Moral theories and Mental

Frames and why they are

important:
Aristotle and St. Thomas
Kant and Rights
CHAPTER 8
Aristotle and St. Thomas
The highest aims of humans:
Eudaimonia
Defined as happiness, living well, flourishing
It is that thing which we desire for itself and not
for any other end.
It requires a proper balance or sufficient
quantity of four things:
Honor (having friends), Fortune, Pleasure and
Virtue.
Eudamonia: Honor; Fortune; Pleasure
Health, wealth, and other such resources—are
sought because they promote well-being, not
because they are what well-being consists in.
“Luck loves virtue” (Aristotle quoting someone
else - could be Hessiod or Euripedes) These
elements may be due in a good part to luck but
are also closely tied to proper outcomes of
consistently virtuous action.
These elements are necessary only
because “someone who is friendless,
childless, powerless, weak, and ugly will
simply not be able to find many
opportunities for virtuous activity over a
long period of time, and what little he
can accomplish will not be of great
merit.”
Eudaimonia: Virtue and Reason
Aristotle argues that the highest end of humans
consists in “activity of the rational part of the
soul in accordance with perfect virtue.”
“…what sets humanity off from other species,
giving us the potential to live a better life, is our
capacity to guide ourselves by using reason. If we
use reason well, we live well as human beings.”
 VIRTUE

Definitions:

• Acting with excellence

• An activity of the rational part of the soul
• Reason excellently applied
• The means between the extremes
• Two kinds of virtues:
• Practical or Moral – “the result of habit or custom”
• Intellectual – which “owes its birth and growth
mainly to instruction and so requires time and
experience.”
Virtue: Reason Excellency Applied
Sophia
Wisdom -a combination of nous (the intellect) and
episteme (knowledge). Allows one to know what
qualities of the character are best

Phronēsis
Practical Judgment
Required for judging things according to the aim of
living well overall . Allows one to apply a given quality
of activity in any given context
VIRTUE: The means between the Extremes
The Golden Mean – not an arithmetic mean but a
relative mean – the proper application of a quality in
a given context
Virtue is defined as the mean between the vice of
excess and the vice of deficiency – too much of a
characteristic is as bad as too little
Each of us must assess our abilities and have a good
understanding of the situation or context of our
moral decisions.
 VIRTUE: the means between the extremes

Vice of Excess Virtue Vice of Deficiency

Foolhardiness Courage Cowardice
Unrestrained giving Liberality Stinginess
Drunkenness Temperance Abstinence
Bragging Truthfulness Mock modesty
Vanity Pride Humility
Virtue: the Means between the extremes
Is Aristotle’s doctrine of means the same as,
“everything in moderation?” Can one be too
virtuous?
NO!
It is impossible to be too just – we can’t be too
lawful or fair
It is impossible to be too courageous; as courage
is just the right balance between rashness and
cowardice – courage is hitting the mark just right
Some Objections to Aristotle’s Virtue Theory
What if what we’re good at is not something that is a good thing
– problem is that the answer becomes circular – it is bad because
it is not good.
Suppose that the purpose of all things is a myth – suppose there
is no higher purpose & everything is random and accidental?
Then the only sense of purpose is that which individuals assign
to things.
Aristotle asks too much of his moral agent; few if any people
can act rationally all the time.
Why must one assume there is just one purpose for each thing
or person – why can’t there be many purposes & a multitude of
functions?
Immanuel Kant’s
Ethical Theory
 The Ideas of Reason and Ethics
The three “ideas of reason,” self, world and God play
a vital role in the ethical theory developed by Kant.
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant had shown that
theoretical reason itself cannot prove their reality.
According to him they are not constitutive, but are
regulative, as they add systematic unity and
coherence to our experience. Since they are related to
morals in significant ways, they have immense
practical importance.
The Idea of Good will
Kant claims that, everything else is good only in
relation to the Good Will, which is the ultimate
criterion that determines the moral worth of an action.
All other things that are usually considered as good like
health, wealth, gifts of fortune, talents, intellect etc.,
are good only insofar as they are used well or used by a
good will. Kant here seems to be focusing on the
agent's will and his motives and intentions. He affirms
that the good will is always unconditionally good,
irrespective of the consequences of the action it
prompts the agent to perform.
Kant announces that the moral law is categorical and he
asserts its absolute authority. He claims that, what makes
willing right is that it must be based on a rational principle.
According to him the moral law is a law of reason. He
treats man as fundamentally a rational being and
therefore, to obey the dictates of reason is not only
desirable, but is categorical. Moreover, the universe
where man finds himself is also constructed on rational
principles. Hence the ultimate criterion that makes an
action right must be its performance in reverence to the
law of reason. In other words, it must be performed for the
sake of duty. This is the function of practical reason
according to Kant.
Universal Law formulation
Act only on that maxim through which you can
at the same time will that it should become a
universal law

Humanity as End in Itself formulation

Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means,
but always at the same time as an end.
St. Thomas Aquinas'
Ethical theory
Within Aquinas’ frame, ethical philosophy is
about deciding the best way to live one’s life.
This is continuous with wider ancient and
Medieval approaches. Modern theorists tend
to assume that people have a vast field of
options which morality pares down. In
contrast, Aquinas believes people need to
identify meaningful goals before they can act.
As such, moral theory is a way to facilitate
action, rather than to limit it.
Aquinas’s moral psychology

Aquinas sees these ethical principles as effects of natural

moral knowledge. Everyone has an innate knowledge of
the natural law, known as synderesis. This is actualised in
particular situations as conscience. Although innate, this
natural law appears only in reason, and not inclinations.
Inclinations obey the natural law only if they are ruled by
reason. Any natural good can be pursued in inappropriate
ways if it is not ruled by reason.
Conscience is a kind of operative practical
intelligence which reminds people of their
principles when they are relevant to real
choices. Aquinas believes that we should
always follow our conscience, even when it
is wrong or causes great harm. Since we
have no way of knowing whether our
consciences are wrong, they are the best
guide we have as to what is the moral thing
to do.
To go against one’s conscience is to go against
the values of truth and reason. This position
differs from modern theories, which usually
prioritize social norms of laws over conscience.
I feel Aquinas’s view makes more sense,
because conscience is a better guide to the
right thing to do than external social norms
(which most often reflect dominant social
power-relations).
The first principle of Aquinas’s moral thought is that
good should be done or pursued, and evil (or badness)
avoided. Without this principle, other moral rules
would have no force. The maxim “do unto others as
you would have them do unto you” is also quite
fundamental, and sometimes interpreted as a
rephrasing of the first principle. Others have
interpreted it as an orientation to the fulfilment of
everyone, now and in the future.
There are four main virtues according to
Aquinas:
1.Prudentia – the act of bringing moral reasoning
into all decisions, and putting it before irrational
desires and ego-promotion. Reason, rather than
passion, is at the heart of moral decisions.

2. Justice – a disposition to give others

what they are entitled to, or have a
right to.
3.Courage (fortitude) – a disposition to
restrain fears so as to act rightly.

4. Temperantia – the moderation of desires,

especially sexual desire, in line with their
“proper role”. This does not require a lack of
passion, but something more like a golden mean.
 The Moral Animal
By: Robert Wright

In The Moral Animal, author Robert Wright surveys some

pre-Darwinian theories of evolution and their reception by
the public.

The “new synthesis” that combines Darwinian natural

selection with genetics and the social sciences goes by
many names. Wright prefers “evolutionary psychology” or
simply “the new Darwinism.” He makes some pretty
striking claims for this new field.
 , “The new Darwinian synthesis is, like quantum
mechanics or molecular biology, a body of scientific theory
and fact; but, unlike them, it is also a way of seeing
everyday life. Once truly grasped (and it is much easier to
grasp than either of them) it can entirely alter one’s
perception of social reality.”

As an example of the explanatory power of the new

Darwinism, consider a problem that caused Darwin
himself no end of grief. Why do some individuals
sacrifice themselves for the good of others?
 “We like to think of ourselves as selfless.
And on occasion we are. But we are pigs
compared to the social insects. Bees die for
their fellow bees, disemboweling themselves
upon stinging an intruder. Some ants, also in
defense of the colony, detonate themselves.
Other ants spend their lives as doors, keeping
out insects that lack security clearance, or as
food sacks, hanging bloated from the ceiling in
case of scarcity.”
 Thanks to the science of genetics, we understand the nuts
and bolts of evolution better than Darwin did. We know that
natural selection isn’t the survival of the fittest individual but the
survival of the fittest genes. According to the new Darwinians,
insects, and human beings, sacrifice themselves because they
carry a “self-sacrifice gene” (in real life a set of genes).It’s not
difficult to imagine how natural selection might have favored self
sacrifice. In the harsh environment where much of evolution
occurred, a group whose members helped each other might
have had a greater chance of survival than a group of selfish
louts. The survivors got to propagate their genes, including the
ones for self-sacrifice.
From the gene’s viewpoint, self-sacrificial
behavior may make perfect sense. Say a man
dives into a lake to save his brother from
drowning. The hero may die, but the “self-
sacrifice gene” is likely to survive, since the
brother carries 50% of the hero’s genetic
material. In the case of a hero saving his
family, the chance of the gene’s survival
becomes even greater.