Framework and Principle behind our Moral Disposition
Summary
TLDRThe video explores key ethical frameworks, starting with Aristotle's virtue ethics, which emphasizes character and moral virtues as central to living a good life. It then transitions to Aquinas' natural law, which stresses that moral actions align with rational human nature. Kant's deontological ethics, focused on duty and the categorical imperative, is discussed next. Utilitarianism, which values the consequences of actions based on the happiness they produce, and John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness are also covered, highlighting various approaches to moral decision-making in human life and society.
Takeaways
- 💡 Virtue ethics emphasizes character and virtue over duty or consequences in moral decision-making.
- 📜 Aristotle defines a virtuous person as someone with ideal character traits, and moral actions are those that align with these virtues.
- ❤️ Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that no human act is morally right unless it aligns with love of self and neighbor.
- 🌀 Aristotle's concept of 'telos' implies that all human actions are directed toward a final goal or 'end,' which is typically something good.
- ⚖️ Aristotle believes that moral virtues lie between extremes, a concept called the 'doctrine of the mean,' achieved through observation and correction.
- 😊 Aristotle defines happiness ('eudaimonia') as the ultimate goal or supreme good of human action.
- 🔑 Aquinas' natural law theory asserts that moral requirements can be discovered by rational beings and guide actions towards the right path.
- 🛡️ Aquinas' four cardinal virtues—prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance—are essential in making moral decisions and leading a virtuous life.
- 📏 Kant's categorical imperative suggests that moral laws should be followed out of duty, and actions must be universalizable to be morally good.
- 📊 Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist theory, measures the morality of an action by the happiness or pleasure it produces, aiming for the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Q & A
What is the main focus of virtue ethics according to Aristotle?
-Virtue ethics, as emphasized by Aristotle, focuses on the role of character and virtue in living a good life rather than simply fulfilling duties or aiming for specific consequences. The moral code under this theory is to act as a virtuous person would in any given situation.
How does Aristotle define a virtuous person?
-Aristotle defines a virtuous person as someone who possesses ideal character traits that guide their actions towards good ends. These virtues are developed over time through practice and reflection.
What is 'telos' according to Aristotle, and how does it relate to human actions?
-Telos, in Aristotle's philosophy, refers to the ultimate purpose or goal of human actions. He argues that every human action is directed toward a desired end, and ideally, the end should be good, leading to eudaimonia, or happiness, which he considers the supreme good.
What does Aristotle mean by the 'Doctrine of the Mean'?
-The 'Doctrine of the Mean' refers to Aristotle's belief that moral virtues lie between two extremes: excess and deficiency. Achieving virtue involves finding a balance, or the right amount of virtue, through observation and moderation.
What are the key differences between Aristotle's and Aquinas' views on virtue ethics?
-While both Aristotle and Aquinas emphasize the importance of virtue, Aquinas integrates the concept of love and divine law into his ethics. He believes that no human act is morally good unless it aligns with love of self, neighbor, and God, and respects the well-being of all human beings.
What are the four cardinal virtues according to Aquinas?
-The four cardinal virtues according to Aquinas are prudence (wise decision-making), justice (respecting others' rights), fortitude (courage in the face of danger), and temperance (self-control and moderation).
What does Kant mean by the 'good will'?
-Kant defines the 'good will' as the only thing that is good without qualification. It represents the highest good because it acts solely from the motive of doing what is right, without being influenced by subjective factors like pleasure or outcomes.
How does Kant's 'categorical imperative' guide moral decision-making?
-Kant's categorical imperative asserts that moral actions are obligations that must be followed universally, without conditions. One should act only according to maxims that can be consistently willed as universal laws, and treat humanity as an end in itself, not merely as a means.
What is utilitarianism, and how does it evaluate the morality of actions?
-Utilitarianism, also known as consequentialism, evaluates the morality of actions based on their consequences, specifically the amount of happiness or pleasure they produce. An act is considered morally right if it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for the greatest number of people.
How does John Rawls' concept of justice differ from other theories?
-John Rawls' concept of justice, called 'justice as fairness,' emphasizes equity over equality. He believes justice should be distributed in a way that benefits both those who have more and those who have less, aiming to promote the common good. His two key principles are equal basic liberties for all and the arrangement of social and economic inequalities to everyone's advantage.
Outlines
📜 Aristotle's Virtue Ethics
The focus of virtue ethics is on character and the virtues that define a person, rather than duty or consequences. Aristotle emphasizes that a virtuous person possesses ideal character traits and that human actions are directed towards achieving the 'good'. He introduces the concept of 'telos', where all actions lead to an end, which is inherently good. Aristotle’s criteria for goodness include the finality of an action and its self-sufficiency. He distinguishes between moral and intellectual virtues, stating that moral virtue lies in moderation, and intellectual virtues involve wisdom and understanding. Ultimately, Aristotle claims happiness, or 'eudaimonia', is the supreme good and the ultimate end of human actions.
⚖️ Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law
Aquinas emphasizes that natural law reflects moral requirements and can be discovered by rational beings. It guides human actions towards what is right. The natural law, inherent in rational creatures, calls humans to recognize their role in divine life and to act in accordance with virtues like prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Prudence involves careful deliberation before acting, justice ensures respect for others' property, fortitude provides courage in dangerous situations, and temperance promotes moderation in the pursuit of pleasures. These cardinal virtues guide human behavior in alignment with moral law.
🛡️ Kant’s Deontological Ethics and Categorical Imperative
Kant argues that the only unconditionally good thing is goodwill, which drives moral actions. He emphasizes acting from a sense of duty rather than subjective desires, such as pleasure. Kant introduces the concept of the categorical imperative, which is a moral command that must be followed regardless of circumstances. His two formulations of the categorical imperative are: (1) act according to a maxim that can become a universal law and (2) treat humanity as an end in itself, never as a means to an end. These principles ensure respect for others and universality in moral actions.
⚖️ Legal vs. Moral Rights and Utilitarianism
Legal rights are granted by birth or choice, while moral rights are governed by rationality and consequences of actions. Humans, as rational beings, can deliberate the outcomes of actions, balancing pleasure and pain. Utilitarianism, or consequentialism, evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes, specifically the amount of happiness or pleasure produced. The theory stresses that actions are morally right if they result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is also applied in economics and business decisions through cost-benefit analysis, though the challenge remains in quantifying pleasure and pain.
⚖️ Justice, Fairness, and Distributive Justice
The concept of justice as fairness, proposed by John Rawls, emphasizes equitable distribution of rights and resources to promote the common good. Rawls argues that justice should ensure equal basic liberties and fair distribution of social and economic inequalities. He outlines different types of distributive justice, including egalitarian, capitalist, and social, where resources are allocated based on need, contribution, or equality. Rawls also emphasizes the importance of inclusive economic growth, where opportunities are created for all members of society, and the role of government in ensuring fairness through taxation and public services.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Virtue Ethics
💡Telos
💡Eudaimonia
💡Moral Virtue
💡Doctrine of the Mean
💡Natural Law
💡Cardinal Virtues
💡Categorical Imperative
💡Consequentialism
💡Justice as Fairness
Highlights
Virtual ethics focuses on character and virtue in life rather than duty or consequences.
Aristotle's view: A virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits.
Saint Thomas Aquinas: A morally good act aligns with love of self and neighbor and respects the well-being of all.
Aristotle’s ethical framework emphasizes that every action has a direction (telos) and the ultimate end is good.
Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean: Moral virtues lie between excess and deficiency, achieved through moderation.
Moral and intellectual virtues: Intellectual virtues such as wisdom and understanding complement moral virtues.
For Aristotle, happiness (eudaimonia) is the ultimate telos or end of human actions.
Saint Thomas Aquinas emphasizes the natural law, which is discoverable by rational beings and guides moral behavior.
The four cardinal virtues according to Aquinas: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.
Kant’s categorical imperative: Moral commands are unconditional and must be followed out of duty, not for subjective ends.
Kant’s respect for persons principle: Treat humanity not merely as a means, but always as an end.
Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions, with the goal being the maximization of happiness.
Bentham’s utilitarian calculus: An action is moral if it produces more pleasure than pain.
Justice and fairness according to John Rawls: Society should distribute goods equitably, promoting the common good.
Rawls’ two principles: Equal basic liberties for all, and social and economic inequalities arranged to everyone's advantage.
Transcripts
lesson
one virtual ethics of aristotle
virtual ethics is the general term for
theories that put emphasis
on the role of character and virtue in
living one's life
rather than in doing one's duty or
acting to bring about the consequences
for virtue ethicists the moral code
would be
act as a virtuous person would act in
your situation
most virtual ethics juries take their
inspiration from aristotle
who declare that a virtuous person is
someone who has ideal character traits
there is also saint thomas aquinas who
asserted
that no human act is morally good or
right in the sense of not wrong
unless it is in line with love of self
and neighbor
and thus with respect for the basic
aspects of the well-being
of each and all human beings not only
in the motives or attention with which
it is chosen
and in the appropriateness of the
circumstances but also
in its object more precisely the object
or closet in intention of the choosing
person
under the ethical framework of aristotle
talos means a lot that we need be aware
of every action we make
for him what we do entails direction
all our human action will lead to one
desired end
the end of human act is either good or
bad
but for aristotle in his nicomashian
ethics
the end is something that is good there
are two things about the end
as good 1. aristotle insists
that any good is achievable nothing in
real life that good
and is not achievable by human action
secondly a reaction that aims in
achieving the good
is the tallest or end of human actions
it only means
that the result of our ethical decision
making is good
simply our understanding of the good may
not necessarily
good to others these are the two
features that serve criteria of
determining the good
one the finality of the object of human
action has two views
the dominant harmonistic view this
claims that the aim of every act
is good and the inclusivist view
this claim that good which is the result
of the series of human acts
secondly the self-sufficiency of the
object of human action
this means that the object of the act
must be something that will make
life worthwhile
the word character means the development
of the personality
that resulted in the application of
virtues while the word
habit means that certain human acts are
being carried out frequently
it only means that when a person carries
a certain act
only once it is just a plain act and not
a habitual act there are two kinds
of virtues moral virtues and
intellectual virtues
the role of the intellectual virtue
complements moral virtue
there are two classifications under the
intellectual virtue
the intellectual virtual wisdom and the
intellectual virtue of
understanding moreover the moral virtues
over this data
when put into action should be observed
moderation
peace moderation entails that one has to
avoid
what is axis or the fact in action
aristotle suggests
that the moral virtues are in the middle
between too much
and too little it is also called the
doctrine
of the mean how are we going to achieve
the right amount of virtues as to avoid
the axis and the fact
aristotle has the answer by observation
and correction those axes and effect in
our conduct
happiness as virtue therefore
for aristotle all human acts that we
undertake
must have to have the ultimate talus or
end
he is referring to happiness or in greek
eudemonia
as the supreme good
lesson 2 virtual ethics of saint thomas
aquinas
natural law aquinas insists that the
natural law
expresses moral requirements
conversely this natural law has to be
discovered by any human beings
by what to do and what not to do and
guide their action towards the right
direction
the repercussion is that since only
rational creatures can discover and obey
the law
hence it is only they who can disobey
them
the natural and its tenant this law is
discoverable by
any rational creatures and unknowable
for irrational ones
it is already given above the natural
law
is already present in us who are
rational beings all we have to do
is to recognize that we are his
creatures and that we are called to
participate
in the divine life of the highest being
in order to have
a fullness of being the four cardinal
virtues
are prudence justice fortitude
and temperance prudence
if we encounter a moral dilemma we do
not rush
into conclusion without considering the
pros and cons of our act
and more so what is right and what is
wrong
if we do so then there is a big
possibility of committing an immoral act
than moral one
justice if a thing belongs to you
then everyone should respect it and not
own it or if it belongs to someone
then we must not treat it as ours
fortitude this habit is an exercise of
courage
to face any dangers one encounters
without fear
especially when life is at stake
temperance this habit is an exercise of
control
in the midst of strong attraction to
pleasures
the key word here is moderation
can't and the right theorists kant
claims that the only good without
qualification is the goodwill
hatreds the good will as the highest
good since its end will always be good
other matters such as fortune or power
or intelligence or other traditional
virtues are not enjoying the state of
highest good
since they can be used by rational
beings for bad ends
but what makes the world good is simply
by virtue of volition
to code to act morally is to act from no
other motive than motive of doing what
is right
this kind of motive has nothing to do
with anything as subjective as pleasure
to do right out of principle is to
recognize an objective right that poses
an
obligation on any rational being
categorical imperative for can
moral commands are always categorical
and not hypothetical
in speaking about categorical it is all
about odd
that is to say one is ought to do the
moral law
in the absence of conditions since it is
simply done out of duty
this categorical imperative comes from
the nature of the law
a sort of imposing obligation
two formulas of the imperative written
by kant in his two writings
the first one says act only according to
a maxim
by which she can at the same time will
that is
shall become a universal law the second
says
act in such a way that you always treat
humanity
whether on your own person or in the
person of any other
never simple a means but always at the
same time as in
end from the two formulas are the two
principles or determiners of moral
imperatives
the respect for person and the
universability
the respect for person is the basic
thing about how we treat people we
encounter in our daily living
for kent any act that is good happens
only when we deal with other people not
as merely means
it is all about dealing people just
because we want something from him or
her
and we cannot have the ones without them
the second one is
universability that is an act is capable
of becoming a universal law
an act is considered as morally good if
a maxim or law can be made universal
that maxim or law is made not only for
herself but also for others as well
to perform or to prohibit sometimes
when we follow the maxim or law it
becomes either subjective or personal
in order to avoid this to happen that
maxim or law is put to task by the
principle of universability
the particular maxim or law becomes
morally good
when everyone can fulfill them
these two determiners are different in
ways of coming up
of the same moral course of action if
the respected person
will be out of reach in every
universalizing
then there is always contradiction the
reason is simply that every person has
intrinsic worth or dignity
in the same manner whatever that
pertains to the consideration of
treating every person
as means and an end is always
universalizable
different kinds of moral rights legal
versus moral right
legal rights this entitlement is
acquired either by birth or by choice
by birth means that one is born within a
certain territory such as the
philippines
by choice means every filipino has the
option to stay
a citizen of the republic or denounce it
and embrace other citizenship
moral rights with freedom every act
they execute accompanies moral
consequences
becomes possible human beings are not
the only beings gifted with rationality
with rationality everything they do
comes to rational deliberation
whether certain course of action would
lead to a desired result without regrets
or undesired results with undesired
consequences
humans can determine which action plan
would yield more pleasure
than pain and vice versa like
utilitarian
and only humans can give different
dimension of meanings to pleasure
and pain lesson
4 utilitarianism the theory of
utilitarianism
sometimes called consequentialism
focuses
on the effect of a particular end for
dallas called happiness
first is the basis for an act to be
treated as morally right or wrong
is in its consequences they produce it
is known as consequentialism
what is there in a consequence that
makes it morally right
it is only hilarious the presence of
happiness
the second point is what matters in
everything that we do
will be the amount of pleasure produced
one must not forget the element of
happiness in assessing the morality of
the app
if there is no pleasure yielded then the
act is morally wrong
happiness is comparative that is there
will be great happiness
greater happiness and greatest happiness
[Music]
the third point which is happiness
experienced by every person is counted
the same
it means that every person's happiness
is taken into account
and no one is left behind how are we
going to use such
methods
and he understands happiness as a
pleasure this pleasure has a partner
which is pain he believes that the world
covered by these two principles
it follows that human beings are
inclined more on achieving happiness
and as much as possible avoid what is
painful business fascination
end with utilitarianism how the
utilitarianism being used in the
business world
the manager or the economist has to
consider the amount of utility for each
individual
and amount of utility for a whole
society the same computation is being
used amount of pleasure
minus amount of pain where of course the
amount of pleasure should be greater
than amount of pain
the second problem is that pleasure
cannot be measured
precisely in terms of quantity and
quality
there is no valid and reliable
instrument to measure it
the difference between calculus of
bentham and analysis
is that economists would use monetary
units
that represent benefits or advantages
and drawback oral disadvantages
the benefit is lesser than amount spent
then it is not worth it therefore it is
pain the cost benefit
analysis is commonly used only as means
for making decisions
such as major investments and on matters
of public policy
some would say that the life of a human
being is worth more than a thousand
house in law
purchased in an exclusive subdivision
while other economists and businessmen
would intentionally exclude such an
example in their decision-making
lesson 5 justice and fairness promoting
the common good
in the light of the free tuition law the
republic act
109.1 also known as
the universal access to quality tertiary
education act
signed by president duterte in 2016
all college students have the privilege
to enroll in any state's colleges
and state universities without paying
the tuition
and other fees
role proposes justice as fairness as an
ethical framework these framework
focuses on how justice
should be distributed that would yield
fairness for those who have more
and those who have less the term
fairness were not
an equality but as equity
for all he understands justice where
there is fairness
among members of the society with the
goal of promoting
their common good the two principles are
as followed
first each person is to have an equal
right to the most extensive scheme of
equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of
liberties for
others second social and economic
inequalities
are to be arranged so that they are both
reasonably
expected to be everyone's advantages and
attached to positions in office open to
all
lesson outline the nature of the theory
distributive justice egalitarian
distributive
capitalist distributive social
distributive
the benefits received principle and the
role of economics
and inclusive growth the nature of the
theory
for roles justice is the first virtue of
a social institution
and therefore it is expected that he
would always think of a society
exercising justice distributive
justice everyone on the society has to
share both the burden
and the benefit of whatever the society
offers
egalitarian distributive justice as
egalitarian
one is concerned with a just
distribution in terms of receiving an
equal share
two kind of distributive justice under
egalitarianism
political egalitarianism where legal
rights of every citizens observed
economic egalitarianism where the
distribution of socio-economic goods is
quality observe
capitalist distributive justice if one
contributes more
one receives more if one contributes
less
one receives less social distributive
justice
if one has a greater needs then one
expect that he's share
is greater in the distribution scheme
and vice versa the benefits
received principle all of us are paying
taxes to the government
both direct and indirect that is
from economic perspective in return we
expect
better service from them
the role of economics and inclusive
growth
the economic growth under inclusive
growth must create
opportunities for all people
you
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)