Class Notes (839,626)
Canada (511,431)
Philosophy (1,521)
PHL275H1 (146)
Lecture

Intro To Ethics 275.docx

17 Pages
321 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHL275H1
Professor
Joseph Boyle

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 17 pages of the document.
Description
Intro To Ethics 275 9/10/2012 5:11:00 AM Monday, September 17 Morality As A Necessary Evil All morality is, is manipulation by those who are smart enough to do it Morality like medicine you dont like to take it, but take it when you have to Conforming to morality is a way of getting along with people, and gain View of Glaucon Morality not something we prize for ourselves, but prize it as a device shown by Ring of Gyges story - Glaucon Morality is instrumental according to Glaucon We have to buy into it b/c unless we go along w/other people we will be in danger Fear is greater in most situations than our desire to accumulate things For Hobbs when you buy into the contract of morality, there is no buy-out Nothing that allows for the rational opt-out in Hobbs view But views very close otherwise Platos response via Socrates that Glaucons conception of what human motivation is, is over-simplified and stupid; accuses Glaucon of thinking of humans as machines for getting what they want There is within every person, diversity three parts: Thinking, reflecting rational Desiring, pleasures, and satisfactions Fighting, spirited, struggling Socrates claims Glaucon sees humans as only the desiring part with the other two as counterparts to serving the desiring part of humans These three parts must fit together in a harmonious, rational operation for one to have a happy life This is how one works internally, and how people work as a successful society You cant have a happy life or a successful society unless these parts work Socrates thought obviously our reason, to plan, think ect. Of the three parts, would dominate Glaucons man would be at war with himself, not a happy man b/c his acquisitiveness would take over himself and he would be unstable Socrates hasnt sufficiently refuted Glaucons view, but provided an alternative view Hobbes runs with the view Glaucon holds Hume has got the same general point against Hobbes that Socrates had against Glaucon there is something to easy & too superficial about what makes humans tick For Hobbes the key thing of morality is that we get it out of a social contract, we have interest There is no morality before we enter into a social contract Hobbes tries to show that humans are interested in one thing only: satisfying desires One dominating desire: staying alive; since we cannot desire anything else without being alive Many lower level desires, what is desired is the next thing that is desired & a happy life is getting what you want again and again Hobbes idea is that morality is an instrument for each person who enters the system (the society), and it is in the interest of all the parties to enter the deal, but once they are in they cant get out To have a deal (morality) you must have an enforcer; so who is the enforcer? God according to Hobbes But God is at a distance, you need a sheriff Hobbes definitions of good & evil: Whatever is good, is whatever you desire; what makes something good is your appetite to obtain it It is not that you judge something as good and then desire it because of such What is evil is what is of ones contempt, what you want to stay away from Happiness is the continual progress of desire, from one object to another; constant striving to get something, the next thing you want Survival has weight in this view The state of nature is defined by the lack of law and order Doing whatever you have to do to stay alive Human equality is such that though there are differences, they are inconsequential Goods are scarce enough that we will come into conflict, and when we conflict we discover that one thing we really like is beating up on each other We have a war of everybody against everybody, this is the condition of the state of nature Wednesday, September 19 Glaucons view of morality rather cynical Hobbes idea is morality is a constraint placed on ourselves voluntarily mainly motivated by our own self-interest this requires we constrain ourselves in some way Rational self-interest requires we make some sort of non-aggression pact For Hobbes happiness is the constant progression of seeking and acquiring desired things Very self-centered and egoistic picture/view we are given There is rough equality between people in intelligence, strength, power Once in conflict, people quite like dominating others Human motivation + the conditions of the world & the supposition that there is no king or authority controlling the population to not be nasty, we would have a brute, violent state of war among all people A situation that is intolerable There must be some sort of deal made among people to ensure that your own, and their own life are not cut short Contracts must be backed up by some sort of power; issue of enforcement is an issue for Hobbes The state of nature according to Hobbes is a state in which people live without a common power Hobbes could be magnifying egoism Could be much more humanized, where egoism could apply to your family, your town, ect. When it comes to conflicts Natural Laws: First - is the rational need to pursue peace and defend oneself with war as necessary for obvious, life-shortening reasons Your pursuit of peace must still be in your best interest Second - is willingness to lay down ones right to all things if others do the same For Hobbes the right to all things means before any society/laws, no one can tell you what is right; at liberty to do what you need to survive This second law is a way to pursue peace as in the first law The only thing that does this is a social contract Third - is a gloss on The Golden Rule? Morality is not something given in the nature of things as per Hobbes, it is something we create and invent Only get just and unjust, good and bad, ect., when youve made a social contract; entirely a human creation An issue of having an enforcer of the social contract who is not themselves a member of the social contract you cant Enforcement problem is a weak link in Hobbes account of morality No morality prior to the deal/contract, but how can this be without an enforcer For Hume, there is some prior intrinsic moral good or rationality If you can violate the third natural law of keeping covenants without violating the first two laws therefore risking war, why shouldnt this be rational? Hume thinks that justice the set of rules in which we organize society i.e. courts, ect. was an invention, an artificial virtue; agrees with Hobbes But disagrees with Hobbes where at the basis of the artificial virtue of justice there is something deeper and more fundamental the natural virtues Things people understood to be good and bad on their own Hume believes even in a state of nature you would still have moral judgments independent of social contracts In this view, emphasis on and enforcer is not necessary because it already exists You cant get the motivation to cooperate for the common good of a society to the point of creating the rules and settings of justice without the morality and reasoning to do that
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit