When discussing The Need for Three Independent virtues, I found it interesting that the author described solidarity as thought directed towards the transformation of society.  This concept seems pretty contradictory to me, especially since we discussed whether or not happiness was individually or socially determined.  Obviously society cannot exist or transform without some individual thought, but what do you think of this concept?  Are happiness, virtues, and principles socially determined/agreed upon with individual determination as its roots? Vice-versa?  Is this idea even applicable or relevant to other topics of discussion we've had?

Similar to Collin's question, I was wondering if anyone thinks it is possible to completely separate self interest when deciding whether or not to help someone? Does anyone act completely selflessly, or is there always the question of what will happen to me if I help or not?

Earlier today in class when talking about the Trolley Problem, we talked about some of the scenarios the author used in the text. What it came down to was if it was better to take 1 life or 5. What if, though, that one person was of high importance? To use the same idea from the scenarios we talked about in class what if that one person held the cure for cancer while the other five were average people. Would that change anything? Or what if that one person was the president and the other five were civilians. In those two scenarios what if you could only save that one person or save the five people or kill that one person or kill those five people. Do your obligations then change?  I am curious to hear what people have to say regarding these scenarios and if your views would change.

Self Interest vs. Moral Responsibility

In class today we talked about the trolley problem and the distinction between what we are actively doing and what we are passively doing. In my opinion, no matter what you choose, you are going to feel guilty. I guess it is a matter of feeling less guilty than you would have felt if you made a different decision. In this case, I think it is better to do something instead of just ignoring a situation because truly, you are never going to find yourself being fully resolved about it but it is for sure that you will feel better if you spoke up or acted instead of ignored the situation. In terms of the good samaritan, you should not ignore responsibilities. The question arises- are you responsible if you choose not to do anything? I think the answer is not technically, no, but you will feel awful about yourself in the long run and wish you had taken action in whatever the situation was. Trying is better than doing nothing, even if you are taking a moral risk. In this case, is it better to act with no self interest and just with other's interest in mind? In what type of situation is it ok to act with just a little self interest?

Learning to love to learn.

Today, Stephanie brought up the interesting point that we all could use some work on "learning to learn" which allowed us to decipher the modern education system and its restrictions to our leisure and ultimate fulfillment. It reminds me of a large dilemma my high school came across which was along these lines: obtaining in class for a grade versus the knowledge for the sake of learning. Taking tests and receiving grades are our societies' measuring stick for obtained knowledge in a given subject. However, we have all seen grades lie: depending on variables out of our control (harder or easier teachers, biased tests focused heavily on one part of a subject, getting graded for reasons other than the actual subject such as participation), we may get a grade that does not truly reflect our actual obtainment of the knowledge. In addition, grades have seen to become more important than the actual knowledge since employers will look at your GPA before hiring you. My question: have any of you felt that learning purely for receiving a grade has caused you to care less about the actual knowledge gained but rather more on receiving an A at any cost? What could we do to get back to loving to learn?

Companies or People

In our discussion on Monday, we got on to the idea that companies are different entities than the people that are in charge of them. Although a CEO could enforce their morals, ideas and goals onto the company, it is possible that they could be replaced, while the company still continues on. Take Apple, for example. Even though Steve Jobs is gone, the Apple Company is continuing on with the ideas he put forth. Let’s say, however, that the person who took over after him wanted to add graphics to the outside of the products, going against Jobs’ precedent of simple-looking products. Would this be possible? Would the company allow the CEO to do that? Or would this individual, being the CEO, be able to have jurisdiction to change something like this? In the end, I’m wondering if a company based on the people, or are the people based on the company? Who holds more power in this situation?

I found today's discussion rather strange.  We talked about whether or not a business should be ethical in terms of the environment, and the economy.  In terms of being ethical in the environment, I find it odd that people expect businesses to change but they make no change in their daily routines.  Talking about "going green" and keeping the environment clean would appear to be gaining traction, but I am starting to think that it is all for show.  We make stipulates on others to be green and then some we won't even do the simplest of activities like recycling.  Does this make sense?  It would be different if every one was driving an electric car, was super conscious of how much water they were using, and recycled  everything they could, but we don't do that.  We still consume the products of companies that utilize sweat shops with absolutely deplorable conditions because we are set in our ways on what is an acceptable brand and what is not.  To me, it appears that people are pawning off being ethical onto larger entities so that they can feel good about their lack of it.  We sit around in groups and talk about what should be done, pat ourselves on the back, and call it day.

As we talked in class today about reciprocity, we talked about it where the employee does positive things for the company and the company does positive things for the employee. While this does make sense I was wondering if anyone thought that the employee could do positive things for the company even when the company does not do positive things for them. The only example I could come up with would be if the employee is demoted and for risk of losing his or her job they go above and beyond to positively help the company. I am not sure if this counts as reciprocity or just working out of fear.

Relationships by Judgement

As I mentioned in class today, small talk helps us develop a perception of how comfortable we can be with whoever it is we are having that conversation with. This is why I think that we cannot make the judgements we usually can when the conversations we are having are not in person. Social interactions include sharing a common idea, but the idea is more drawn out and discussed in person than through the internet or on text message. Since we are taking away the suspicion of having to make ourselves and the other person feel welcome, we almost feel more comfortable speaking online to someone since they cannot see how we are reacting. We are ultimately disassociating ourselves physically, which in the end prevents true bonding and honesty on a personal level. When we see people's faces, we feel we need to take responsibility for things. While we can be swayed by tones, looks, etc. in person, it is much more so online since we cannot as easily read other people if we are not seeing them. Judgements are much more limited with relationships formed on the internet, which can ultimately become dangerous.

As we talked about enhancements, we talked about them rather negatively. Whether or not one believes that different enhancements are negative, I believe it is up to the person who is going to have the enhancement to decide that. It is their decision, they are going to have to live with it for the rest of their life, they should have the choice. Also I believe that any enhancement that is going to benefit one, make one's life better, should be seen as a positive thing, even if the enhancement is not necessary. Why should someone have to suffer with bad eyesight if there is an enhancement that is going to help them? Although laser eye surgery could be seen as an unnecessary enhancement, it is going to have a positive impact on someone's life, and why shouldn't that be okay?

Enhancements

Last class we discussed whether or not morality should come into play when considering enhancements to the body. We discussed in particular the discussion of obesity and the way that there may be a frame of mind which judges these people for being "lazy" or incompetent. This judgment comes from the availability in this time period to change the body quite easily, and the impact of media to create imperfect ideas of the body simply by "eating well and working out." We also discussed the concept of unplugging family members or loved ones that have been declared brain dead. I noticed that as we were discussing and answering such dilemmas that along with the question of morality could be the question of empathy.

Do you think that with the option of more convenient enhancements for our body we've begun to lose a sense of empathy for our fellow peers, family members, loved ones, etc.? Do you think that by saying that all "obese" people are lazy if they don't have a predisposed condition for being so is judgmental and lacking empathy, or simply a fact of 21st century life? The same question could be applied to unplugging patients declared brain dead--is this a question of basic empathy or should we be more practical because there are so many enhancements available?

The question of which type of friendship, meaning female or male, is better was posed in class the other day. I do not think that either one is more important or of better value than the other. I think that each different friendship, either male or female, we have is different than another, not better or worse. You might tell one friend, male or female, something but not the other, not because the friendship is better, but because it is different and you know that person, male or female, will understand what you are saying. All friendships are different, and that is because all people are different. So in order for one friendship to be "better" than another, one might think that that implies that one friend is "better" than another, and I do not believe that any person is better than anyone else, just different. Therefore, no friendship, male, female or mixed, is better than another.

Second essay assignment

The second essay assignment is available on Blackboard.

Being a Christian

Reading your essays had made me do a lot of thinking about happiness, which I hope to be able to write something about. However, in the meantime it has posed a question I in turn want to pose to you. 

The question is: can you be a Christian if you do not understand the depths of human suffering?  

Now by Christian I mean specifically someone who clings to the teachings of Christ, not merely someone who reads and "follows" the Bible (for the latter can do many "Christian" things that contradict the teachings of Christ). 

My question is not if understanding the depths of human suffering is a sufficient condition for being a Christian, but only if it is a necessary condition. 

Secondly, my question assumes that you can understand things without living them, for if lived experience were the condition for understanding, this might mean that everyone understands all of their own experience (and that is clearly false). 

As we discussed in class today, we have almost this moral obligation to treat everyone equally. I however, find that very hard to accomplish because every person is different. Not only is everyone different, but you have a different relationship with each individual person. I think it is hard to treat everyone the same, but that doesn't mean we can treat people badly. I think we have to recognize that everyone has human dignity and needs to be treated with respect. You can treat all people with respect even if you don't treat them the same.

Schadenfreude

While we were talking about the various definitions friendship and how sometimes we have friends for our benefit versus wishing goodwill on another, I instantly thought of a term I once heard. There is a German word called "Schadenfruede" which means the "satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune." Maybe you fail a test but then feel better when your friend fails as well, or it is your friend that trips on their own feet and not you. I believe it ties in to what Aristotle and Colin were saying in class that we do not wish the greatest good on our friends (i.e. becoming a God) since then we would no longer benefit from there friendship. I was wondering if anyone else has a comment about this idea of schadenfruede in which we do not actually want complete success for our friends better than ourselves, and how would Aristotle handle this type of situation?

I thought it was interesting how we were comparing long distance friendships those that are more convenient.  Do you think that it is necessary for whatever attribute formed the friend to be constant to maintain the friendship?  For example, would you still have to see or maintain contact all the time with a good that you saw everyday at school in order to maintain that friendship.  Or if one of your friends from a high school sport team you hadn't seen in a while stopped playing that sport, would you still be able to be friends.  Are common values, activities, et cetera crucial to maintain a successful friendship?

Relationships and Friendships

Personally, all I think about while discussing Aristotle's views on friendship is how he is mainly just describing relationships in my opinion. This had me thinking-is there really a difference between relationships and friendships? Because I have many relationships with people that I would categorize more as being casual and less habitual than those that I consider friendships. What I would define as having a true friendship is someone who I trust and spend a lot of time with and share the same values with. Aristotle thinks the three forms of friendship include all three: by utility, by pleasure, and be goodness. The friendship I described is most like the friendship by goodness that Aristotle describes. At the end of class, someone asked the question of whether the only friendships that fail are those of utility and pleasure. I think that most the time this is probably true but it certainly not mean that friendships by goodness cannot fail at all-they just usually fail and then later get repaired.

The Stone: The Reign of ‘Terror’ http://t.co/tXHkeIdwKJ via @nytopinionator

— Ashley U. V. (@ProfVaught) October 20, 2014

Positive and negative freedom and nihilism

I have alway thought of nihilism as a type of choosing in which all options are equally valid, ... which would mean that nihilism is a form of negative freedom.  And yet it has also seemed to me that there must be some distinction between nihilism and negative freedom.

Negative freedom is the concept sustaining basic libertarianism, in which all human action is promoted insofar as it does not interfere with others, but libertarianism does not mean all choices are equal.  In fact, it merely establishes that law should work to protect all action, while society will approve or disapprove of human actions (and by the latter, distinguish values).  It seems a good model for comprehending historical change.

And yet, positive freedom implies a correct path, action, idea, against which our approximation is a measure of our freedom.  Who clings more closely to the idea, is more free.  The most prudent person  is the most free person.

Whereas, nihilism seems to impair choice, such that the action of choosing is pointless.  In that respect, it would be separate from negative freedom?  Negative freedom celebrates choice, without affirming any particular choice over another?

I had one question after last friday's class on freedom.  We heard the argument that we do not have physical freedom because our actions are merely based on what causes them.  Thus, our lives are merely the effects we act out based on the causes from the environment.  My question was if this simplification of life would be detrimental to this argument, in that one of anything does not exist in nature.  I think we talked about this when we discussed trying out one's new sword.  If you break down an atom, there are sub atomic particles.  So if this idea holds true, would that counter attack professor Vaught's argument on physical freedom?  Having one action being caused by one external stimulus from our environment?

Confused about nihilism ...

After today's discussion I am still a bit confused about Nihilism. According to Nihilism one cannot believe in anything, but if you are a nihilist aren't you believing in Nihilism itself ?Therefore, I find it hard to believe that true nihilists exist and I believe that true Nihilism is unattainable. I was curious to see if anyone had any substantial examples, or had any other opinions on this.

Capitalism and Freedom

On page 32 of Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman says that "Every act of government intervention limits the areas of individual freedom directly and threatens the preservation of freedom indirectly..." Since we didn't get to cover this today in class, I was curious to see what everyone thought of this quote. Would we be better off without government? Where would we be without government?
   - Amanda Alcamo

Augustine and what is eternal

"On the Free Choice of Will" discusses the concern with evil and the possibility that evil must be something that is learned. Can everything be learned? Augustine says that this obviously is not true because evil is not a thing, and is instead the absence of a thing. There is nothing to learn because there is an absence of reason. If everything could be learned then things like desire could be learned, which is a natural thing. We desire things that can be taken away from us. Desire is not a material thing so can it be taken away from us? What can you get that you cannot lose? There are still things that you could lose that are not material, like trust, as we talked about in class. But things that do not change and things that are categorized as being "eternal" stay the same even if they have different symbols, like numbers (reference in class). There is no real difference between objects in a way because how can you categorize things when there are so many exceptions, like what is eternal and what is not and what is material and what is not. Is there any way we can say something is truly "eternal?"

Change in the schedule

Former Schedule:

According to the syllabus:

Oct 6th, we will be talking about the Pratt essay on "Nihilism", and Lucas will be presenting.

New Schedule.

Because we have made a switch,

on Oct. 6th we will do in-class Peer Reviewing.

On Oct. 8th, Lucas will give his presentation on "Nihilism" and on Oct. 10th we will have a discussion about freedom.

Earlier we were talking about how Nietschze sees the rational and intuitive man, how they are, and how they see themselves.  So often when getting to know people we ask trivial question like where they're from what their major is et cetera.  We often consider knowing about someone and knowing someone to be synonymous.  I feel like the way most people get to know each other is pretty superficial and even somewhat of an illusion.  I think someone who knows nothing about another person's background but understands how someone thinks, all of their delusions and irrational trains of thought, knows that other person much person than if it were the other way around.  How do you guys feel Nietschze's views of how we can go about understanding ourselves can carry over to getting to know each other?

Happiness between Aristotle and Augustine

Just a bit of musing about human nature...Aristotle says happiness can only be achieved through virtue, which in his terms means  the ability to be self-sufficient, to be the best "whatever" (carpenter, lawyer, etc) you can be. However, for Augustine, happiness comes from the hope of a life directed towards being with God in heaven. Obviously, one theory depends greatly on the individual, and the other the divine. Is it possible to be truly happy with one or the other? Are humans, as social creatures, able to be happy in a life that doesn't depend on the relationships or opinions of others? Conversely, can humans live a fulfilled and happy life without a sense or relationship with divinity?

New Presentation Rule, in effect beginning Friday, Sep. 26th

You cannot use more than 2 quotations in your presentation and neither can be more than 20 words.  You should try to explain these quotes when you use them.

You should still cite page numbers when paraphrasing.

Aristotle vs Matthew

After today's class, I thought about what Maureen said about how Aristotle and Matthew contradict each other. Aristotle focuses on how irrvirtuous actions affect your character and how habits dictate the type of person you are. Matthew asks what kind of person you are and says that this dictates your habits. Matthew also notes that feelings are the basis for actions. This makes me wonder about the questions that were brought up in class such as that of whether happiness is a fleeting feeling or not. In addition, what about the other feelings, such as anger? Is it impossible to not be angry? Because the things you say when you are angry are often the most dangerous. In the case of these questions, do Aristotle or Matthew's thoughts aid us in answering them? I am not so sure, to be honest.

After leaving today's class (9/15), I was a bit confused on what defines our characters.  I really liked what Stephanie said about how the smaller things (like picking up a piece of paper by a garbage can or holding a door open for someone for example) were just reflections of our character, rather than defining elements of it.  However, I also believe that most of our character stems from the environment we are in, how are brought up, where we are from, i.e.  These aren't contradicting ideas, are they?  And how would this affect Aristotle's statement that one can acquire virtue of character by acting in a certain way?

Happiness as "natural"

If we do not have a concept of the soul like Aristotle's, can we have a similar concept of happiness?

Book in class policy

I sat in on a French class years ago at Villanova, back when I wanted to improve my French, and I remember the way that the professor spoke to the students amazed me.  He talked to the students like one might high school students.  Obviously, you are not terribly distant temporally from those days, but when you are in college, a certain difference is expected and I was disappointed that this professor couldn't treat the students the way that he would have liked them to have acted.  Instead, his  relation was adversarial and patronizing.

I do not want to ask people to leave the classroom who do not have the course text, although I have said that I will do that, because I dislike conflict and more strongly I dislike treating students like children.  However, I've made it clear that you must have the course text and yet people still do not have the course text.

So from this point, if I see that you do not have the course text in class, I will be counting you as absent.  That way you are not missing a class, because you should be there.

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." -Ayn Rand

I recently read this quote and was wondering what everyone thought about it. Do you all agree that happiness is the only moral purpose of life, or is there something else? Do you believe Machiavelli or Aristotle would agree or disagree with this quote?

Questions, 9/3

1. Is Machiavelli gainsaying the history of philosophy's traditional esteem of virtue and the life of virtue in his disapprobation of a prince who seeks virtue?

1a. Does the expedient path promise happiness?  What is happiness?

1b. Is Machiavelli's prescription limited to the prince? Does it hold only for monarchies or principalities, but not for republics?

2. Why must a prince "learn how not to be good"?

3. What is our (ethical) task if we are Machiavellians?  Are we?

Final exam date

The final exam for this section will be held on

Monday, Dec. 15th, from 8:30 - 11 a.m.

Please make arrangements accordingly.  No make up exams will be offered.

Teleology

"The Good Life" refers to a eudaimonic, or virtue ethics, account of happiness.  By eudaimonia, the Greeks understood eu to refer to good, as in the words eulogy and euphoria; and daimonia refers to daimon, which is close to our demon, except without the negative connations, that is spiritedness.  So a eu-daimonia means good-spirited.

Eudaimonia is another way of saying "doing well and living well".  Thus, eudaimonia is not a state, but an activity.

Moreover, eudaimonia is the end or purpose or goal of human life, and all human life (all of nature), is for Aristotle, teleological.  Teleological means directed towards ends.  So we say that an acorn is directed towards the purpose of becoming a tree.

"The Good life" refers to the idea that happiness is the ultimate end, the end for which all other ends are themselves desired.  So all other ends are intermediate in relation to happiness.  Thus, we go to college for the sake of happiness, we take a nap for the sake of happiness, and we fall in love for the sake of happiness.  Everything is for the sake of happiness.

6 Strategies for Effective Reading

The Millions : Back to School: Six Strategies for Effective Close Reading http://t.co/EbnpA22zVn via @The_Millions
— Ashley U. V. (@ProfVaught) August 24, 2014

Problems becoming an author on the blog

The cause of most problems becoming an author on the blog is in your browser (i.e. Internet Explorer if you use Windows or Safari if you use Mac).

The browser you normally use will remember your login information for your university Gmail account and try to use that for you to become an author on the blog.  

If that works, great.  

If not, I strongly recommend that you 
download a new browser 
that you will use only for the course blog.  

if you use Windows, check this page for a list of alternates:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/five-apps/five-free-alternative-web-browsers-for-windows/

If you use Mac, check this page for a list of alternates:
http://www.icreatemagazine.com/top-5/top-5-alternatives-to-safari-the-best-web-browsers-for-mac/



And FYI, if you're concerned about the safety of your information on your computer, I suggest using separate browsers for separate functions (one for Facebook, news, sports, Twitter, etc.; one for shopping; one for school stuff; etc.).  

Chrome allows you to have different users on the same browser, as an alternative.