Chapter III

Expanding and
Enlightening the
Dilemma
Introduction:
 They focus too much on the differences
and diversities that they lost sight of
those attributes which humanity might
share in common.
 Personal preference and self-interest
cannot be the sole basis of morality, and
to profess otherwise would only lead to
chaos and conflict.
Aristotle and the Eudaimonian
Ethics

 Who would say NO to fate if

offered with a happy and
good life?
Aristotle and the Eudaimonian
Ethics
 Happiness- is our perpetual battle-cry, its letters comprise our sigil and
its syllables are lyrics to our song.
 It is the primary and ultimate object of our decisions and acts.
 Aristotle takes on the matter of the good life, with the purpose of
finding a universal human end upon which the notion of happiness is to
be determined- and having made such resolve, make this good and
happy life as the basis and foundation of morality.
 Aristotle is one person whose name resonates through almost all era
and school of though in the realm of philosophy.
 His influence is defiant to the limitation of time, and is affiant to a
sundry of disciplines other than philosophy- such as science,art,theology
and politics.
 The Eudaimonia
 The main bulk of his ethical theory is found in the book Nicomachean
Ethics.
 He starts his notion of ethics by working on the presumption that all
nature is teleological, purposive.
 Every being, every activity has an end – a purpose. And a thing is
considered good if it fulfills its purpose, its intended function.
 “Every act and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is
thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly
been declared to be that at which all things aim”
 And in as much as the goodness of things are determined by the
fulfilment of their functions, so are human beings.
 However, if goodness and badness is simply dependent upon intention,
upon purpose, then this is no different from moral relativism or egoism,
right? As long as my actions serve my purpose, then it wouldn’t matter
if I actually end up hurting others. So that if in stealing, my purpose is to
enrich myself, and I was able to fulfil such purpose, then the act of
stealing becomes good.
 Human Nature
 According to Aristotle, things of any variety have characteristic function
that they are to properly perform.
 The good for human beings, then, must essentially involve the entire
proper function of human life as a whole, and this must be an activity of
the soul that expresses genuine virtue or excellence.
 To Aristotle, human beings are rational animals. We are capable of
thinking.
 According to him, distinguishes us from all other beings.
 “Our function is to live according to reason and thereby to become a
certain sort of highly rational, disciplined being.”
 In the other words, human beings should aim at a life in full conformity
with their rational natures.
 To Aristotle, ethics is more than a theory, it is practiced, lived.
 Aristotle speaks of the eudaimonia, he pertains to a state of happiness
which involves a good relationship between individuals and their
communities.
 It is the logical and necessary end of our being rational- as it is also our
nature to be political.
 The Golden Mean
 The morally virtuous life consists in living in moderation, and by this he
means the mean between the opposing vices of excess and deficiency.

Vice of Virtuous Mean Vice of Excess

Deficiency
Cowardice Courage Rashness
Insensibility Temperance Intemperance
Llliberality Liberality Prodigality
Pettiness Munificence Vulgarity
Humble- High- Vaingloriness
mindedness mindedness
 Immanuel Kant and the Ethics of
Duty
What makes a right act right?
 “ Moral rightness and wrongness are determined by
nonmoral values (for example happiness or utility). To
this extent, the end justifies the means. The end never
justifies the means. Indeed, you must do your duty
whatever the consequences, simply because it is your
duty. It is not the consequences that determine the
rightness or wrongness of an act but certain features in
the act itself”.
 An act is right or moral because it is its nature, and you
do it not for some selfish motive but because it is your
duty.
 Immanuel Kant’s ethics is a deontological one, as it
works on the presumption that we have to do good
not because we feel like doing it, or because it is
convenient, or because of the benefits we can get
from it- we do good because that is our duty.
 For Kant, it is not our desires that determine morality,
but our rational will.
 Ethics is within the realm of reason, and it is sufficient
for establishing moral precepts.
 Moreover, for Kant, an act’s moral worth depends on
the reason for which it is done.
 The act is done just because it is the right thing to do.
 The Categorical Imperative
 He used the categorical imperative as a characterization of his basic
moral precepts.
 He started with the general presumption of morality that we are self-
determining and free agents.
 We are able to determine what we want- a particular goal.
 And corollary to this, we have the freedom to choose the actions
through which we are to attain said goal.
 The goal we call end and the actions we use to achieve such we call
means.
 Kant calls this principle as hypothetical imperative.
 It is called “imperative” because it is a command of reason
requiring the agent to do something, it is “hypothetical” because
the command governs our action only on the condition that we
will the end in question.
 For kant, categorical imperatives are precepts that are
unconditional- as opposed to one that is hypothetical.
 “A moral imperative is categorical because its function is not to
advise us how to reach some prior end of ours that is based on
what we happen to want but instead to command us how to act
irrespective of our wants or our contingent ends.
 According to Kant, there are three (3) propositions of
morality. They are:
 The first proposition of morality: an action must be
done from a sense of duty, if it is to have moral worth.
 The second proposition of morality: an action done
from duty derives its moral worth, not from the
purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the
maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does
not depend on the realization of the object of the
action, but merely on the principle of volition by which
the action has taken place, without regard to any
object of desire.
 The third proposition of morality: duty is the necessity
of acting for the law.
 The categorical imperative is the way to
apply the universalizability test.
 It enables us to stand outside our
personal maxims and estimate
impartially and impersonally whether
they are suitable as principles for all of
us to live by.
 Humanity as an End in Itself
 Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative gives emphasis
on respect for humanity.
 For while the first one stresses on the intrinsic value of actions as the
main determinant of its morality, the second highlights the intrinsic
value of human beings- as an end in themselves and never merely as
means to an end.
 No matter how noble or ground-breaking the intention is, this is
impermissible. This is immoral. For him, humans are end in themselves.
 We human beings, rational that we are, have the innate capacity to
determine our own meaning and purpose.
 Groundwork of a
Metaphysics of Morals

 Kant said: 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.