Respond to all discussions

Subject:PhilosophyPrice: Bought3

Share With

Respond to all discussions. At Least 50 words. You must end with the ethical question related to the discussions for each ones

Give response 1:

Aristotle starts Book V off by asking the question, "What sorts of actions are they (justices and injustices) concerned with?" (Aristotle 79) I feel that this really is the question that needs to be addressed. As we read through Book V, I feel that Aristotle relates just actions to lawful and fair in different ways than we are used to thinking about. When he talks about lawful he feels that it has a meaning other than truly following the law. He does talk about how lawfulness can realte to following the rules set into place, but we must also follow the natural rules. He says, "Each type of just and lawful action is related as a universal to the corresponding particulars; for the particular actions that are done are many, but each type is one, since it is universal." (Aristotle 93) I feel that this is a good representation of what Aristotle means by the word lawful. We unconciously act by the unspoken laws that were somehow established. We know these laws in other words as virtuous actions. On the other hand we also follow the actual laws, as in rules, that are set in place for us as a society. I feel that set laws can help us to become more virtuous people and dissuade us from vice. I believe that this is good for society because although there can be different conceptions of what virtuous actions are this can lead us to have the same overarching preception. I think that when there is discrepency between the understanding of what good and bad actions are, there can't be a median. I think that established laws can lead us to have the same understanding of what virtues and vices are in different scenarios. I think that this can relate back to what we talked about in book II. In book II, Aristotle talks about our actions related ot the emotions of pleasure and pain. If we all have the same perception of how we should react to these emotions we will have a scale of virtues and vices that we can all unconciously relate to. As Aristotle says, "An act of injustice and a just act are definedby the voluntary and the involuntary." (Aristotle 93)

 

Give respond 2:

Throughout our lives, we are told by people we admire the difference between right and wrong, or as we talk in this class, good versus evil. Though we do not truly know what “the good” is we can assume what we do is good from what we learn from mentors. The same mentors teach us our virtues and show us their virtues.  we learned about "good closed quote laws from government and Justice as well. But we all view these things differently. Justice to me what are you Berry difference in that of someone who is older than me. Aristotle defines justice as what is lawful and fair. Then what does lawful mean to Aristotle? He defines it as to make men good and righteous, above all to serve the common interest. The common interest of a group comes from their virtue which aerosol defines as a disposition to behave and the right (good) manner. Aristotle ties all these different concepts together. I believe if we are to hide vices it will be more enticing to do. It is the equivalent of the prohibition when they outlawed alcohol, which in turn, made people find sneaky way to be able to participate in it. Nor do i believe promoting vices is a good idea. I believe educating the different type of vices and telling people how they affect others would be a better way to handle these things. Promoting virtue is a necessary thing whether or not you are dissuading vice. I believe the concept of laws promoting virtue and dissuading vice is a good conception for legislation is a good start but i do not think hiding vices is a good idea but nor is promoting them.

Give Respond 3:

First, we ought to summarize what Aristotle is saying in regards to the law and ethicality to unpack argumentation. Aristotle claims that laws ought to be organized and followed: "...it clearly follows that whatever is lawful is in some way just; for the provisions of legislative <science> are lawful, and we say that each of them is just / Now in every matter that they speak about, the laws aim either at the common benefit of all or at the benefit of those in control, whose control rests on virtue or on some other such basis" (Aristotle 80-81). This, however, misses a key point; it takes those in power for granted. It blindly assumes that roles of power and hierarchy in political life are for the benefit of society. Aristotle takes his reader to believe in this, and this is a weakness in his argument. 

I believe that laws are indeed influenced by cultural conceptions of what is "ethical," but exist outside a place of total and right ethicality, as ethicality cannot be holistically determined. Ethicality is not something that can be completely comprehended by an individual or society, and the laws they make, therefore, cannot be completely ethical. We see this example within the United States in issues such as slavery. For a long time, what was considered "ethical" was owning slaves; it didn't matter what ethical theorists had to say in regards to slaveholding, as actual praxis determined that slavery was ethical, and the way praxis is enacted determines our reality. Praxis is greater than theory. So, in this regard, I disagree with Aristotle; laws, in practice, have nothing to do with what is truly ethical. Instead, they are formulated on a cultural dialogue of what is interpreted to be ethical, and those interpretations are incorrect.

We can further argue against Aristotle's conception of law and justice by utilizing his argument of habituation. In lecture, Prof. Hoerth elaborated that to act truly virtuous is to act without thinking. Aristotle takes this to be true, but the law forces us to think about ethicality, as it groups ethical behavior into particular groups that we must unravel. The law prohibits true ethical behavior, as the law usurps the role of virtue, becoming the framework we base all our actions on. 

Give respond 4:

 I want to start off by giving the Webster Dictionary definition of the word "just" as I beleive it adds a connection between the three. The diction has two different definitions and they both state "a) acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good... b)  legally correct : Lawful (Links to an external site.)" By these definition we can see that there is a direct connection between the three. Now I know that one dictionary's definition would not suffice for this discussion, so I will provide my personal thoughts on it. I beleive there is for sure a connection that we have to draw between laws, virtues, and justice. As the example shown on the chalkboard by Professor Jackson in class, we see that Justice is defined as something that is lawful, fair, and everything being at the right place and right time. This proved a connection between law and Justice directly, but seems like it leaves out virtues. It actually does the exact opposite. To display Justice, someone must express public virtues. To go further, a person cannot be called "Just" when only pursuing Justice in a way that benefits them. Rather, for someone to be "Just", they must display virtue towards the public. However, by saying this I am not claiming that self virtues are not good, I know that that this is important as well. I am simply saying that one can not be claimed as "Just" when only pursuing self involving virtues. At the end of the day, I beleive there is not only a direct association with laws, virtues, and justice by definition, but I also think we can see multiple connections of this given by Aristotle in Book 5, and in class lecture. 

 

 

Give respond 5:

From reading upon this I do not think that law has anything to do with virtue or morality especially are not a line of what is moral. Laws are created to more keep people in line and to make sure they are keeping the system of society in check rather then to keep them from becoming bad people. as Aristotle even states himself "All lawful acts are in a sense just acts" I take from this phrase on a more literal side that on how Aristotle is saying this as if there isn't really much more to say then this that this is truly what the law is just an action or decision from someone not a moral compass or some virtue. However of course other people do not take it as such thinking of the law being a reflection of morality or peoples moral compass which when thinking about it has help society improve in many ways as laws of old have been changed or abolished due to these changes in morality as as people's morality has changed so has the law via abolishing slavery, making women be able to vote, abolishing child labor. All of these changes have been made from the action of the change and thought of morality. And from this reasoning some would think that law is a form of virtue however as Aristotle states "What the difference is between virtue and justice is this sense is plain from what we have said; they are the same but their essence is not the same;" 

I think that Zelle's situation gives a bit of insight on what this sorta means. Because when looking at what zelle is doing it is clear that in a way he is making himself almost disabled from what he is giving away and though virtues would think that making a law make it to where he should stop giving way many of his parts for his own safe keeping. The law does not however do this from the thought of the man expressing his freedom and will in a sort of way that law and virtue are of different essence

Give Response 6:

"The just, therefore, is what is lawful and what is equal; the unjust is what is unlawful and what is unequal (Par. 5,book 5). Aristotle believes that justice is the equal treatment of everyone under what is lawful. furthermore, what he describes lawful to be is "living in accord with each virtue,... forbids living in accord with each vice", as stated in the prompt. Therefore, to be just is to be equal and accord with each virtue and against vice, which is what defines lawful. The question was whether I believed that promoting virtue and dissuading vice was a good concept for legislation. I feel as this notion would be supporting what is lawful, in the interpretation of Aristotle. The way Aristotle describes law is that vice is forbidden, where as this notion would punish such. I would have to say that I agree with this belief. I don't believe in legislation being so strict but instead able for there to be correction and the cohabit of different virtues. I connect this to the extremes of virtue that we had in class. There is a mean for the lack of virtue and the excess of it. The mean is a gray area that can be interpreted depending on the person, now if one is completely outside of the mean and leaning more towards the lack of virtue, then that is where the legislation would "punish". There is not one certain amount of virtue or vice so there should not be a supremely strict type of legislation that would dictate so. The legislation would simply be promoting virtue and punishing for vice, so that leaves for multiple types of virtues to be had and be okay with within the community. From my definition of justice, this type of legislation would meet the requirements for it. The community would be just in the way that everyone is equal in having their own virtues, it is only when one is outside of the mean is when they are "punished". 

Give Response 7:

In book 5 of Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle says that "since the lawless person is unjust and the lawful person is just, lawful is in some way just" (Aristotle, 80). This means a just person and a lawful person abide by the same ideas, virtues and vices. Aristotle also says that "the law instructs us to do the actions of a brave person," stating that the virtue brave is an idea to look for when being just or lawful (Aristotle, 81), then Aristotle says, "And in justice / all virtue is summed up" (Aristotle, 81). In those two quotes from the book, we see how virtues, law, and justice go hand in hand. Although justice is virtue, not without qualification, but in relation to another, that’s why I think justice is more important than law. However, having virtues in law and justice are both very important, that's why I believe it is good to have virtues and vices to maintain laws and justice. One way I understand it better is looking back at Book 1 in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that happiness is the ultimate good and to obtain happiness you must be a virtuous person. Then Aristotle says that "for even if the good is the same for a city as for an individual, still the good of the city is apparently greater" (Aristotle, 2). I think that if having virtues and when a person is being virtuous by doing good for the city then having virtues living in accord with laws and justice are a good conception when looking at legislation and how to abide by it. Happiness is everyone’s goal so why not have justice and law be as virtuous as possible to help the community be a happy place together. I feel that Aristotle's method of linking them was viable.

Give Response 8:

In a perfect world, I believe that Aristotle would be making a reasonable connection between laws, virtue, and justice; however, in the world we live in today, we have many laws that have recently come into effect that would not have been considered just or virtuous in the past. Does this mean that our view of justice has changed, or have our virtues evolved over time? This reminds me of when we talked about subjectivism and objectivism. In class, we discussed the idea that there is one idea that's considered the greater good that we are all trying to learn and reach. If we are right in saying that we have not reached that point (this is evident in all of the ethical problems going on currently) then how are we able to agree with Aristotle when he says that the just can be attributed to lawfulness and fairness. At this point, there are laws that are generally agreed upon as just like, the illegality of murder, rape, and drunk driving just to name a few obvious ones. However, there are some laws that are questionable like the recent Texas abortion ban, and the legality of marijuana. The fact that there are laws in place that can cause such debate proves that we are not at a point where we can so easily define the relationship between justice, virtue, and lawfulness. Aristotle Does touch on this in book five when he says, "But we are looking for the type of justice, since we say there is one, that consists in a part of virtue, and correspondingly for the type of injustice that is a part of vice." (Aristotle, pg. 82). I believe that because of this quote Aristotle would agree with me. The relationship between justice, virtue, and lawfulness will continue to evolve as time goes on and both people, their prejudices, and their beliefs change until we figure out the true meaning behind 'the good.'

Give Response 9:

The idea of "laws promoting virtue and dissuading vice" appears to be the right way to think. It would make sense to use laws to promote good things and make doing the right thing legal while, and more importantly, dissuade bad things and make doing the wrong thing illegal. This is true in many states like how murder and stealing are illegal in the U.S (and pretty much everywhere) while free speech and freedom of religion are legal. Not being allowed to kill someone or steal from them dissuades the vice received from doing these actions while standing up for what you believe in and practicing whatever religion you practice promotes virtues. The vices are easy to identify. Do not murder, steal, assault, etc. But the virtues are actually where things get confusing and opinionated because what do you believe in? What does your religion stand for? These questions make the idea of laws promoting virtue and dissuading vice seem impossible because well, virtues and vice aren't actual concrete things. They differ from person to person. Someone may stand up for the right for a woman to have an abortion and that be their virtue, while someone could stand up for the rights of fetuses and that be their virtue. Both people in this situation feel like they're doing the correct and moral thing, yet depending on where they are in the world, one is very right and one is very wrong. In fact, if someone performs an abortion when it's not legal, even though they feel virtue from putting their body first, they could go to jail for murder even though they don't feel like they did anything immoral or worthy of vice. This person would get put in the same realm as a child molester who does what they do for virtue and for their own gain, but the law makes it illegal, so the person would go to jail. We could even get into the question of what are vices? Is murder always bad? Can I steal sometimes? Some people have legitimate arguments for these things.

The answer to the question, I feel, is that laws TRY to promote virtue and dissuade vice, but it is impossible to do so in every category because laws are permanent, nonpermeable things, while virtues and vices are flexible and change from person to person. Aristotle says, "... to determine whether the education that makes an individual an unqualifiedly good man is a task for political science or for another science; for, presumably, being a good man is not the same as being every sort of good citizen." What Aristotle is saying here, is exactly what I have said as there is a difference between being a good man and a good citizen. A good person follows the most moral path of life while a good citizen follows the law. Both sound very similar, but in certain cases, as previously mentioned, can be totally different.

Give Response 10:

In Book 5 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle talks about how certain aspects of life are lawful and unlawful, as well as fair and unfair. Aristotle says, “Things that are found in the soul are of three kinds- passions, faculties, states of character, virtue must be one of these.”(Nicomachean Ethics, 30)  What he means by this is that law, virtue, and justice are all connected to one another. The idea that Aristotle has about laws promoting virtue makes a. good bit of sense to me. What could the harm be in the law enforcing good behaviour as well as deterring the bad? The world needs some laws or rules put in place to make sure that there is order, and that there is no unnecessary chaos happening. No good community works without some sort of order, and laws give us that. For example, we have people (police officers) that enforce laws for our communities. The men and women who serve our communities have the best interest  for us citizens. They risk their lives day in and day out to make sure that everybody is safe and well. I think this is a very honorable job. It is tough and not always easy but I’m thankful that there are out there who care enough to risk their life for my well being. The point of that example is that ensuring that the good virtues are enforced is so important that people have jobs specifically to make sure everything stays in order. This way of thinking is very viable in my opinion. I can agree with Aristotle yet again, his ideas have yet to seem unlawful, unjust, or unethical in any way.