Happiness: The Ultimate Goal

Aristotle is the genius behind the term eudaimonia, defined as "happiness." According to Aristotle, eudaimonia actually requires activity, or action, so that a person is not idle in terms of achieving this state of happiness. Eudaimonia requires not only good character but rational activity. Aristotle clearly maintains that to live in accordance with reason means achieving excellence thereby. In addition, he claims this excellence cannot be isolated and so competencies are also need to be appropriate to related functions. For example, if being excellent at the activity of swimming requires all there is to know about swimming without actually having ever gotten in a body of water, then it is justifiable that one does in fact “know” how to swim. Since reason for Aristotle is not only theoretical but practical as well, he spent quite a bit of time discussing excellence of character, which enables a person to exercise his practical reason successfully. Aristotle’s ethical theory is eudaimonist because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. However, it is Aristotle’s view that virtue is necessary but not enough for eudaimonia. While emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche, he does not ignore the importance of other ‘goods’ such as friends, wealth, and power in a life that is eudaimonic.

Which leads us to this: often times, one may ask himself what the true purpose of their existence is. Do you think the meaning of happiness is justified in terms of its definition being that the virtues of each and every person determines that person’s happiness? In other words, can happiness be so broad as to actually have countless sub definitions so that it is set as the ultimate life goal? Or does one work to juxtapose his lifestyle and actions to mirror the expectations of the descriptions Aristotle heavily stressed?

(Eudaimonia) Happiness

According to Aristotle, happiness is pursued for its own sake, not just for the sake of something else. Aristotle once said that the human purpose in life whether is wealth, sanctity, or power always leads to happiness. Also, he said honor and wealth are for the sake of other things. I agree, for example, when you are in an occupation you enjoy and you're making good money, you have happiness and wealth. So your wealth is feeding of your happiness, which in essence means that your wealth is for the sake of happiness and not is for its own sake. Many find happiness in adventure and others in a library, such differences are what set each one of us apart and when we finally discover uniqueness we also find our purpose. I believe happiness is achieved when one's heart is what lead them to do what they are focusing one then and only then is when you achieve true happiness.


Aristotle defines happiness as a set of virtues that humans obtain through experiences throughout their lifetime. Virtue is a state that decides and consist in a mean. He also calls it the "golden mean" between the two extremes. For example, generosity is the mean between extravagance and stinginess, and Wittiness is the mean between buffoonery and boorishness. The mean is relative to the person making the decision. I agree with this because it is basically saying that I decide if I want to do whatever I am doing. To take it further, Aristotle states that your decision as to be defined by reason. The decision that you choose to make has to be of a rational account of why that was the mean between excess and deficiency. He also goes on to say if you can't decide what the mean is, you have to basically put yourself in the shoes of an intelligent person, a person with practical wisdom, a virtuous person, and make a decision.

What is Virtuous Life?

In the eyes of Aristotle, happiness can only be achieved through living a virtuous life. So what is a virtuous life then? To Aristotle, virtue is defined as a mean state between deficiency and excess. So it is basically a middle ground between doing too much and not doing enough in a given situation. This mean is only relative to the person deciding how to act or respond in that situation and is not the same for every person in that situation. This mean is also largely defined by reason that relates to how the intelligent person would explain it. If one acts in a way that is seen as excessive or deficient, then that person does not, at least in that point of time, live a virtuous life and therefore will not reach the ultimate goal of happiness.

This is where I run into some uncertainty with his theory because virtues are habits and not natural. Accordingly, habits can change over time and therefore, a person who has had previous habits that can be considered not virtuous may have broken those habits and developed virtuous habits in place of the old ones. Would those people be able to lead a virtuous and ultimately happy life? Or would those prior non-virtuous acts prohibit them from reaching the supreme goal of happiness? I believe that the person would be able to lead a virtuous and therefore happy life because by making the choice to change their habits, they are able to see the correct mean in which to live correctly for the remainder of their life. This change of habits would be, I think, not doing too much or too little in the circumstance, but instead picking the right mean. However, choosing either multiple excessive or deficient acts in the past could have blinded the person from completely achieving happiness. Can a non-virtuous person actually become a virtuous person and therefore achieve the ultimate goal of life – happiness?

The Purpose of Us All

Aristotle states that all humans have a "telos", or a purpose in life. It has to be something particular and unlike any other living thing, such as survival or sensation. Suppose that Aristotle is in fact correct, and where not just mindlessly roaming the Earth for no reason. What then, determines our purpose? Is it predetermined, and was every funny little coincidence and occurrence that lead up to this exact moment somehow planned in order to find our purpose? Or is our life just a long pathway of random decisions and events thrown at us and we have adapt to them in a way that we can reach our fullest potential? If it's the latter, then what if you don't adapt correctly or play your cards right, and imminently reach your end without ever finding this purpose? Does it mean that your life was completely useless  and somewhat worthless, and a life without finding a purpose is a meaningless one?


Not only is that terrifying, but suppose you lead a mostly virtuous life, doing almost everything that is relatively right and correct. Is that everyone's purpose or does our purpose differ from conscience to conscience, such that Jim's expertise in physics and William's charitable nature in gratuity are their own purpose in life fulfilled?


Even then, how does one know what is their exact purpose, if not predetermined? Does not fulfilling your purpose strip you from the virtue of happiness? Say I don't fulfill this purpose, yet a feel extremely content and satisfied with my life? Does this mean I am a faulty human being, or is that pretty much my "telos", if I'm happy.


This is the stream of questions while trying to understand Aristotle's concept of purpose. I don't entirely know how to answer them myself, but wanted to share with everyone else, and perhaps give you all something to think about as well.

Aristotle's True Wisdom

     Is true wisdom gained from experience or is the point of it all greater than what mere experience can offer? It is believed of Plato that our purpose is to look beyond experience and to study the truth behind it. Though Aristotle was a student of Plato, surprisingly, he begs to differ with the veracity of Plato's opinion and formed his own theory that true wisdom comes from examining the objects of experience.
    Wisdom is defined as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period based on practice and judgment. If this is the definition of wisdom then how could it be feasible that true wisdom can not be gained through experience? I agree with Aristotle because everything is not just about whatever you read in a book. Even the greatest information is not proven until it has been experimented. Also, it has been impressed upon me that wisdom is indeed associated with time, which is why society usually, appoints the elderly as the wisest not because of what they've studied but because of years of experience, trial and error.
     This brings up Aristotle's point about phronesis, practical wisdom. Phronesis is the kind of wisdom or knowledge possessed by someone with virtue and experience. He exemplified his thought through "The Golden Mean Theory." The mean is not the same for everyone but is the appropriate way of acting, given our individual nature and situation; therefore, the way a poor, struggling woman down by the weights of poverty could not be compared to nor expected to give the same definition of family life as a rich man who owns several companies. The cultivation of wisdom is wrought by experience which is customized by each person and thus divulges a sense of "true wisdom" that is ambiguous yet respected.

Our Happy "Telos"

Aristotle believed that everyone has a “telos,” a final end or purpose.  That purpose, somehow involves finding happiness, which I would definitely agree with.  I can honestly say that there isn t one person in the world who doesn’t want happiness.  Some people may say they want honor, pleasure, and the most popular one, money, but in the end happiness triumphs all.  One thing that I would argue against Aristotle, is his belief that one cannot be happy and poor.  For example, one cannot be happy and yet still be suffering.  I would argue that Aristotle is wrong and in some way in contradicting himself.  If happiness is supposed to be the highest good that triumphs all, then how is it that being poor can stop one from being happy or achieving happiness.  I’ve actually pondered over this question quite a bit, and then I remembered something someone once told me about happiness.  They told me that happiness isn’t everlasting, only temporary.  They told me that that was the difference between happiness and joy, while happiness is only temporary joy is everlasting.  Now I am not sure how credible this person may be, but what they said made sense to me.  Say they are right, and so is Aristotle, then in that case what Aristotle believed to be happiness was actually joy.  Then that would mean that what one strives for is joy but somehow we end up with happiness and then it slips away.  I believe it all has to do with the balance of life.  In life nothing last forever, one may feel happiness one minute then pain the next.  It cannot all be good and happy all the time.  I struggled to come to terms with this.  I wanted to believe that evil could disappear, but it can’t and it won’t.  Life is a balance between good and evil, happiness and pain, and through it all we still strive for happiness, that final purpose, joy, or whatever you what to call it; The End.  

Becoming Virtuous (but not really)

[Note: I am typing my train of thought as it occurs...]

Aristotle defines virtue as the “golden mean,” between two extremes. If a person can perform an action that is between two extremes, then they are considered to be virtuous. These two extremes usually come in the form of excess and deficiency, and when a person performs an action that falls under either of these two categories, they are considered as such.

Aristotle also states that virtues can be practiced, so that an reproachable person may become virtuous. My problem with this is that a reproachable person would be either deficient or excessive. Furthermore, if the mean between the two vices is relative to each person, then how would a  deficient, stereotypical, nerd who desires to become a virtuous (competitive or professional) athlete become the virtuous person that they want to be?

To become virtuous, a person must practice virtuous actions, which means doing things that are just right for them. So then, I would suppose that our stereotypical nerd would have to begin by building endurance by participating in activities that would strengthen this attribute. One would say that if he becomes exhausted, he would have participated in the activity excessively; however if he feels fine after such activities, his actions would be considered deficient. But endurance, by definition, is one’s ability to resist becoming exhausted. Considering that this is a stereotypical nerd, who for whatever reason, is possessed to suddenly become an athlete, it is more than likely that he will become exhausted after participating in endurance building activities.

Aristotle also makes a point to say that anybody can participate in an activity, but it does not mean that they will be good at it, and that a good practitioner is virtuous because they perform their actions well, but a poor practitioner is reproachable for performing their actions poorly.

I personally dislike his definition, as at face value it leaves the possibility of becoming proficient/virtuous to chance, though obviously, one could be instructed how to perform these actions properly by a mentor. If we follow this train of thought of “a mentor must instruct you on how to do something virtuously,” then we have to ask ourselves how the first person who performed a task virtuously knew that it was virtuous. Furthermore, this would mean that virtue is an ascribed characteristic, meaning that it is something that is evaluated by other people. If one performs a task until the performance is acceptable to a mentor, then it defeats Aristotle’s definition of virtue in that it isn’t supposed to be something sought out for the approval of another person. This puts a person’s capacity for becoming virtuous back up to chance, as the only way for them to become virtuous is for them to perform an action, correctly, in just the right way for themselves.

All this to say that Aristotle does a very good job explaining his reasoning and building support for himself, but the main flaw that I find in his argument is his definition of what exactly “virtue,” is. If we were to use Aristotle's definition, then no practitioner of any activity today would be considered virtuous or proficient, as most activities that require practice require practice (excuse my redundancy) in order for one to be recognized as proficient/virtuous.

The Ethics Of Happiness




Aristotle describes happiness as being pursed for its own sake, not just for the sake of something else. Aristotle goes on to say that happiness cannot be pleasure or honor and personally I disagree with his statement. However, I disagree with Aristotle in three different arguments. First, I believe that happiness in its own right relies on how well you live your life daily with every choice and decision you make. For example If one was to make the decision of not doing any homework that was due the next day,  the long term effect of not doing that one assignment could possibly hurt your grade in a certain class. And eventually from a declining grade your level of content happiness could certainly be possibly damaged.

And second, we all look to try and find our unique purpose in this lifetime, but I feel that you cannot reach your full potential without your level of happiness being at its peak. Unlike Aristotle in my opinion morals equals happiness, simply because without having a moral sense of background knowledge to help structure and set up your life it is impossible to achieve happiness as well as your overall divine purpose.

And third, feelings like pleasure and honor can possibly be what we are looking to mostly achieve throughout our life’s goals. I have a friend who lives and dreams to become a nurse, and she will not be satisfied until she becomes a nurse. I’ve first handily seen her struggle and fight just to keep that dream alive and achieve that goal of being the best nurse she can be. So I believe that pleasure and honor can be happiness as long as it’s a long standing fight and achievement to achieve something.

True happiness in the end rest on the shoulders of the ones who are willing to go out and achieve what they want throughout life by their decision making.  

Is Happiness Our Purpose?

Is Happiness Our Purpose?

Aristotle once said that the human purpose in life whether is wealth, sanctity, or power always leads to happiness. I personally agree with him, because since I was a small child my parents always taught me to do whatever made me happy, so when I decided to study psychology they agree, even though they wanted me to study a type of science. I f I would of studied what my parents wanted, my life would be miserable because that is not where my happiness is. It is always important to define where our happiness belongs; even if others criticize it and many will because we are all different. I also believe that happiness is what makes each one of us unique. Many find happiness in adventure and others in a library, such differences are what set each one of us apart and when we finally discover uniqueness we also find our purpose. Many people might disagree with this statement and it may be because they have not found his/her real happiness. There are many things that make us happy, but there is always one thing in particular that lightens up our hearts.  I, for example, love to play sports and many of my family members are surprise of why I decided to not play any in college and that is because my real passion is drawing. Even though I am better at sports than drawing, I do not feel the same excitement and change of mood as when I grab a pencil and create new ideas. Therefore, Aristotle, in my perspective is right about stating that happiness is what leads us all to a purpose and without it we would probably be different. I believe that his purpose in life was philosophy, because is what made him an outstanding person, but most important it made him happy.



Happiness and Our Purpose

According to Aristotle, Everyone has a purpose in the world. This is also referred to as “teleos”, the final end or purpose. With this in mind, we as humans will begin to contemplate our purpose in life and if we are fulfilling it by the actions we perform day to day. Is it our purpose to live and learn in Memphis, specifically at CBU? Is it our purpose to go about the same schedule day in and day out, hoping one day we will receive a degree of some sort to begin a different schedule we will follow day in and day out?

I believe our purpose reaches beyond our actions today, mainly, what we do and how we do it. I believe our purposes are all different and are also achieved in different ways. Taking someone like Pope John Paul II and comparing him to ourselves can make us seem incredibly inferior. After all, he helped more people and influenced more lives than we can count. However great his purpose in life may have been, it does not make our purposes in life any less important. This man achieved happiness through the many virtues he obtained through his lifetime. Patience, kindness, and courage are all things one is not born with, but obtains through repetition. These virtues are habits that once formed, create happiness. These are the same virtues we can form into habits and use in our daily lives to achieve happiness and move toward our purposes in the world. 

By being courageous, patient, kind, etc., we influence the people around us daily. Maybe the simplest actions towards others are part of our purposes in life. To lift up others with our talents and attitude. As we encourage others, it becomes a pay-it-forward motion and we all can begin obtaining these virtues that will eventually lead us to finding true happiness.

Is Happiness the Key?

            According to Aristotle, we learned that he believes in the idea that everything has a purpose. This is known as teleology of nature. To find what this certain purpose is would be the goal of ethics, which requires that we uncover the human's purpose.

            People believe happiness is the purpose of life. The reason causing the happiness is what’s different between people. Some people think it is money that causes happiness or pleasure or honor. The reason why these do not result in happiness is because they are not for own sake but instead for something else. Money is used for other things, pleasure is experienced by not only humans but also animals, and honor is based on other people’s opinion.  To find the purpose, it must be something only human’s experience.

            In life, we all have unique traits that separate us individually. The question is, what separates us all as human beings from everything else? The answer to this is reason, or the ability to distinguish us from other things. The law of non-contradiction allows for contradictory things to be the same thing such as a circular square.

            With all this in mind, it leads to the focus of virtue. Virtue is equal to happiness. What is virtue? It is to perform well. People are not born with virtues, but instead learn them which can lead to the knowledge of justice. This is where Aristotle is different from Plato. Plato believes that to know justice a person must go beyond the idea, study it, and know all about it. As for Aristotle, a person must experience the idea, live by it, make it a habit, and become excellent at it.

            For a person to be happy and virtuous, they must find an activity and make it a habit in which they enjoy. They must perform this over and over until excellence is achieved. To be courageous, a person does not study it but instead does it. Over time, it will just become natural to them. As for justice, a person must live by it in a positive moral way so that they can progress and learn while experiencing it. By doing so, in the end the person will be content and happy with what they are doing.

Happiness is Relative

Happiness is relative. Aristotle defines happiness as a set of virtues that humans obtain through experiences throughout their lifetime. I agree that people that are happy do have similar virtues (i.e. generosity, patience, kindness, bravery) but that does not directly correlate with happy people, just because one has similar virtues does not mean that person is happy.

Aristotle believes that honor does not equal happiness. Some people enjoy making others happy thus making them happy. This is a form of happiness whether the giver is a warrior, nurse, or someone in a relationship. One can be happy doing the work of/for others if that’s all they know/ care about. Happiness is relative.

Aristotle believes that wealth does not equal happiness. While this is somewhat true, happiness is achieved easier if the path is paved in gold. Wealth makes life all around easier, one can focus on more important things because one does not have to worry about paying bills or work, which takes up time which could be well spent toward better endeavors. Money may not be directly related to happiness but it can lead to financial security and this leads to less worry which equals less stress which in turns helps lead to overall happiness. Happiness is relative. 

Aristotle argues that pleasure cannot be happiness because animals actively seek out pleasure as well. I disagree because humans seek pleasure to be happy, no one seeks pleasure to be unhappy. Pleasures are a short term happiness. The most animalistic part of us seek sexual relations as a short term pleasure, scientifically proven: a chemical dump of endorphins are released within the body that bind to the opiate receptor sites in your brain and naturally relieve pain, lower stress, and boost confidence. It is true pleasure is a selfish animalistic trait only used to satisfy some hunger, like eating for the taster or running for the high (also massive release of Beta-endorphins, dopamine, serotonin). Happiness is relative.

I will leave you with a thought provoking quote that all life and happiness for that matter is different.

“Perception is reality” – Lee Atwater

Its all science really...

In a selection from Plato’s Republic, Socrates and Glaucon participate in a dialogue that presents the notion that justice is a trait of the human soul constructed by three parts. Socrates claims that the only way to encourage justice in the world is to encourage the tripartite nature of the soul. In order to be a just person, one’s soul must act such that the appetite craves only what reason deems acceptable, the spirit endeavors to act, while reason rules supreme over the soul. Only while the soul properly functions per these guidelines, justice can prevails and humans can claim to be a just people.

By analogizing justice in this way, Socrates, and therefore Plato, argue that justice is an inherent trait borne from the very souls and psychology of humans. I do not agree with this. Humans are biologically wired with certain instincts; instincts to survive, protect what is theirs, and, in females, to care for their young. They instinctively strive to achieve certain goals based on their desires. In this way, I do agree with Plato’s ideas. 

However, humans are fundamentally wired to either act as predators or prey and in a way, Plato discusses this although it is in different terms (he states there are people who do injustice, predator; and those who suffer it, prey). The way that I mean it though is that there are people (predator) who seem to be hardwired to stand up for people (prey) who are too weak to do so. Therefore, the appetitive and spirited nature of humans follow Plato’s ideas. The rational is a different story.

Justice is not a characteristic born to humans. There is not a “justice” gene, unless you’re Superman maybe. Justice is a principle thought up by humans to create a stable and fair society. It is something that came from the minds of great rational thinkers. There’s the crux of Plato’s argument. The principle came from rationality that came from the mind, not biology. Humans are not born with a natural rational complex; it is something that comes with learned knowledge and wisdom. As a species, humans are capable of becoming rational but I think everyone could agree that when a child is merely a few days old, there isn’t a significant amount of rational thought going on.

Plato says that rationality is the sign of an evolved soul. Rationality is not tied to the soul. It seems that what Plato describes as the soul, should actually be called human nature. From that standpoint, justice is better described as a rational strategy used by those biologically driven to protect the prey of society and society itself. 

Justice, whatever that means

jus·tice

ˈjəstəs/

noun

1. 
just behavior or treatment.



The definition supplied by Google is very vague and even using the root word in the definition, which was a “no no” back when I had to define words back in elementary and middle school. When looking up the word for just, you get a much better definition:


just


jəst/


adjective


1. 
based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.



Even though this supplies a much better definition, the definition is equally vague due to the whole morals thing. Morals are easy to circumvent because there are certain underlying factors that can be allowed for their dismissal as in self-defense for assault or the threat of something the starvation of your family for stealing, but should justice be equally easy to circumvent? The question is whether justice should have those grey areas that morals all too often do? Or is justice just as grey as morals? Are morals the same thing as justice or does justice merely follow morals? All too often it seems as though people believe that justice is an Oak tree that refuses to bend.

Personally, I think the idea of justice is a juicy contradiction that tends to be able to fold and stretch to any length depending on how good your lawyer is. There is no clear meaning of justice as long as what is just relies on morals because there are too many grey areas with morals, and with no clear meaning, a very smart woman or man can bend it to one’s own purposes. Justice needs some sort of meaning that can’t be open to interpretation, a clear, well-defined meaning that is able to withstand even Socrates’ questioning that is accepted across all cultures, but that would be a little too ideal. 

A Balanced Soul

            Socrates states that a person who's spirit is well ordered is a just individual. Doing the right things and maintaining a balanced soul allows the opportunity to make rational decisions. I agree with Socrates because to me justice involves logical and fair reasoning.  Therefore, I do think that our values, priorities, and beliefs directly reflect on who we are and the way we live.

            Socrates describes the three parts of the soul and their roles to maintain justice within. Reason  allows  us to be  stable and virtuous as a whole. Appetite refers to our needs and desires, such as sleeping, drinking, and eating. The third part of the soul is the spirit. The spirit refers to emotions or passions that drive an individual, such as love, courage, and  rage. When a person's soul is balanced good is within and happens for itself.

            Conducting  life in a just manner is important regardless of rewards, or judgment of others. Decisions involving justice should not be driven by benefits or interest. It should come from within an  individual's soul to conduct just acts. An individual should avoid becoming self centered and  rationalize justice for the whole and not for their own benefit. Living a just life provides satisfaction and tranquility knowing that decisions made were not selfish or biased.

            Having a balanced soul brings about a person's happiness, allowing them to live a fulfilling life. Letting desires get in the way and only devoting to what  is wanted encourages a materialistic  or empty way of life.  Desires only provide momentary satisfaction leaving an individual to fill holes and find themselves with the wrong values. These types of  satisfactions should be used in moderation  not allowing them to become a priority. Without the right basis, making the correct judgment becomes very difficult and subjective. A balanced soul  reflects on a person's life, values, and moral judgment.

Is it in our Nature?

In class we were discussing the soul and justice. "T"'s view on justice is that it is instrumentally and "S"'s view is that justice is good for itself. Then we proceeded into speaking on the soul and the ring of invisibility. Our souls are kind of what sets us apart from other living things in this world. To add onto that, I also think a lot of our actions play into our nature. We have appetite, spirit, reason, and then nature. Our human nature tends to make us do things that please ourselves. We are genuinely a prideful bunch. So with most of our action, our thoughts will typically lean to how it will benefits us personally. It is just how we are as humans. Prideful. Envious. Needy. Although, just because we want these things, it doesn't mean we have to act on. Which is where the reason comes into play. For some, our reason trumps our nature. For others it is vice versa? Which is more common? Is following our nature necessarily bad? I don't think always is if it isn't going to be harming or selfish. Sometimes are nature can be to open the door for the person beside you. It become instinct or impulse. Which leads to the question, can our "nature" be good and "bad"?    

Soul Food

   Socrates states that there are three parts that make up one's soul: Appetite, Spirit, and Reason. The Appetite is made up of our basic animal desires, such as eating and drinking, the ultimate goal is to move toward satisfaction. The Spirit is made up of emotions and passions like love, courage, and rage. The Spirit keeps us engaged in projects, as well as keeping the Appetite in check. Thirdly, the Reason portion of the soul separates us from nature, the rational aspect of humans. The Reason looks out for the person as a whole. Socrates also states that a person with an unjust person is a person with unbalanced soul, that they are at war with themselves. Too much appetite for example, makes a person impulsive, and possibly unhealthy, which in turn leads to poor choices.


     Sigmund Freud also proposed a theory very similar to Socrates. Freud proposed three parts of the psychic apparatus, the Id, Ego, and Superego. The Id makes up basic drives, particularly sexual desires. The Ego seeks long term satisfaction rather than instant pleasures that will later bring on pain. The Superego is like the conscience, keeping the Ego and Id in check according to morals and social structures. It is also easy too see how a person who acts unjustly could potentially be giving in too much to their Id, seeking momentary satisfaction rather than long term safety.


     It is easy to see how similar the two beliefs are, even though they are from radically different time periods. I believe that Socrates leaves little to be desired when it comes to the soul. The three branches can clearly be seen in most everyone. I also strongly believe in Freud's theory, though he does focus strongly on sexual desires. A person who acts unjustly usually gives into their desires, without looking at consequences of said actions, or long term side effects. A just person looks at the consequences of their actions before acting.

Is Justice A Control Tool Used By The Ones Of "Higher Power"?

    Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus all provide definitions of justice that are definitionally ambiguous and morally ambiguous, but i feel that Thrasymachus definition was the most reasoned. He defines justice as nothing more than the advantage of the stronger. Though Thrasymachus claims that this is his definition, it is not really meant as a definition of justice as much as it is a delegitimization of justice. He basically states that it does not pay to be just. Just behavior works to the advantage of other people (of higher power), not to the person who behaves justly. Thrasymachus assumes that justice is a practice forced on us, and it does not benefit us to abide to it. So in Thrasymachus' eyes , I think he would say that the rational thing to do is ignore justice entirely. Especially since justice is what ones of higher power tells us it is. Thrasymachus made me think of this question: Could Justice be a control tool used by the ones Of "higher power"?

MORE THAN JUST(ICE) A WORD!!!

Justice is defined as many different ways to many different people. It is explained in the dictionary having about seven definitions. What is important is not the word itself, but what it stands for.

Some people yell "No justice, No peace" but does not even know what they are fighting for. Justice starts with the person being just, fair, and honest. Some people are just followers and are easily influenced.

Racism/Mike Brown

The whole Mike Brown situation/killing is just too controversial. They proved Mike Brown’s killer, policeman Darren Wilson, innocent.  Between the police, Mike Brown’s family, the media, and citizens of the U.S., everyone is going insane over the decision that the jury made on this trial. Some people feel as if Wilson just wanted to shoot Brown because he was black and because he had the power to just because he was an officer, others feel as if Wilson was actually under attack and he did what he had to do for him not to get injured. People began to riot and protest against police an officer because this was not the first time a situation like that has happened and they feel like the legal system is being unfair and discriminating against race. In their eyes, racism is not dead. Mike Brown’s family and most U.S. citizens think that there was no justice served for Brown. This one decision is turning the U.S. upside down. I feel that because we were not there to witness the whole situation with our own two eyes, we should not assume what happened. I am not taking sides because I do feel as if racism still does exist, but I am saying nobody knows what struggle Mike Brown put and nobody knows what Darren Wilson faced dealing with Mike Brown. I think we all need to stop making assumptions and come together as one and find peace within. One nation, one country, a unity is what I am imagining. No more fighting, justice and equality for all!

Justice

"Justice is doing good to one's friends, and harm to one's enemies." That's the definition of justice of Polemarchus, the character from Plato’s The Republic. Do you guys think that this definition of justice is adequate, that is what really justice means? In my opinion this definition of justice is wrong. I think that Justice means to do the correct, to don't take advantage of other people and to teach others with our acts. This doesn’t mean to harm one's enemies and take revenge if they did something bad to us that we didn’t like it, because this would create a war without ending. Although we would be furious if somebody harm us, doing exactly the same to them wouldn’t make the situation fair.

How we really know who our enemies are? What if we think that somebody is our enemy and actually that person has affection for us? What if we harm a person that likes us and he only made an unintentional mistake? Everybody can make a mistake and not because of that he is going to be our enemy.

For me, justice is doing good to one’s friends and one’s enemies. If somebody harm us this doesn’t mean that we have to do the same. We have to be good friends with everybody and demonstrate that harming people is not the way people should be treated, helping them to change. Demonstrate them that together, helping us each other, we can construct a better world.

 

Who is a Friend and Who is a Foe?

“Justice is doing good to one’s friends. And harm to one’s enemies”, according to Polemarchus. His definition of justice is a bit vague in my opinion because he does not go into detail of what “good “or “bad” may be. Something that would be considered bad by one person can be considered good by another. For example one may think that one is doing a favor or good deed to one’s friend but could, in reality, be the opposite or vice versa, one could be doing something bad towards a so called “enemy”, but the bad deed could be something good. Assuming something is good or bad can be dangerous because what one assumes may not be what is really happening.

Has it ever came across your mind that maybe your best friend could possibly be your worst enemy or if your enemy could be your best friend? We human beings can be very gullible. When Polemarchus states that we should do harm to our enemy and good to our friends in order to be just, but how can we be one hundred percent sure who is our friend and who is our enemy. I disagree with Polemarchus because I do not believe it is morally correct for human beings to do harm to each other regardless if we are friends or foes. Going back to assuming, in my point of view, it could be more beneficial to not have friends or foes. In doing so we wouldn’t have to worry about being deceived by anyone. The way I see it if we have friends we could be just and do good to them or we could mistake enemies and friends and do good to them but then we could be being unjust towards ourselves. Would Polemarchus’ definition of justice apply to those who dislike themselves? If a person hates his or herself and wishes or wants to do harm to themselves, do they do themselves as an enemy?

Polemarchus' Definition of Justice

Polemarchus, the character from Plato’s The Republic, is noted for defining justice as “doing good to one’s friends and harm to ones enemies.” In my opinion, I do not think this is a very good way to think of or define justice. A person should do good for everyone, not just someone who you think is a friend. You should do good to everyone not only because it is the nice thing to do, but all humans have a moral obligation to be virtuous and kind to one another. Although being kind and doing good things for your friends is the right thing to do towards your friends, what if your “friend” has ill intentions or is simply using you for the good deeds you do for your friend? This would mean you are doing good to your enemies, which would contradict the quote made by Polemarchus, thus invalidating his definition of justice.

That goes along with the second half of Polemarchus’ quote, you should do no harm to anyone, either. If someone has wronged you, justice is not committed if you harm someone out of malice or revenge. For example, if someone steals something from you, stealing their things would not make the situation fair. Even though you might feel as if justice was served if you take matters into your own hands, it is not because you partook in an unjust and immoral action.

If I had to define justice, it would use part of Polemarchus’ quote by suggesting that you do what is kind and fair to everyone. If you serve justice by treating everyone equally and punishing people for their crime equally and fairly, then the situation would be just. I do not completely agree with Polemarchus’ definition of justice, but I do not think that it is completely wrong in regards to defining what is just.

Welcome to Class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Spring 2015 Contemporary Moral Problems course! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will be divided into two groups, with half of the class designated as "Authors" and the other half designated as "Commenters." In any given week, "Authors" will post a short essay (minimum 300 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm. "Commenters" will respond to at least two of that week's Author-posts before the beginning of the next week's class. Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

First, if you don't know ANYTHING about blogs or blogging, there are (fortunately) lots of tutorials out there to help!  If you have a specific question, you can usually find the answer to it at the Blogger Help Center.  For a quick YouTube introduction to blogging, I suggest this video and this one.  There's also a "Complete List of Blogger Tutorials" available.  That's the amazing thing about the internet, of course... you can learn to do almost anything with a few clicks!

Second, it's important to know that blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the commentary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
• NO flaming allowed!:  Engage your classmates on the blog with the same consideration and respect that you would in class. 

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to members of the PHIL220 class only. This means that only students enrolled in your section of PHIL220 this semester at CBU can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public. If you are new to blogging, you can visit the sites for other CBU course blogs listed in the column to your right.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J