Ethics, Politics and Metaphysics

B) Can a just man be happy, and a happy man unjust? Is there a pleasure or value to being just that perhaps is different from happiness? If so, is this “Just pleasure” of greater value than mere happiness (think about what Socrates or Kant would say here, as appose to Aristotle or Epricurus.) man possessed of virtue, and therefore justice can be happy as “happiness is an end and altogether complete.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 10)

Yet, a happy man cannot be unjust as a justice is a requirement of complete virtue.

When then should we not say that he is happy who is active in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life?” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 10)

If the above is said to be true than there seems to be no pleasure or value of being just that is different from happiness as happiness is only attainable in accordance with complete virtue, and complete virtue can only be attained with adherence to complete justice.

Additionally, Aristototle would contend that the feeling of pleasure can only be rought through the just actions of a man and though he may be mor eor less just he cannot use pleasure as judgment for his virtue. They are not therefore mutually exclusive to the overall happiness of a man.

Now if it is from the feeling of pleasure that they judge thus, the same will be true of justice and the other virtues, in respect of which we plainly say that people of a certain character are so more or less, and act more or less in accordance with these virtues; for people may be more just or brave, and it is possible also to act justly or temperately more or less. But if their judgement is based on the various pleasures, surely they are not stating the real cause, if in fact some pleasures are unmixed and others mixed. Again, just as health admits of degrees without being indeterminate, why should not pleasure? The same proportion is not found in all things, nor a single proportion always in the same thing, but it may be relaxed and yet persist up to a point, and it may differ in degree. The case of pleasure also may therefore be of this kind. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book X Chapter 3)

Socrates would say that happiness is measured by the individual and that there are three routes to happiness, one of which is pleasure. Though Socrates would lean in the direction of the attainment of knowledge as the most virtuous route to the achievement of happiness his assumption was that most would achieve happiness through pleasure of fame and fortune. It would then be said that Aristotle would not call happiness sought through either of these avenues as possessing of virtue because seeking pleasure or fame and fortune without them being an outgrowth of virtuous living would seem fragile and would therefore not constitute true universal happiness.

Kant on the other hand would say that happiness is a shallow goal as it is not always driven by good will which is according to Kant the supreme goal of reason. The goal then according to Kant should be the attainment of good will, which will then, by the very nature of the value of good will, will have the natural outgrowth of happiness, even in eventuality of the attainment of good will, say required sacrifice that might immediately cause unhappiness, due to loss.

B) Give a defense of the following statement: “It would not be right for Socrates to escape from prison.” Note whichever you choose, be sure to deal with Socrates responsibility to the state.

Within the Crito it is made clear that Crito (the man) believed that Socrates would eventually be exonerated and that he must take more time by escaping prison to defend his words and actions. “O! my beloved Socrates, let me entreat you once more to take my advice and escape.” (Plato, Crito) Though Crito’s reasoning would seem selfish and therefore unvirtuos, if you die I shall not only lose a friend who can never be replaced, but there is another evil: people who do not know you and me will believe that I might have saved you if I had been willing to give money, but that I did not care. Now, can there be a worse disgrace than this- that I should be thought to value money more than the life of a friend? For the many will not be persuaded that I wanted you to escape, and that you refused.” (Plato, Crito)

Crito, clearly and as Socrates attempts to point out has a desire to hold his duty to Socrates over his duty to the state and the senate as its representative body. This does not please Socrates as he believes it is ill begotten to care about the opinions of men, especially given that he so believed in his own cause that he also believed they would eventually find him innocent.

Socrates on the other hand believed that if he were to be exonerated either in life or death it would happen without such an escape, and that it was therefore the will of God that he would either lose his life and be exonerated in legacy or be saved by the fates at the last minute, as a prelude to his own defense, in exoneration.

Socrates felt that his responsibility to the state was to uphold their decision, for his sentence and if such sentence would be Soc. But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened. / Cr. But do you see. Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion?/

Soc. I only wish, Crito, that they could; for then they could also do the greatest good, and that would be well. But the truth is, that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance. (Plato Crito)

Socrates was represented, by Plato as a wise man who believed in his cause and also believed that the individual wise man would be his judge, be it in death or in life. Given the evidence, as set forth by Plato, Socrates seemed either unafraid of his own death or convinced of the unlikelihood of its occurrence at this time.

In retrospect Plato, may have given Socrates more virtue than he was truly exhibiting at the time of his imprisonment but he also made clear that Socrates honestly believed in his teachings as virtuous and without total condemnation. Though he had often acted outside the desires of some in the body of the state, he did not regard his teachings as worthy of the Senates condemnation and likely believed he would be granted a stay of execution, before his sentence was to be carried out. Regardless of his belief in his own innocence, which goes unwavering, his duty to the state was felt in Plato’s representation of his final hours. He believed the senate, as a representative of the state would see reason in due time and that his escape would be contrary to his duty.

B) What for Hume is the connection of ideas called cause and effect (p.14)? what does he mean by saying that we cannot know “ultimate causes” (p.19)? considering that we act as if there are causes and effects (as we know them), what is Hume’s explanation for this? does it seem strange to you that we cannot know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Hume contends that man cannot know the actions of future events, such as the sun rising at the break of the next day and that we only rely upon our experiences in the past to discern how the future “might” be. Hume contends that we cannot know “ultimate causes” and in this he believes he disagrees with most historical men of reason, as they in turn also use their own history to determine such relationships between cause and effect, and rely on a false sense of “ultimate cause.” “All the object of human reason or inquiry can naturally be divided into, relations of ideas and matters of fact.”(Hume 499) “All reasoning concerning matter of fact seems to be founded on the relation of cause and effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses…Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe.” (Hume 500)

So, what Hume is saying is that we cannot by design rely entirely on our memory and senses as a basis for the eventual outcome of our actions, as memory can be flawed, as can senses. Put another way he contends that the reasoned man must expect the unexpected, while relying on his own memories and senses to determine eventual effects. Rules must apply only when they have been proven repeatedly and are therefore a sound representation of what might happen.

Cause and effect to Hume are those things, which explain the causal relationship of events, and things. Causal relationships are determined by our individual set of beliefs associated with the individual’s previous experiences. Hume explains that it is only this historical understanding of the past that guides our ideas of cause and effect. It therefore does not seem strange that we cannot know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, though it has been proven to do so repeatedly for as long as man has been recording the passage of days. It is only something we rely on as a truth because of our ideas of memory and the results of our senses. “The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality.”(Hume 500)

It therefore goes without saying that despite the many explanations of reason of previous philosophers Hume was in contention that they as well as we cannot suppose to know cause and effect in relation to universals. Though this does not completely disagree with Socrates, who believed that the only wise man was the one who admitted his lack of knowledge, cementing his ability to be open to knew ideas. nor, does it contradict Aristotle and his idea that there are “ultimate truths” but that they are simply not knowable to man.

B) Can a just man be happy, and a happy man unjust? Is there a pleasure or value to being just that perhaps is different from happiness? If so, is this “Just pleasure” of greater value than mere happiness (think about what Socrates or Kant would say here, as appose to Aristotle or Epricurus.) man possessed of virtue, and therefore justice can be happy as “happiness is an end and altogether complete.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 10)

Yet, a happy man cannot be unjust as a justice is a requirement of complete virtue.

When then should we not say that he is happy who is active in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life?” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 10)

If the above is said to be true than there seems to be no pleasure or value of being just that is different from happiness as happiness is only attainable in accordance with complete virtue, and complete virtue can only be attained with adherence to complete justice.

Additionally, Aristototle would contend that the feeling of pleasure can only be rought through the just actions of a man and though he may be mor eor less just he cannot use pleasure as judgment for his virtue. They are not therefore mutually exclusive to the overall happiness of a man.

Now if it is from the feeling of pleasure that they judge thus, the same will be true of justice and the other virtues, in respect of which we plainly say that people of a certain character are so more or less, and act more or less in accordance with these virtues; for people may be more just or brave, and it is possible also to act justly or temperately more or less. But if their judgement is based on the various pleasures, surely they are not stating the real cause, if in fact some pleasures are unmixed and others mixed. Again, just as health admits of degrees without being indeterminate, why should not pleasure? The same proportion is not found in all things, nor a single proportion always in the same thing, but it may be relaxed and yet persist up to a point, and it may differ in degree. The case of pleasure also may therefore be of this kind. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book X Chapter 3)

Socrates would say that happiness is measured by the individual and that there are three routes to happiness, one of which is pleasure. Though Socrates would lean in the direction of the attainment of knowledge as the most virtuous route to the achievement of happiness his assumption was that most would achieve happiness through pleasure of fame and fortune. It would then be said that Aristotle would not call happiness sought through either of these avenues as possessing of virtue because seeking pleasure or fame and fortune without them being an outgrowth of virtuous living would seem fragile and would therefore not constitute true universal happiness.

Kant on the other hand would say that happiness is a shallow goal as it is not always driven by good will which is according to Kant the supreme goal of reason. The goal then according to Kant should be the attainment of good will, which will then, by the very nature of the value of good will, will have the natural outgrowth of happiness, even in eventuality of the attainment of good will, say required sacrifice that might immediately cause unhappiness, due to loss.

B) Give a defense of the following statement: “It would not be right for Socrates to escape from prison.” Note whichever you choose, be sure to deal with Socrates responsibility to the state.

Within the Crito it is made clear that Crito (the man) believed that Socrates would eventually be exonerated and that he must take more time by escaping prison to defend his words and actions. “O! my beloved Socrates, let me entreat you once more to take my advice and escape.” (Plato, Crito) Though Crito’s reasoning would seem selfish and therefore unvirtuos, if you die I shall not only lose a friend who can never be replaced, but there is another evil: people who do not know you and me will believe that I might have saved you if I had been willing to give money, but that I did not care. Now, can there be a worse disgrace than this- that I should be thought to value money more than the life of a friend? For the many will not be persuaded that I wanted you to escape, and that you refused.” (Plato, Crito)

Crito, clearly and as Socrates attempts to point out has a desire to hold his duty to Socrates over his duty to the state and the senate as its representative body. This does not please Socrates as he believes it is ill begotten to care about the opinions of men, especially given that he so believed in his own cause that he also believed they would eventually find him innocent.

Socrates on the other hand believed that if he were to be exonerated either in life or death it would happen without such an escape, and that it was therefore the will of God that he would either lose his life and be exonerated in legacy or be saved by the fates at the last minute, as a prelude to his own defense, in exoneration.

Socrates felt that his responsibility to the state was to uphold their decision, for his sentence and if such sentence would be Soc. But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened. / Cr. But do you see. Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion?/

Soc. I only wish, Crito, that they could; for then they could also do the greatest good, and that would be well. But the truth is, that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance. (Plato Crito)

Socrates was represented, by Plato as a wise man who believed in his cause and also believed that the individual wise man would be his judge, be it in death or in life. Given the evidence, as set forth by Plato, Socrates seemed either unafraid of his own death or convinced of the unlikelihood of its occurrence at this time.

In retrospect Plato, may have given Socrates more virtue than he was truly exhibiting at the time of his imprisonment but he also made clear that Socrates honestly believed in his teachings as virtuous and without total condemnation. Though he had often acted outside the desires of some in the body of the state, he did not regard his teachings as worthy of the Senates condemnation and likely believed he would be granted a stay of execution, before his sentence was to be carried out. Regardless of his belief in his own innocence, which goes unwavering, his duty to the state was felt in Plato’s representation of his final hours. He believed the senate, as a representative of the state would see reason in due time and that his escape would be contrary to his duty.

B) What for Hume is the connection of ideas called cause and effect (p.14)? what does he mean by saying that we cannot know “ultimate causes” (p.19)? considering that we act as if there are causes and effects (as we know them), what is Hume’s explanation for this? does it seem strange to you that we cannot know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Hume contends that man cannot know the actions of future events, such as the sun rising at the break of the next day and that we only rely upon our experiences in the past to discern how the future “might” be. Hume contends that we cannot know “ultimate causes” and in this he believes he disagrees with most historical men of reason, as they in turn also use their own history to determine such relationships between cause and effect, and rely on a false sense of “ultimate cause.” “All the object of human reason or inquiry can naturally be divided into, relations of ideas and matters of fact.”(Hume 499) “All reasoning concerning matter of fact seems to be founded on the relation of cause and effect. By means of that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses…Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe.” (Hume 500)

So, what Hume is saying is that we cannot by design rely entirely on our memory and senses as a basis for the eventual outcome of our actions, as memory can be flawed, as can senses. Put another way he contends that the reasoned man must expect the unexpected, while relying on his own memories and senses to determine eventual effects. Rules must apply only when they have been proven repeatedly and are therefore a sound representation of what might happen.

Cause and effect to Hume are those things, which explain the causal relationship of events, and things. Causal relationships are determined by our individual set of beliefs associated with the individual’s previous experiences. Hume explains that it is only this historical understanding of the past that guides our ideas of cause and effect. It therefore does not seem strange that we cannot know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, though it has been proven to do so repeatedly for as long as man has been recording the passage of days. It is only something we rely on as a truth because of our ideas of memory and the results of our senses. “The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality.”(Hume 500)

It therefore goes without saying that despite the many explanations of reason of previous philosophers Hume was in contention that they as well as we cannot suppose to know cause and effect in relation to universals. Though this does not completely disagree with Socrates, who believed that the only wise man was the one who admitted his lack of knowledge, cementing his ability to be open to knew ideas. nor, does it contradict Aristotle and his idea that there are “ultimate truths” but that they are simply not knowable to man.