Study Guides (380,000)
CA (150,000)
UTSC (10,000)
Sociology (600)
xx (4)

SOCB58H3 Study Guide - The Good Life, Delayed Gratification, Epicurus


Department
Sociology
Course Code
SOCB58H3
Professor
xx

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 3 pages of the document.
Aristotle:
The good life obsessed with secondary aspects of truth and not truth itself
Aristotle says the top three things for happiness are a) good relationships, followed by
good health and then the third is good work; he says happiness is the foundation for
everything
Entelechy; everything has an actuality and potentiality, the potentiality goes to actuality
Final aim is not a means to any other end but an end in itself; There’s a final we think,
and an actual final! The ultimate final, once you have reached it, you don’t need anything
else; once you’ve understood what something is truthfully, you’ve reached the end
Epicurus:
Pleasure is pain and vice versa both need to exist for an objective meaning
Delayed gratification throughout lifetime, but we get pleasures from simplest things
The way we interpret things can be considered painful or pleasurable; some people argue
this is what we are doing anyway, everyone’s different perspectives
Carnegie:
Workers and owners lose connection to each other, and a class system kicks in, splitting
people up; he feels human society loses homogeneity and feels this is inevitable
Classes are inevitable because of capitalism; we are talking about the survival of the
fittest going to the top and the rest of the people sink
He says people in lower classes are at fault for their situation, they should work harder to
move up; a critique of this is people do not start at equal ground, race, ethnicity and
gender all influence social mobility
Chadwick:
A person is never to be treated as a means to someone else’s ends; someone with free
will, decision making power, and rationality should not be treated as an object, but what
about people who don’t meet these characteristics? (old and young, animals)
Kant says we shouldn’t sell body parts because of Universalization of morality, most
people would find something wrong with this
Kant says intention is more important than result, and the best way to measure someone’s
intention is if they’re an altruist; but problem is we don’t know if we’re altruist because
many people don’t even understand their own behavior
The thesis of the article is Chadwick will argue that it is immoral to sell yourself your
body parts, because it is selling yourself; but some argue isn’t it selfish not to give away a
body part for a family member in need?
The problem is once you sell a body part there’s no limit on how many you can sell
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version