Philosophical Ethics: From Aristotle to Material Values
Eudemonism (Rational or Honest)
Aristotle, in his book Ethics Nicomachus, wonders what activity can be beautiful and excellent, the most perfect of all. The most pleasant and enjoyable activity would be reasonable to seek for itself and for no other purpose, because it would be free from worry and fatigue, and without great quench.
Think of it as a specific human face. Lower living beings have reason, and then the activity should be perfectly proper to the rational part of man, arguing that is the theoria or contemplation of truth, which resembles men to the gods, because the intellect is “the most divine of men.” These activities coincide with happiness, suggest the intellectual virtues (dianoetic, to resist the moral ethics that are), why Aristotle calls to cultivate the mind.
Now, with this activity difficult to achieve, oh imperfect happiness, a more realistic second category consists of life governed by ethical or moral virtues (being truthful). Man is not prepared to lead a life of perfect happiness (only the gods). This consists of a multitude of activities ordered according to reason that everyone cannot achieve, and most men live at the mercy of their passions. Happiness also needs the goods of fortune (wealth, friends, beauty, power…).
He claims that the virtuous man supports misfortunes, and that man’s happiness is always fragile and precarious.
Hedonism or Epicurus (Pleasant)
The term hedonism derives from hedonic “pleasure” and considers its founder Epicurus. For him, pleasure is the beginning and end of the happy life, which is not the means to enjoy irresponsibly. There are two kinds of pleasure: Dynamic (action endeavor to enjoy a pleasure or satisfying a need), and static (the absence of pain and concern, “ataraxia,” thus reaching the nonchalance of the spirit).
As the dynamic cannot be complete and self-sufficient (because they are brief and limited experiences), he argues that only static pleasure gives happiness. This would be to reach inner serenity and outer self, away from items that could contribute to alter the peace (false opinions, unnecessary complications…).
Often objected to hedonism is that it does not distinguish between the state of pleasure that is psychic, and the good causes that. Shares have no moral value because they bring a pleasant mood, but, once attained, good is what lies in moral satisfaction. It is impossible to carry out an act without the least effort. But this ethic of least nonchalance means giving up the best of man (love and delivery).
Currently, this ethic is rooted in different ways in Epicurus.
Emotivist David Hume calls this action voluntarily.
Utilitarianism (Useful)
Descendant of emotivism. Jeremy Bentham argues that actions and things are good if they are useful and are useful if they generate pleasure. This attempts to quantify the pleasure of each action by some criteria, a simple calculation that could achieve the greatest good for the greatest possible number of individuals.
Mill agrees with Bentham that happiness consists in the pleasure of the greatest number. But he differs in the manner of understanding, since he thinks it cannot be quantified and that pleasures are qualitatively very different from each other.
However, the value of utility is instrumental, subordinate to other property. Useful, it is for something else, and when it has obtained the second, it no longer has utility value. And it forgets the impact that moral actions leave in the acting person.
Stoics (Rational or Honest)
It comes from the Greek stoa (porch or portico) where Zeno of Citium taught his doctrines. For him, philosophy is the way to happiness, which is to live according to reason, virtuously (to get the logos): according to the ethical virtues. Just the mere virtue leads to happiness, inner harmony, and undisturbed peace of mind. Other assets (beauty, wealth…) are indifferent, and thus the wise authentic lives detached from them. Although it is preferable to have material things than not to have them, they do not determine our happiness. Just good, honest is a real good, a virtuous action that leads to economic ruin or a bad action that enriches us, to be chosen as the first.
It is an ethic of self-control, grounded on the merits by the need to neutralize pain. It is not a commodity that can fully satisfy the human will, since that leads to the resignation of the lawful things that the human being tends to be governed by the “apatheia“ (absence of passion).
A New Version of Aristotelian Ethics
Submitted by Thomas Aquinas and with great force during the 20th century. It focuses on identifying the good of human life as a way of life that takes place in the virtues. The ultimate goal must be a good liked by itself, to completely quench the will and human inclinations and is incompatible with any evil, even the fear of losing it. St. Thomas made a tour of finite assets (beauty, wealth…) and shows that they are inadequate to these. Will always feels dissatisfied because it has a thirst for infinity, which does not allow them to fully relax. He concludes that only the infinite good, God, can satisfy the human will. Since man is a being endowed with will and also understanding that the will comes into contact with its target through understanding, and the only full well that we would meet would be the knowledge of the divine essence, which is not possible in this life, it does not mean that it cannot be happy.
Perfect happiness is exposed (the vision of God) and an imperfect one, that life is ordered according to the moral virtues, and argues that this is a sharing and perfect happiness that ends.
St. Thomas defines virtue, which is the good life, as a good habit: the habit of doing well, in order to achieve the ultimate aim of human life. The virtues (or vices) are a sort of second nature in man. What virtue is, the will gives a true perfection.
The Ethics of Responsibility
Hedonistic ethics are critiqued by Kant for three reasons:
- The desire for happiness, which is on the basis of all hedonistic ethics, jeopardizes any type of morality (purity of the reasons that lead us to act).
- They are ethical posteriori, based on experience. But this can vary from one subject to another. Kant proposes to base ethics on a priori, in a rational way and apart from all experience.
- They are heteronomous: Moral norms are given from an external body to the subject itself. Kant proposed an autonomous morality, in which the subject itself imposes its own rules.
Kant argues that human action cannot be understood apart from duty. Ethics aims to be universal (but a person with a certain talent has duties that cannot be universal or enforce for those who lack them) and unqualified. Categorical imperative: “Act in such a way that you want the maxim of your behavior to be poured into a universal standard of conduct.” He argues that we always act on the sole idea of duty, whether or not the positive effects that may arise for us from our actions. But any action pursuant to duty is an act of duty. It is variable, may be misleading grounds, so there is little room for love, friendship, or compassion.
Kant offers a rational, formal, universally valid ethic independent of the particular interests of the acting subject. He sees the desire for happiness as a threat to moral purity, as it is a selfish desire to attain a state of great serenity and satisfaction.
The Ethical Values of Material
:
This Axiology (from Greek axion “value”) is represented by Max Scheler and Dietrich von Hildebrand. It proposes that the first thing in man is not the consciousness of duty, but that something is valuable. To justify that something is my duty, I have to give an account of the values on which it is based. A complete classification of the different families of values comprise of ascending importance: nice values, vital values, aesthetic values, the values of knowledge and moral and religious values.
The values are objective, so do not be confused with psychological or mood states that result. Positive emotional resonance generated by the presence of the value is the result and not reason, that something is valuable.
Each value has its opposite or anti-value (quality of sign – intentional action) against the true, false to just, unjust …
But he has questioned the assumption that the consciousness of value is to be provided prior to moral action, as in the moral act of gratitude. Other times to be aware that it has the duty to comply with the terms with an opponent not to be assessed before and valuable, but just being committed to it.
Moreover, despite the efforts made to separate ethics the objective from the subjective, no more good match itself with what is valuable to the subject will always entails the risk of subjectivism.