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 songs.
• 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 and the Eudaimonian
Ethics

• 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 oh 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”
The Eudaimonia
• 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 was able to fulfill such purpose, then the
act of stealing becomes good.
Human Nature
• According to Aristotle, things of any variety have
characteristics 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.
Human Nature
• 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.
Human Nature
• 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

Illiberality Liberality Prodigality

Pettiness Munificence Vulgarity

Humble High Mindedness Vaingloriness

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 And The Ethics of
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.
DUTY AND SELF- INTEREST: THE GROCER
EXAMPLE.

Kant’s first example, in explaining the concept of acting for the sake
of duty, is of a grocer dealing with inexperienced customers. It is
often a merchant’s self- interest to be honest, but not always. If we
imagine a neighborhood grocery store where the grocer knows
almost all of the customers, if those customers are long- term
patrons and if they know one another, and if there is a competitor
grocery store, then it is clearly the grocer’s self- interest to be
honest. The grocer depends on repeat business and if the grocer
cheats even a few of the regular customer’s, they will probably tell
others, and the grocer’s business will be seriously hurt.
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.
The Categorical 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 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.
The Categorical Imperative.
• According to Kant, there are three (3) propositions of morality.
There 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.
• 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.
THANK YOU!