Aristotle Reading Question Responses

1. Happiness is the ultimate goal because it is something that qualifies as something that is
desirable for itself, it is something that is not desirable for the sake of some other good,
and it all other goods are desirable for its sake. Happiness is therefore the ultimate goal
because it qualifies with Aristotles three characteristics. Therefore happiness is an end in
his eyes and is the ultimate purpose. The function of reason is to make us virtuous in a
uniquely human way; virtue is needed to achieve happiness so logically reason is needed
to make virtue. Aristotle makes it clear reason leads to happiness. Reason brings out
behavior, habits, and virtues that also further establishes happiness in the long run.
2. Aristotle defines these people as evil and are single minded in their pursuits. People have
the capacity to be a rational soul and can choose how to develop their character. This
leads to virtues and vices. From these two results, vices are momentary and virtues are
unifying and permanent. The vicious person acts more on vices causing momentary
happiness, which is not a true happiness according to Aristotle. He would argue that the
person acting in a vicious manner isn't really happy. The vicious person doesn't have a
balanced soul when acting on vices either so there is an internal struggle as well. This
causes further struggle in the person who is acting on vices rather than virtues
3. Virtue is necessary for happiness but not always sufficient because there are a number of
other factors that play into happiness such as external goods. External goods are things
that are out of the person's control such as wealth, health, or looks. The external goods
open up opportunities for virtue to be acted on so if you are deficient in any one of these
external goods you may not have enough sufficient opportunities to act virtuous. On the
other hand the lack of external goods create either burdens or benefits because you could
be bitter if you are not wealthy for instance or if you are attractive it may be a benefit
because you have more opportunity to be virtuous just because more people will want to
be around you. That would ultimately lead to happiness as a result. This also raises the
point that there are numerous factors that goes into being happy.
4. Developing the virtues through reason happens from becoming wise through experience
and time. Children can be pseudo virtuous because they are set in a way of acting defined
by parents and teachers but they may not have full virtuous capacity until they are
trained by life. This training is the same thing as gaining wisdom and leads to
reasoning when the person has had enough experience in life to be able to reason through
virtues and situations based on that particular scenario. They then establish the idea that
they know what the right thing to do is because they have had enough experience to
reason out the right way to conduct themselves. An example could be bullying where you
should stand up to the bully and be courageous. If you do it in excess it would be beating
up the bully or if you were deficient it would be doing nothing in acting on what a
virtuous person would do. Being virtuous is therefore a balancing act between excess and
deficiency that is trained through experience and time.

Dewey Chapter 10 Reading Question Responses

1. I disagree with the statement from the text they say if his intent was right, it makes no
difference to what his motive was.(Dewey) I think that the motive does play a role in the
overall morality of the act being performed. I feel like I disagree because the idea of
morality in my eyes is to do the right thing for the right reason. I believe that motive is
part of the right reason aspect because some one can intend to do the right thing but
have the wrong motive. An example that I can think of is if someone is struggling and
you have the intention to help people but your motive is to do it so you get recognized as
a hero then you are doing it out of the concept of individualism and not for the good of
people. In order to act in a moral way both the intention and the motive have to be
present and for the right reason. Sometimes with the right motive a stronger moral
outcome will result.
2. Dewey understands customary and reflective morality as a circuit. There are not always
in conflict with one another either. Customary morality is group-based morality and
usually has some sort of ancestral roots to it. Reflective morality is to reconstruct custom
morals and reflect on moral character in the present. They are in a close relationship with
one another. In the positive aspect the reflective morals can act as a way of reconstructing
the customary morals of society. In the negative viewpoint, reflective morals can be in
conflict if the current standing on a certain topic has changed drastically from the
previous thoughts on it. The same is true with customary morals in regards to reflective.
Sometimes the customary morals are not in wrong and can be a good base for reflective
morals.
3. Temptation does not constitute moral struggle because temptation by itself is natural and
is the urge to satisfy a certain need. Alone temptation is perfectly natural and nonproblematic. What causes genuine moral struggle is when the temptation is affecting
some other aspect of life and the person knows that it is problematic. Temptation in this
instance constitutes a moral struggle. The genuine moral struggle is the conflict between
two desires with one knowingly being bad in choosing in favor of the temptation.
4. Not all actions constitute a moral quality because of the nature of the action. Doing
something trivial or habitual like opening a door is not a moral struggle. Any action can
require a moral significance however by the nature of the action. If you are opening a
door and someone falls down in the hallway, the trivial action becomes one of morals and
whether or not you should help the person or keep walking. To summarize not everything
is a moral action but due to the nature of circumstance every action has the potential to be
moral.
5. Conduct is a way in which acts lead to other acts. Character is the unity of all of these
acts. This leads to the circuit of conduct and character and allows the cycle between the
two to continue. Conducts are unifying and in being unifying they develop character.
Character is then the continuation in the cycle of conduct and acts are present with the
knowledge of consequence for each action. Both play a key role in one another and you
can't have one without the other.
6. Motive is what is pushing the person to do a particular action. Intention is what the hope
for the outcome or consequence is. There is no sharp separation between the two because
usually one leads to the other. Intention alone is what the person is trying to gain or hopes
to see the result of from doing an action. Motive is the driving force behind the action
being performed. They go hand in hand because both have a relation to the same common

outcome and have qualities that support each other in the process of completing the
common goal.
FE 11 reading questions
1. The what if rule and the golden rule both share a similar characteristic. They both try
and describe morality in the sense of how an individual would feel if an act that they
performed on someone else, who did not like the act performed, was done on them. The
error in reflecting upon morality in this way is that people enjoy different things and
could actually enjoy something that someone else finds not pleasurable. This is where the
problem of interpreting morality in this viewpoint comes about. The principle of
universalizability takes a different approach then this way. Its basis is off of a maxim that
governs what and why you intend to do something. Then it has you reflect on your
maxim by asking about the world if everyone supported it. The last part describes
whether or not it can be applied in such a world. The difference between
universalizability and the other two concepts is that it is based off something that doesn't
involve the individual's personal regard and determine it moral. The idea of
universalizability does not ask if the world would be better off but if we could achieve
our goals in the world. It covers the intention, the idea in regards to its implication with
people, and finally to reflect on it to see if the maxim is viable. It is overall a much
deeper way of thinking.
2. He means this because part of determining universalizability is to look at the situation
objectively and say whether or not the action can be achieved. Contradiction is when
there is something that causes the validity of the maxim to become a controversy and
would not provide a basis for the second aspect of determining universalizability. This
would in turn undermine the universalizability of the maxim itself. In that way the
inability to universalize a maxim is due to contradiction.
3. Kant denies the idea of amoralist by saying that you act irrationally when you act
contrary to your strongest reasons. Moral reasons apply to a given situation are always
the strongest reason so they are more important than any other kind of consideration.
Kant basically says that immoral actions are always irrational. He uses the term
hypothetical imperatives which is commands of reason to tell us to do whatever is needed
to achieve our goal. When the desires change the rational requirements disappear and the
person is now following irrational thought. Expressivism is basically describing your
emotions and putting them on as moral viewpoints. This is why amoralist exists because
nobody is without emotion. Everyone has some feeling about everything when you think
about it and according to expressivism that is what would really deem amoralists not
possible. So the difference between the two is the actual philosophical concept that is
driving the reason why amoralists cannot exist despite both Kant and expressivism
sharing the same idea that they don not exist.
Chapter 12 Questions
1. According to Kant Humanity is always treating a human being as an end, never as a mere
means. What he is basically saying here is that people deserve to be treated with respect

and as of equal value. Treating someone as a mere means gives the impression of treating
someone in a way that reflects taking away these traits and using them. To be treating
someone with respect and understanding their autonomy as a human being is how you
develop the treatment towards others as an end. To ignore these traits and disrespect their
autonomy would allow a person to view someone as a means and bend to the desire of
said person. Therefore you need to respect the person as well as recognize their autonomy
to treat them as an end and not a mean reflecting the principle of humanity.
2. The good will is the only thing that adds value because it provides human reasoning with
moral quality. The book gives the example of the shopkeeper and how cheating/not
cheating someone is based on two different paths. The thought of getting caught and not
cheating someone because it is the right thing to do is a higher moral standpoint than not
cheating someone because of the consequences of getting caught. With good will you
know where your moral duty lies and you just have to act upon it. To act in conformity
with good will is then more praiseworthy according to Kant. Kant uses the term moral
worth to describe this kind of moral action. This is at odds with the consequentialist
viewpoint where the outcome of an action is all that matters and that if, for instance, both
shopkeepers didn't cheat despite the reasoning then they are both equally morally
praiseworthy. Kant rejects this notion through the idea of good will.
3. I think that to some degree it does but we have made great strides from what once was.
American consumption and distribution did not have any respect for autonomy during the
times of the slaves. Fortunately America grew out of this horrible institution of slavery.
American consumption today does not have the direct disrespect for people's autonomy
but still this lack of respect remains today. Children in a foreign country are building a
good majority of our products, which is a disrespect of human autonomy because we are
using labor practices banned in the US because they disrespect autonomy and are cruel to
aid our own demand for supplies. This disrespect of autonomy is not direct and not as
severe as disrespect in the form of slavery, but the US nevertheless is still showing a
disrespect of autonomy.
4. Kants punishment is basically the eye for an eye complex. With people needing to
respect others autonomy, the disrespect of autonomy needs to be punished with equal
magnitude in order to account for the initial act against autonomy. This is contrasted to
the consequentialist viewpoint of punishment where whatever produces the greatest good
is morally right. I think that a form of punishment that is more neutral is necessary, an
eye for an eye is too harsh and doesn't allow any real lesson to be learned. If the person
experienced some sort of pain and then went to jail for committing the crime (in extreme
cases like murder and rape) I feel that it is justifiable. It may be more barbaric, but just
getting locked in prison or fined for some crimes I feel doesn't teach a lesson to the
person to a degree that promotes a valid punishment. This does not mean that eye for an
eye should be used though. The idea is to deliver a sort of punishment in the form of pain
to extreme cases but not to the degree that Kant believes should be dealt.
5. Moral luck is a problem for the idea of Kants punishment because the entire basis of
moral luck is that it depends on external factors outside of that persons control. If you
were trying to help someone but accidentally harmed because of some factor out of your
control then you would have to go through the exact same pain according to Kant. This is
a problem with the theory cause you could be acting morally right in every aspect

including acting in a moral manner and yet get punished for situations where you have no
control over what happened. This problem can be addressed by putting in another clause
in Kants perspective about punishment stating, External factors that are out of personal
control cannot be punished by Kantian view of punishment if acting in a moral manner
with moral intention. This would effectively eliminate moral luck from moral action.
Chapter 19 & 20 Question Responses
1. I feel very strongly about the notion that there are no moral truths. Morality and ethics
itself are not scientific principles or laws of nature. They are human constructs that were
created by the expanding human intellect as humans evolved from primates. I feel that
just because there is no scientific backing to a moral truth that there are no moral truths at
all. If morality is a human construct then it is what we make it. Moral truths should be the
values that are most commonly held by a majority of people. For instance, killing is
wrong should be a moral truth. I feel this way because if human morality is a manmade
construct then manmade moral truths is a perfectly viable possibility. Therefore limiting
moral truths due to the idea that there is no scientific backing is silly because morality is
a manmade construct and therefore can have manmade moral truths. I feel strongly about
this because moral truth would allow there to be ideas shared by a vast majority of people
be the common idea of what is right versus wrong instead of leaving room for debate and
interpretation based on society/individual/geography.
2. Moral skepticism is the all-encompassing doubt or questioning of morality. Ethical
objectivism is the idea that moral claims are objectively true and some moral standards
are ethically correct. Ethical relativism is the idea that morals are really correct and
determine which are false. Moral nihilism is a branch of moral skepticism where the
entire idea of morals is completely shot down and there are no moral truths. Their relation
is each is a building block of one another with moral skepticism and ethical objectivism
being the middle ground. The other two are the complete other ends of the spectrum with
one being the idea that morals are a real life force and the other saying moral truths don't
exist. They are all related by the idea that they are the different ways in that moral
analysis occurs representing both ends of the spectrum as well as the in between
viewpoints.
3. I do not agree. I completely understand the idea of there being no moral truths but I feel
like the idea of morality is a manmade construct and therefore there is no reason why
man made moral truths cant be a reality. The very nature of morality is objective so I do
believe objective moral truths exist. I think that moral progress is possible because as the
general value of things change with time there needs to be a change in value or morality
to accommodate that. The change for the benefit of society or to reflect society/the
individual's views would then be moral progress.
4. I think that he would say that both are part of the formation of morality. You can't have a
group form of morality without having an individual bring up the ideas that the morals
are based off of. Dewy also feels that society is a major part of the process of inquiry, so
if the morals in question are being presented in a group setting then the group will also
align the morals in the sense of the group. Cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism
would then both play key roles in Deweys eyes because both concepts are important in
the pattern of inquiry he talks about when being exposed to an indeterminate situation.

5. I do not agree that all morals claims are factual errors. Just because there is no scientific
law in relation to a moral issue does not make it a factual error. If someone was to take a
poll asking if murder was against morality or if it is not because it is not scientifically fact
based most likely people would side with murder still being wrong. That would lead to a
statistic for that particular study and therefore through quantitative empirical data would
articulate the idea that murder was a moral concept because the general population
believed so. This is not a scientific law but scientific analytical methods can be utilized to
demonstrate a point in relation to the topic. Therefore I think that moral claims do have
authority because the individual will likely side with what he or she thinks is right and
therefore the factual matter is obsolete. I think that both exist and though values are not
empirical in nature they still represent an important facet in life and should be treated
with respect equal to that of fact. I would deal with it by understanding that both play a
key factor in the role of morality and that you must take both into consideration when
debating moral issues.
6. I do not believe that amoralists exist. Morals do involve emotion just because they do to
some degree reflect how we feel about something. Everyone feels emotion and so to say
you are an amoralist is to say you are without emotion on a moral issue. This is not
possible because from a psychological standpoint every human faces emotions. That
being said, you may feel more adamantly about something over than something else but
no-matter there is still some form of moral judgment being performed.
Reading Questions Chapter 18
1. I do not think that most ethical theory being told by men creates a bias towards women.
The way that I read the ethical theories written by men is that it applies to everyone and
not just men. I did not think that there was a bias favoring men in regards to ethical
theory. The low opinions of these philosophers in relation to women may have had
significant impact in their personal life in regards to how they conducted themself. That
being said I think that their theories show no real bias to men over women, but instead the
theories are applicable to everyone. For instance Aristotle talked about reason being what
separates humans from other creatures, there was no specificity of reason being unique to
men. I feel that in many ways the theory presented in the feminism chapter is hindering
their cause of equality because being a mother is something unique to women and basing
an entire ethical theory of the mother child relationship is separating that equality
between men and women.
2. The significance is that Giligan is claiming that women never get past the third stage
because women bring an attitude of care and sympathy to their decision making which in
turn keeps them from appealing to the abstract moral principles. Justice is not the allimportant ideal to women according to the text. The nature/nurture debate is implicated in
this debate because the womens view is much more towards the nurturing side of the
spectrum and the sympathy that they show is important in that it puts family and friends
above the idea of justice. The feminist view is then more of a nurture perspective in the
way that it is different from the hard and fast rules previously presented in ethical theory
(the more nature side of the spectrum). The nature perspective is much more cold in the
means of how it is executed. The absoluteness of the nature argument is not expressed

therefore by care ethics because it is not taking into consideration other factors that are
important.
3. The significance here is to include a perspective that again, puts a more sympathetic
viewpoint on the idea of ethics. This is also important in the manner that it allows us to
have a view of ethics not so centered on the individual but more of a cooperative
viewpoint. This idea of dependence plays onto the train of thought that humans need to
work together to get a real moral understanding and is what is significant about care
ethics versus the other theories we have studied thus far.
4. I think that care ethics is more akin to virtue ethics. I think that a lot of the qualities that
care ethics calls upon is something that is more required in character than in practice.
Virtue ethics is all about the character of the individual performing the virtuous acts so
there is a clear relationship there. Both theories also talk about the importance of emotion
into moral understanding, which was unique in the sense that both expressed some sort of
moral play rather than setting more absolute moral rules.
Feminist Epistemologist Questions
1. Atomistic viewpoint is the idea that people aren't dependent on others for knowledge or
support in your own knowledge. The knowledge is solely from the individuals
themselves. Epistemic viewpoint is the idea that the epistemic agents are generic or
interchangeable such that social location is irrelevant in this view. Situated knowledge
has the thinking that you have to interact with others to gain the knowledge and this
relationship is what creates knowledge. Learning from others helps you grow. Situated
knowledge also looks at social location because it takes into account the interaction with
others. Deweys situationist view is that every situation is unique and every interaction is
not interchangeable. This differs from situated knowers because the interaction itself and
social location are what is unique and not necessarily the actual situation that is unique.
Situated knowledge looks at the person as a unique part of the situation, which expands
out Deweys theory.
2. A social structure of social location would be a women giving birth in the delivery room
and experiencing that pain while her husband would be able to describe the chaos going
around the delivery room but not experience the pain himself. A random social structure
would be something such as which gender you are and what that means as a result, you
cant choose how you are born and the connotation that comes along with it. Social
location has to meanings then as a result of these two concepts. The differing of social
locations means differing experiences and perspectives as a result.
3. Greater epistemic reliability is not only that there is differential perspectives but those
who are on the bottom rungs of power relations have a greater access of knowledge
because of their particular social location. For instance a poor person has a greater access
to experience because their position is affected greatly by those who have more money.
The more power you have the more sheltered you are in this case whether its arrogance or
just plain ignorance. The bottom line is social location affects the access to knowledge
and experience of it. Feminist epistemologists focus on the division between gender and
the influence of patriarchy, which shelters men in this instance.

4. A) I think that a standpoint theorist would respond to this in saying that just because the
epistemic locations are different does not mean that the knowledge across social locations
cannot be shared. In fact, the standpoint theorist would recognize the differing
perspectives due to the different epistemic locations and be able to learn as a result from
these differences. The sharing would be more than beneficial and possible in that case.
B) I think that the standpoint theorist would disagree with this statement. The social and
political upbringing of an individual that shapes their perspective allows room for
interpretation. Some women may view another as being oppressed but to that women it is
possible and completely viable that she thinks that its not oppression. Her oppression is
not oppression to her because she doesnt see that way, and standpoint theorist would
have to agree with her because that is the way that her social environment brought her up.
C) The standpoint theorist would respond by saying that oppression is based on, again,
the social and political upbringing of the individual and how these affect their
perspective. I think that the notion of having a unified feminist movement is not possible
because women feel oppression in many different ways; even different from each other.
The standpoint theorists would agree saying there are many different aspects to the
feminist movement and it cant be all one coherent unified position because of all the
different perspectives that see oppression in differing ways.
5. Differential social location can adversely affect results of scientific research because it
would be one sided in that the power would reside in the males and not females. Sharing
knowledge in the sciences is necessary but the power dynamic would suppress the
women in this case which might lead to an unequal sharing of knowledge. One of these
instances could be seen with Rosalind Franklin who did the X Ray diffraction of DNA
but Watson and Crick took her X Ray crystallography of the DNA and incorporated it
into their model without giving her any credit. The males in this instance took charge
over the female. This was an instance of hindering scientific sharing based on sex and
social relation hierarchy.
Reading Questions Chapter 17
1. Virtue Ethics differs from both consequentialism and Kantian deontology in a major way.
Virtue ethics is much more encompassing and it is centered on the idea of character and
not actions. The main idea is that character and doing what the virtuous person would do
is how morality should be decided. The moral act is the one done by someone that is
virtuous and driven by that persons character. Virtue ethics also is more encompassing in
the sense that it allows some moral rules to be broken. The argument is that from an early
age kids are taught moral rules as absolutes and through time and experience people
orient themselves in ways that gives them permission and the knowledge to know when it
is acceptable to break those rules. This all differs from the other two concepts where it is
more the actual actions dictate what is morally right and not the character behind those
actions. The good life and the good person should be one in the same in that a virtuous
person would have a good life but sometimes there has to be a sacrifice of interest to do
the virtuous act.

2. The moral exemplar is a person that sets a fine example to the rest of humanity as to what
it means to be virtuous. The complexity comes in with the conditions of when to accept
those acts as moral values and when to take liberty in breaking them to a degree. Morality
is relative to the person and the culture, the book talks about how to some people a
suicide bomber is a moral exemplar and to others the bomber is a monster. This provides
an avenue of interpretation of morals that leads to a complexity in sorting out which ones
to follow. This also means that moral understanding is going to be questioned because the
moral exemplar can be different to different people such as the Churchill and Gandhi
example of how to the British people Gandhi wasn't a moral exemplar but to us today he
is viewed as one. Therefore there is an inherent dilemma in the sense of what actions are
moral because of the choice of the exemplar.
3. The virtuous life can only exist out of the use of reason because it is what sets us apart
from the rest of the world. This trait is uniquely human in his eyes. Since animals can
experience pleasure the point of our lives cannot be to experience pleasure. Therefore the
only way to live a virtuous life is to express to the furthest extend we can the trait that
separates us from the rest of the animals. That trait being our ability to reason.
4. The virtue ethicist would respond by saying the virtuous person is the one that would
follow what is defined by his good character. In the instance of the suicide bomber there
is a problem with viewing that person as a moral exemplar because what he is doing is
taking away innocent lives, which is not something that a virtuous person would do. This
also goes to the idea that a virtuous person would feel almost guilt or an unpleasant
emotion if the action could be considered immoral. This is relevant because if what the
supposed moral exemplar is doing brings up bad emotions then the odds are (according to
the text) that the action is immoral and that the person may be in questioning as to
whether or not that person is a moral exemplar. As far as the conflict and contradiction
problem goes there is a simple solution. In a world full of virtuous people then the virtue
ethics idea of interpreting morals comes in and the person should choose to follow the
morals of the person they see as the most virtuous. There is always going to be conflict
and contradiction but because this theory allows for more of an interpreted stance on
morals there is not as much of a conflict between what is considered moral.
5. This problem is not fatal to virtue ethics. The whole concept of virtue ethics is based off
of character so as the author said originally a virtuous person just acts virtuous because of
whom that person is as a person. This takes away the priority problem because those who
act in according to their character are virtuous people and therefore don't have to look at
what to prioritize because they just act that way. So this is not a problem because it is the
virtuous person that does the right action and not the action making the person virtuous.