for food or sex. I do believe that incontinent people do act
knowingly because we do have the basic concept of the thought of what is bad or wrong, but
still decide to follow our desire.
Second, that an incontinent person may make false inference when using the practical syllogism
due to ignorance of the facts.
For a man who has done something owing to ignorance, and feels
not the least worried at his action, has not acted voluntarily, since he did not know what he was
doing, nor yet involuntarily, since he is not pained.
For instance, individuals who smoke
cigarettes desire the habit. They know it is bad for their health, but the desire for it will allow
them to continue without feeling bad about it because the satisfaction is too great for them to
stop.
Third, that the incontinent person may be emotionally excited or mentally disturbed and
therefore
unable to think clearly. For example, my schizophrenic neighbor tried breaking in our
house because he heard his mother crying out for help, telling him she was over here. That was
scary but he is unable to think clearly.
His actions are reasonably right, trying to save his mom.
He was incontinent because he loves his mom and any action to help her is reasonable in his
mind which in his mind does not think clearly
.
Fourth, desire may cause a person to act hastily without self-restraint or more careful reasoning.
Incontinence is "lack of self-control". For example, the people who come on the news for killing
their significant other to be with another person.
They don't see the rational option of getting a
divorce and moving on with the other person. Which leads them to act irrationally without
seeing any other logical reasoning for action on this issue they face. Being confronted with
your desire to have this new life with this new person seems wonderful but you know it’s
wrong, which the universal premise has changed.
[8/12]
5.
Question 5
Provide your own brief evaluation of Aristotle's ethical theory. Is he basically
right? If not, why (or how) not? If so, what further implications might be drawn
from this theory?
Your Answer
I do think that Aristotle’s view on virtue ethics is essentially right. We do acquire these through
practice. He emphasizes the notion that good and successful people all possess distinct virtues
and proposed that we should get better at identifying what these are, so that we can nurture
them in ourselves and teach them to others. What I think of when reading this is when I heard
other parents tell their children that they must “break the cycle”. To go to college and not to
have children at a young age and to go live their life. We as parents try to encourage the
younger generation to surround themselves with others that are goal oriented and thrive
without holding you back or wanting you to fail.
[9/12]
6.
Question 6
What is Kant's definition of "duty?"
Your Answer
Duty is basic in the concept of "good will" because acting out of good will is the true
performance of our duty with
certain subjective limitations and hindrances, which, however,
far from concealing it and making it unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast and make
it shine forth even more brightly.
[3/3]
7.
Question 7
What is Kant's definition of a "categorical imperative?"
Your Answer
Kant's definition of categorical imperative is a rule of conduct that is
unconditional or absolute for all agents. Categorical imperatives are absolute
moral obligations to do or not do something that applies to all rational beings
with no consideration of personal desires motivated or inclinations. Kant states
that this is a rule that applies to everyone regardless of their desire or goals. To
my understanding, Kant's definition of categorical imperative as an example, is
to be treated as you would want others to treat you not because it’s the right
thing to do but because it is logical.
[3/3]
8.
Question 8
What is Kant's definition of "autonomy of the will?"
Your Answer
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
An idea of the characteristic in virtue of which a person is governed by the moral
law. The principle of morality has been a subject of many attempts to discover it.
However, it was never realized that humans are subject to universal laws given
by their own will, which is a universal law. “This principle of autonomy of the will,
which contrasts with every other, is crucial in understanding morality. It suggests
that humans are bound to act in conformity with their own will, which is a
universal law.” (Aristotle Book II).
Implying that this will be a law by itself, laying
the groundwork of morality and what makes moral responsibility possible.
[3/3]
9.
Question 9
Explain Kant's answer to the question as to why "heteronomy of the will" will
always prove insufficient as a foundation for morality.
Your Answer
Kant thinks that free will is not really in a sense of being free, therefore people must act
accordingly to reason. When a person acts from emotion, they are not fully free and moral. The
results of these actions depend on the specifics of the person’s decisions and the circumstances
in which they were made. Sometimes people are governed by outside sources that sway their
decisions or desires. For example, “Interest”
, they do not appeal to everybody in the same way,
and thus heteronomy always fails as a foundation of morality, because the conditions do not
appeal universally.
[9/12]
10.
Question 10
Provide your own brief evaluation of Kant's ethical theory. Is he basically right? If
not, why (or how) not? If so, what further implications might be drawn from this
theory?
Your Answer
According to Immanuel Kants theory in moral law is that the only intrinsically good thing is a
good will; an action can only be good if its maxim – the principle behind it – is duty to the
moral law, therefore, all rational creatures are bound by the same moral law. He then answers
the question, "What should I do?"
In compliance with a fundamental moral principle, we need
to act rationally. With this observation I think that Kant is not correct because some people
choose not to be rational and are not bound by these laws.
These regular practices of
rationalism
are learned as we grow and as we develop to determine what rational means to
us and how far we can go before we reach being irrational. For example, what should you do if
you hide a child from dangerous perpetrators to save his life, and the perpetrators later knock
on your door and ask if the child is with you? In accordance with Kantianism, you should
always tell the truth, even if doing so causes harm to someone who is innocent. This is beyond
my capability to do so. I would lie until I was blue in the face. Kants also says “any action or
lack of action, if done without good will, is immoral, making it also irrational.”
So therefore, contradicting his own self. In my example, the way to follow Kantiasm would be
to tell the perpetrators the truth. However, if I had told the truth, it would have been without
good intentions because I knew they were going to bring harm to the child, This is the
contradiction that lies within Kantiasm.
[8/12]
Question 11
What is Mill's definition of "happiness?"
Your Answer
Mill’s definition of happiness will also be known as utilitarianism which indicates the greatest good
for the greatest number. “
Mill thinks that “the good” is pleasure and lack of pain
.” (
John
Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism.)
[3/3]
11.
Question 12
What is Mill's definition of a "sanction?"
Your Answer
Mill's states that there exist both external and internal sanctions: external
sanctions exist externally to the human agent as an individual; they may take the
form of peer pressure--the fear of their disapproval--or of divine pressure--the
fear of his results. In other words, the external sanctions he points to out are the
fear of pain and the hope of favor. The internal sanctions of duty are all the same,
whichever standards are used. If the belief in the transcendental origin of moral
obligation does give any additional force to the internal sanction, Peer pressure is
one of them, the thought of disappointment or disapproval. “What is the source
of obligation?” ( Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, Chapter 3).
[3/3]
12.
Question 13
What is Mill's definition of "the will?"
Your Answer
Mill’s definition of “the will” is the child of desire and passes out of the dominion
of its parent only to come under that habit. He perceives” the will” as being a
different thing from desire. Fixed purposes in a person without thinking of the
pleasures that result in the changing of the characters or sensibility. We can go
against merely loving something or disliking something when we have goals. As
an active phenomenon, will is separate from desire. Therefore, willing the thing
because we want it because we want it only because we will it. Demonstrating
habits from the desire of a person’s desire can be done unconsciously, only
becoming aware because of the result.
[3/3]
13.
Question 14
Explain Mill's answer to the question as to "what sort of proof the principle of
utility is susceptible."
Your Answer
"Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be
good must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be a good without
proof" (Mill, 4). In addition to wanting things that are a means to happiness, people can also
want things that are "a part of happiness." Furthermore, this is the "proof [to which] the
principle of utility is susceptible." If you are not happy then you are unhappy.
14.
Question 15
Provide your own brief evaluation of Mill's ethical theory. Is he basically right? If
not, why (or how) not? If so, what further implications might be drawn from this
theory?
Your Answer
Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion
as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness." Because this is defined as happiness with pleasure and without pain, which differs in
both quality and quantity. So now I can understand your feedback from the last 2 attempts made
on these questions. In Mill’s ranking of pleasure, your story of you and your wife going to the
theater but not remembering how many trips
you made to the restaurant fits because you
received more pleasure going to the theater than to the restaurant. If there's one thing, I have
always said to people around me is that we don't take anything with us when we die. But wishful
thinking gives me ease to think maybe we take our memories. But which brings me to the point
that when in a special moment the pleasure that lasts
longer through time would be giving me
more in the long run when I can recall memories from time past. So, I do think Mill's theory is
right.
15.
Question 16
1/1
I would like 1 point added to my total post-test score.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
1. T
TrueCorrect answer
2.
F
False