While reading over my notes about Aristotle, and going through his Nichomachean Ethics, I found his views on the highest good. I agree with him that every thing we do is aiming to some good, or end. The highest ends are in themselves, meaning the highest end is not done for the sake of another. Aristotle calls this supreme in the hierarchy of goods. This goal, or supreme end is happiness. I have to admit I zoned out in class for a good minute or so trying to figure why we try to achieve happiness. There is no answer, because it is the end solution. Everything we do is to ultimately be happy.
I think virtues lead to happiness. If someone does virtuous things, It pushes them to the Happiness end. But I think it is important to understand the Golden Mean to understand what is virtuous and what is not. If Dr. Johnson does take on the bear all by her self, she isn't virtuous. (Sorry Dr. Johnson) She will make it on the news and the headline will be blaring the words courageous and brave, but virtuous wouldn't be one of those words. At first I had trouble understanding this, because if I was stuck in a room and a people killing bear came into the room, someone taking the bear on to let the rest of the room live, seemed like a virtuous person. However, I think it is crucial to understand vices and what exactly makes up a virtue. Aristotle says that we are not born with virtues, that we have to experience them and have them become habits. I agree with this. You cannot be some one who does a certain thing unless you have in fact done that certain thing. So you cannot be a virtuous person unless you understand what virtues is and have experienced the situations before.I also agree that the determination of something being a virtue depends on whats relative to you and the situation you are put in.
Selena,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on many points. I think it is interested to point out that everything we do is to ultimately be happy and how you connected that to happiness having no end. Before reading this blog post, I had not thought about happiness in this way. I also think it is interesting how you address being virtuous with the bear situation. I believe that in a weird way it is relevant to modern day. Today we see so much on the news about seemingly brave people, but are these people really virtuous? I do not know the answer to that question, but I love the point you brought up in your blog.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the people-eating-bear scenario, there are not quite enough details to determine if Dr. Johnson's self-sacrifice meet the criteria for virtue. If she were teaching a CAPS class that just happened to be full of professional bear wrestlers, hunters, and trainers, jumping in front of the bear would not only be not virtuous, it would be the height of idiocy. If the class were full of people who were completely unable to defend themselves, it would be an act of self-sacrifice, but ultimately pointless if they could not escape before the bear became hungry again, leaving the students to face their fate as dessert. If, however, she knew that the professor for the next class to be taught in that classroom was a world-renown bear whisperer, would arrive in two hours, that bears get hungry again three hours after a meal, AND that no one in the class could save themselves or anyone else, THEN putting herself on the menu would probably be considered virtuous. This additional information would indicate reference to reason, and would be a mean between pointless self-sacrifice and hiding in the back of the room and hoping that someone else was harboring intestinal bacteria that were fatal to bears within minutes of consumption.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, this sort of virtue is not the sort that engenders happiness, beyond the temporary contentment and satiety of the bear, at least.
In regard to the people-eating-bear scenario, there are not quite enough details to determine if Dr. Johnson's self-sacrifice meet the criteria for virtue. If she were teaching a CAPS class that just happened to be full of professional bear wrestlers, hunters, and trainers, jumping in front of the bear would not only be not virtuous, it would be the height of idiocy. If the class were full of people who were completely unable to defend themselves, it would be an act of self-sacrifice, but ultimately pointless if they could not escape before the bear became hungry again, leaving the students to face their fate as dessert. If, however, she knew that the professor for the next class to be taught in that classroom was a world-renown bear whisperer, would arrive in two hours, that bears get hungry again three hours after a meal, AND that no one in the class could save themselves or anyone else, THEN putting herself on the menu would probably be considered virtuous. This additional information would indicate reference to reason, and would be a mean between pointless self-sacrifice and hiding in the back of the room and hoping that someone else was harboring intestinal bacteria that were fatal to bears within minutes of consumption.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, this sort of virtue is not the sort that engenders happiness, beyond the temporary contentment and satiety of the bear, at least.
It is really funny how you are still talking about the bear because I still can't fully understand that example. I agree in the fact that our purpose in life is HAPPINESS.However, there is one thing that I wonder: does everyone achieve Happiness? I guess not. I think that we spend so many time trying to figure out how to be Happy that at the end, we are not Happy at all. Being Happy is more than having a good life (material things, health, wealth, etc.) As Aristotle said, Happiness is equal to Virtue. You clearly state that in your post. No one in life, in my opinion, can be fully virtuos. People can't be virtuos because there is always a deficiency or an excess (VICES). I think that the secret to be virtuos is just to act naturally. Dr. Johnson (in the example of the bear) shouldn't show so much bravery; Instead, she could think in an idea to get out of the room without facing the bear but at the same time showing to the bear who the BOSS was.
ReplyDeleteI am so still stuck on the people-eating-bear as well, Just as Leslie replied. Honestly, I would call Dr. J courageous if she took that type of bullet for the entire class. I do not know if I take to the Aristotilian view in the same way you do. If we completely and utterly agree with everything Aristotle puts out, then almost none of us would get to be virtuous in the way we went to be. We would rarely ever get to practice the virtues that we already say we possess. The manner in which he presents his argument suggests that being completely virtuous is impossible. I do agree though that we cannot completely take Plato's side either because I could completely grasp the concept of honesty but that does not necessarily make me an honest person. I believe we might be able to put both of their ideas together in a way that might better suit this issue.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the bear eating scenario, we have to remember the definition of virtue, specifically part a. Aristotle states that virtue is a state that decides. This also means that the agent deciding must be rational. To be faced with a man eating bear is not a situation where one can remain calm, and if Dr. J were to sacrifice herself to save the class, her actions could not be considered "virtuous" or "invirtuous" according to Aristotle. From my own perspective, I can agree that her actions were idiotic; however, we can not fully grasp what she considered reasonable at the time. Maybe she believed that sacrificing herself was the right thing to do or maybe that she knew she could save the rest of the class. In any circumstance, we can not fault her for her "invirtuous" actions.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the bear eating scenario, we have to remember the definition of virtue, specifically part a. Aristotle states that virtue is a state that decides. This also means that the agent deciding must be rational. To be faced with a man eating bear is not a situation where one can remain calm, and if Dr. J were to sacrifice herself to save the class, her actions could not be considered "virtuous" or "invirtuous" according to Aristotle. From my own perspective, I can agree that her actions were idiotic; however, we can not fully grasp what she considered reasonable at the time. Maybe she believed that sacrificing herself was the right thing to do or maybe that she knew she could save the rest of the class. In any circumstance, we can not fault her for her "invirtuous" actions.
ReplyDelete