Ancient Philosophy

Lecture 1:

Google Plato’s life, historical and political context in Athens and Greece, his works and his
political influences (Socrates, Academy) History of philosophy without any gaps podcast.

Context: (not from lecture- own resource- don’t think needed)

- Historical and political context in Athens and Greece: Athenian democracy developed
around the sixth century BC in the Greek city-state of Athens and is often described
as the first known democracy in the world. By the time of Aristotle (fourth century
BC) there were hundreds of Greek democracies. Greece in those times was not a
single political entity but rather a collection of some 1,500 separate poleis or 'cities'
scattered round the Mediterranean and Black Sea shores 'like frogs around a pond',
as Plato once put it.
- Plato’s life: rationalist- means we gain knowledge primarily through reason-
Raphael’s school of Athens Painting 1509- P is gesturing upwards showing he
believes this world is a illusion - true reality belongs to the perfect idea of the Good,
Justice and so on which exist above the material world. He was a dualist(believed in
a higher and lower reality-everything is not as it seems). Ultimate reality lies beyond
the world of experience. In his book ‘Timaeus’ it indicates his view of seeking beyond
the day to day concerns of life to a heavenly realm that would be achieved after
death- feet are in motion- believed empirical knowledge is flawed. A.N. Whitehead -
‘Modern Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato’- shows all philosophy originated
from P- v influential- very cliché don’t use in essays- According to Peter Adamson,
Whitehead is showing how philosophy did not begin or end with Plato but did come
of age with Plato- not only a philosophical genius but also literary genius- Adamson
- Plato’s works- Plato's most famous work is the Republic, which details a wise society
run by a philosopher. He is also famous for his dialogues (early, middle, and late),
which showcase his metaphysical theory of forms
- Plato’s philosophical influences- SOCRATES- pupil- Socrates influence spreads out to
different ideas such as the vanity of Eros love, immortality of the soul and
justice. Socrates execution had a profound effect on Plato's philosophy about
government. Without Socrates there will be no Plato. ACADEMY- The Academy,
founded by the philosopher Plato in the early 4th century BCE, was perhaps one of
the earliest institutions of higher learning. It functioned as one of the first places for
dedicated research into scientific and philosophical questions. Its main function was
to teach Plato's philosophical understanding, but it also challenged its scholars to
develop a new understanding of our universe.

The main questions in Meno:

- Opening line- “Can you tell me Socrates – is virtue something that can be taught? Or
does it come by practice? Or is it neither teaching nor practice that gives it to a man
but natural aptitude or something else?” (70a)
- MAIN QUESTION= Is virtue something that can be taught
- One of the most fundamental questions in all of Plato’s philosophy. It is explicitly
discussed not only in Meno but also in Gorgias and Protagoras and in the Republic
- Is virtue something innate? Is it taught? Is it practiced?
 - Why is it an important question?- has practical significance in every day life even
after all these years- we want to leaen virtue and want out children to be good
people.
- There are many other kinds of information and skills that can be taught- Platos list is
being a doctor, shoemaking, and playing a flute. Could also add maths, chemistry,
riding a horse…- Doesn’t seem as obvious when it comes to virtue- Plato says when
you take the very best people you would think they would be the best teachers but
if you look at the children of these virtuous people in Athens they do not
necessarily turn out well- “Socrates points to the failure of famous Athenian leaders
to pass their own virtue on to their sons”- (FROM PROLOGUE OF MENO DIALOGUE)
- Looking at the empirical evidence its not clear whether virtue can be taught in the
same way
- There were also people who claimed that they were teaching virtue and believed
that one is able to teach virtue – They were called Sophists- were a group of scholars
that went from one state from another that tried to educate the aristocrats in
those cities?- Plato had negative view of these sophists Anytus: “Good heavens,
what a thing to say! I hope no relative of mine or any of my friends, Athenian or
foreign, would be so mad as to go and let himself be ruined by those people. That’s
what they are, the manifest ruin and corruption of anyone who comes into contact
with them (91c).”
- Socrates does defend Protagoras at this point, but- by large- Plato is usually
attempting to argue against them. He believed that the Sophists were a corrupting
influence. This is too why we need to investigate whether virtue can be taught-
shows why its an important question.

Definitions:
- Socrates- “the fact is that far from knowing whether it can be taught, I have no idea
what virtue itself is?”
- In order to know what qualities something had (whether virtue has the property of
being teachable), you must know what the thing is.
- You cannot teach something if you don’t know what it is. In order to be able to teach
X, you must know what X is.
- The people whos children aren’t virtuous- even is people have virtue they cannot
teach it because they do not know what it is. They have the virtues, but they do not
know what the virtues are.
- Crucial question is what is Socrates looking for when he wants to know what virtue
is?
- The consequences of the Move- Socrates:- “What do you yourself say virtue is?”. The
way to show we cannot define virtue is to take the common knowledge of that
time and shows there are flaws in it.
- Meno gives few unsatisfactory answers. (which Socrates then criticises) 1) “it is easy
to see that the virtue of a man consists in managing the city’s affairs capably and so

he will help his friends and injure his foes … if you want a woman’s virtue … [s]he
must be a good housewife, careful with her stores and obedient to her husband.”
71e (very sexist- Even if there are areas of Plato’s writings that is sexist- he
 criticises the common man who is being sexist) 2) “in my opinion then courage is a
virtue and temperance and wisdom and dignity and many other things.” 74a.
- What is wrong with these answers?- Socrates “I wanted one virtue and I find that
you have a whole swarm of virtues to offer … Suppose I ask you what a bee is, what
is its essential nature, and you replied that bees were of many different kinds, what
would you say if I went on to ask: “And is it in being bees that they are many and
various and different from one another? Or would you agree that it is not in this
respect they differ, but in something else, some other quality like size or beauty?”
- Meno replies “I should say that in so far as they are bees they don’t differ from one
another at all”
- Socrates responds “: “well, this is just what I want you to tell me. What is that
character in respect of which they don’t differ at all, but are all the same? … Then do
the same with the virtues. Even if they are many and various, yet at least they have
some common character which makes them virtues. That is what ought to be kept in
view by anyone who answers the question: “What is virtue?”
- Socrates is saying when Meno answers the questions he gives a list of different
virtues- but just listing different virtues is not answering what virtue he is- he
wants to know what is common to all those virtues- what is the essence of virtue
- He is looking for the shared ‘essential nature’- giving a list does not give the essence-
this is a solution to the ‘one over many’ problem. We can call the explanation of the
essential nature a ‘definition’. HOWEVER- this is not something you learn from the
dictionary- dictionary definition gives common usage- how its used in common
English but what Plato is looking for is something deeper- the definition is not
about capturing the common usage of the word- Socrates is not looking for a list of
the character-traits that count as virtues.

Ideas and Forms:

- Three kinds of knowledge 1) knowing that Paris is the capital France 2) Knowing how
to ride a bike 3) Knowing Peter/knowing the way to Larissa 1) knowing that things
are such and such- called propositions/factual knowledge 2) knowing how to do
things- practical knowledge 3) knowledge by acquaintance- knowing a person
- Plato seems to adopt the last model as a model of all knowledge. Takes third type of
knowledge to be primary and the model of all knowledge we have. So, knowledge
of the essential nature of virtue is to be acquainted with the IDEA/FORM of the
virtue. Knowing the essential nature of horse is to be acquainted with the
IDEA/FORM of the horse.
- IDEAS/FORMS are type of entity your reason can access- they are abstract, eternal,
unchanging- the ordinary objects in the real world are imperfect shadows of these
IDEAS/FORMS.
- Forms are outside the physical world we live in- are the essential nature of a
species or thing- Forms are the basis of all other knowledge. Form of virtue would
be the perfect form of virtue.
- Plato himself became sceptical about the view later on. – this is the only part of Ps
philosophy where he came to understand there are problems with this- why its
problematic? No evidence- W.K Clifford- Third man argument Aristotle-
objectivism- no link between Forms and real world- do physical objects have a
 Form chair?- Charles Grisworld. He is assuming this realm of perfect entities- we
don’t have any reason to believe this exists- Plato does not answer these
questions- he recognises these are too difficult to answer.
- A lot of his philosophy works independent of these Forms- doesn’t undermine his
philosophy
- Is Bachelor an unmarried man?- can prove to be wrong- children, widows, Pope
(don’t know if this is needed?)

Lecture 2:

How we come to know:

- The method that Plato uses in all his dialogue- Socratic dialogue: Especially in the
early dialogues, Plato uses a special method: Socratic dialogue.
- This is not so much a way to know, but rather a way for showing that the other
person doesn’t know.
- Meno itself nicely illustrates this method.
- Socrates asks for a definition.
- Meno (and others) gives definitions that are the shared wisdom of the day.
- By questioning, Socrates shows that the person’s own deeply held convictions are in
conflict with the definition. The definition fails to capture which things are X and
what is common to all Xs. The conclusion is often negative.
- Birth of conceptual analysis and counter-examples.
- By asking lots of questions Socrates is trying to show that the person who is asking
the question does not even know the definition of what they are saying?- By
questioning, Socrates shows that these definitions are in conflict with the person’s
deeply held convictions.
- The definition fails and the consequence is often negative.
In Meno, Plato presents a general theory of how we are supposed to come to know the
IDEAS/FORMS, the essences of things:
- There is a shift in his dialogue- socratic dialogue was reporting back what Socrates
witnessed. Meno is one of the first dialogues that shows how we can come to know
the essences of things

This theory is a response to the paradox of inquiry: (80d-e):

Meno: “But how will you look for something when you don’t in the least know what
it is? How on earth are you going to set up something you don’t know as the object
of your search? To put it another way, even if you come right up against it, how will
you know that what you have found is the thing you didn’t know?”
Socrates: “I know what you mean. Do you realize that what you are bringing up is the
trick argument that a man cannot try to discover either what he knows or what he
doesn’t know? He would not seek what he knows, for since he knows it there is no
need of the inquiry, nor what he doesn’t know, for in that case he does not even
know what he is to look for?”.
- Shows that 1) if you already know what you are looking for, inquiry is unnecessary 2)
If you don’t know what you are looking for, inquiry is impossible.
- It’s true that inquiry can be puzzling, but clearly it is not impossible. There is a lot of
meaningful inquiry going on all the time. What’s wrong with the puzzle?
 - Question: are both 1 and 2 true at the same time?
- Response: not if we mean the same thing with ‘what you are looking for’.
- A) it means the question (what time it is?). In this sense, 2 is true but 1 is false.
- B) it means the answer (water is H2O). In this sense, 1 is true but 2 is false.
- There is meaningful inquiry going on all the time. So, somewhere this paradox must
go wrong. Suggestion, the phrase ‘what you are looking for’ is used in two different
meanings in 1 and 2. If it is used in the same meaning, both 1 and 2 cannot be true at
the same time.
- If ‘what you are looking for’ means a question, then 2 is true but not 1. If it means an
answer to a question, then 1 is true but 2 is false.
- Meno challenges Socrates with this paradox showing that one cannot inquire
productively into what one does not already know- nor of course into what one
already does – FROM PROLOGUE TO MENO DIALOGUE

Plato tries to solve the paradox by presenting his theory of learning as recalling (81c-82a,
84a-b): POSITIVE THEORY OF LEARNING
- Socrates: ‘Thus the soul, since it is immortal and has been born many times, and has
seen all things both here and in the other world, has learned everything that is. So,
we need not be surprised if it can recall the knowledge of virtue or anything else
which, as we see, it once possessed. All nature is akin, and the soul has learned
everything, so that when a man has recalled a single piece of knowledge – learned it
in ordinary language – there is no reason why he should not find out all the rest, if he
keeps a stout heart and does not grow weary of the search; for seeking and learning
are in fact nothing but recollection (81c-81d).’
- Plato is saying that your soul was once acquainted with the IDEAS/FORMS. This
knowledge is still there hidden. With prompting, you can get a superficial sense of
the idea. With recalling, you can know again. Plato’s account of how we learn
- Immaterial, eternal soul is acquainted with the IDEAS/FORMS- in addition to this
physical body we have we have an immaterial form, a different kind of entity – can
never be destroyed, has always existed in past and will always exist in future- soul
has always had access to Forms- uses this as argument for eternal souls
- The knowledge is still in there but it is forgotten
- 1) With prompting, it can get a superficial sense of the IDEA (an opinion/mere
belief).
- 2) With recollection and questioning it can come to fully recollect/know.
- The first stage gives the person a sense of what it is looking for. The paradox is
avoided.
- Argument/illustration: a slave boy can (on his own) with the right prompts come to
recollect geometrical truths- MENO DIALOGUE- initially cant give answers but meno
prompts him and he eventually gets to the answers- Plato says he had to have
known the answers they just prompted him- objection is that them prompting him
gives him the answers doesn’t actually know
- HUGELY influential in the history of philosophy- rationalists during the early modern
period (1500 to nearly 1800?)-defended innate knowledge, at this time had more
to do with G, when he created us he gave us innate knowledge. Now still
influential- evolutionary theory and language learning (Noam Chomsky (vocal
 political figure- rants against American policy- he says how do we learn a language-
how does new born baby learn language and before Chomsky behaviourism was
the answer- reward and punishment method- Chomsky argued that that cant be
true- a child learns to be creative very early with language- the feedback they get
from their parents is not enough- therefore child has to have some form of innate
knowledge of gramatical forms before they interact with their parents- HOWEVER
nowadays we can argue iinnate knowledge doesn’t come from our eternal soul but
from genes and evolution and Jerry Fodor)- Something here that should be taken
quite seriously- even though here are criticisms very influential
- HOWEVER- according to this you cannot learn anything new e.g idea of iphone has
to be eternal

Road to Larissa: Value of Knowledge:

- One thing dialogue is most famous for is distinctions
- There is a distinction now between knowledge and true opinion/belief. Why should
we aim at knowledge? Why is true belief not enough?
- At two points we have come across this distinction
1) Virtuous people who don’t know what virtue is even if they might have true
opinions about it- virtuous people who cannot teach virtuous characters to
their children
2) Slave boy who is at the stage where he gives the correct answers but can’t give
reasons for them- gives answers about triangles and shapes etc. – might have
true opinions about triangles but cannot explain why they are the way they
are- in contrast to Socrates
- Knowledge is the gold-standard- what we want in any inquiry- we seem to believe
that knowing something is better than having an opinion on it. Why is this? Why
aren’t true beliefs enough?
1) What distinguishes knowledge from true beliefs?
2) What makes knowledge so much better than true beliefs?
- Cutting edge philosophy still debates these questions- all started from the end of
Meno
[97a onwards] Socrates: Let me explain. If someone knows the way to Larissa, or anywhere
else you like, then when he goes there and takes others with him he will be a good and
capable guide, you would agree?
Meno: Of course.
Socrates: But if a man judges correctly which is the road, though he has never been there
and doesn’t know it, will he not also guide others aright?
Meno: Yes, he will.
Socrates: And as long as he has a correct opinion on the points about which the other has
knowledge, he will be just as good a guide, believing the truth but not knowing it.
Meno: Just as good.
Socrates: Therefore true opinion is as good a guide as knowledge for the purpose of acting
rightly. … So right opinion is something no less useful than knowledge.
Meno: Except that the man with knowledge will always be successful, and the man with
right opinion only sometimes.
Socrates: What? Will he not always be successful so long as he has the right opinion?
Meno: that must be so, I suppose. In that case, I wonder why knowledge should be so much
more prized than right opinion.
Socrates: True opinions are a fine thing and do all sorts of good so long as they stay in their
place: but they will not stay long. They run away from a man’s mind, so they are not worth
much until you tether them by working out the reason. That process is recollection… Once
they are tied down, they become knowledge and are stable.
- Can spend a lifetime thinking about this passage- many people have- it is one of the
most important philosophical writings.
- For practical purposes, there is no difference. What distinguishes knowledge from
true beliefs is reasons- they are both true and correct in some way- are equally
good in guiding actions- doesn’t matter whether you know it or have a true opinion
of it.
- This makes knowledge more stable – knowing person is harder to lead astray and
this is valuable. Knowledge is safe- If you know something, you could not have got it
easily wrong whereas mere opinion is more accidentally true if true.
- Therefore recollection is not essential- these claims continue to be debated
- HOWEVER- Still does not answer why it would be better to know something- says
its more stable but why is stability good?

A special feature of Moral Knowledge:

- Moral knowledge is knowledge about what is good, bad, right, wrong, virtuous,
kind…
- We now know many interesting things about what Plato thought about knowledge
generally.
- However, the question we began with was: What is virtue?
- We want to get to moral knowledge. Knowledge about what is good, right, virtous,
kind.
- In Meno, Plato does not get very far with this question – the conclusions are largely
negative (we don’t know…).
- In the Republic, Plato presents his positive theory of justice which we will be looking
at during the next three weeks.
- Before that, in Meno, Plato makes a fascinating and much debated claim about
moral knowledge – about knowing what is good.
- As Stevie Wonder put it: “To know you is to love you”.
- The following is a central question in ethics: What is the connection between
thinking that helping other people is good and wanting to help other people? What
is the connection between thinking that studying hard is good/virtuous and wanting
to study hard?
- First view- everyone desires what they think are good things
- Second view- some people desire what they think are evil things and some people
what they think are good things- sometimes we want things that we think are good
and sometimes we want things that we think are bad- there is no connection-
weakness of will- when we act against our judgement- shows weakness of will is
possible and happens often whereas first view says it is impossible and never
happens- Meno defends this view whereas Socrates defends first view
 - In Meno, Plato attempts to convince us that weakness of will is impossible – that we
always desire what we know is good (77c onwards).
- Meno thinks that there are people who desire to possess evil things whilst fully
recognising their badness.
- Some of these people think that the evil things are an advantage to them.
- Socrates: And do you believe that those who suppose evil things bring advantage
understand that they are evil?
- Meno: No, that I can’t really believe.
- According to Meno, others think that the evil things they desire to possess harm
them.
Weakness of will:
Socrates: now as for those whom you speak of as desiring evils in the belief that they do
harm to their possessor, these presumably know that they will be injured by them?
Meno: They must.
Socrates: And don’t they believe that whoever is injured is, in so far as he is injured,
unhappy?
Meno: that too they must believe.
Socrates: and unfortunate?
Meno: yes.
Socrates: Well, does anybody want to be unhappy and unfortunate?
Meno: I suppose not.
Socrates: Then if not, nobody desires what is evil.
Meno: It looks as if you are right, Socrates, and nobody desires what is evil.
- The conclusion: everyone desires what they think is good. There is no such thing as
weakness of will.
- When you judge that it would be better to study but want to get to the party more,
at some level you must be thinking that it is better to go to the party (it is an
advantage, makes you happy)
- Goodness is magnetic. If we know what is good, it necessarily draws us towards it.
- This continues to be debated but Plato again set the debate in motion.
- (FROM HANDOUT) Plato is trying to argue for the first view and for the claim that
weakness of will is impossible (77c onwards) 1) If you think that evil things are an
advantage for you and desire them because of this, you don’t really understand that
they are evil. 2) No one desires evil things if they think that they will harm them
because no one desires to be injured and unhappy.

Lecture 3:

Second book in the republic- Glaucon’s challenge- presented not by Socrates but by
Glaucon- he presents a challenge.
Republic is book length- separated into 10 separate chapters of books- written much later
than other dialogues- represents Plato’s well developed philosophical views- quite long
speeches not just short sentences- more sophisticate developments.

Glaucon’s challenge:
 - Meno investigated whether virtue can be taught in Meno dialogue. This led to a
discussion on what virtue is. Meno does not get very far in investigating the
questions. This is typical for the earlier dialogues.
- In the Republic, P offers a positive account of the central virtue of justice
- This theory is put forward as a response to the central question about the value of
justice.
- Classic philosophical question (“the Holy Grail of moral philosophy”- many moral
philosophers think this is a key element of philosophy): Why be moral? How is
justice and virtue valuable?
- The second book of the Republic is famous for posing this question in an especially
clear and forceful way.
The second book of The Republic opens with a famous distinction between three different
ways in which things can be good- three different types of value. This distinction is still very
useful for the purposes of thinking about many things both in philosophy and in real life:
Glaucon: (357b-c)
1) “Don’t you describe as good something which is welcomed for its own sake, rather
than because its consequences are desired?” (these have intrinsic value ONLY but
do not have any other kind of value. Others use the term final value (a rare stamp
e.g good for its own sake- goodness is not inside stamp itself its about how its
related to other things- slightly broader than category of intrinsic value- intrinsic is
only about what’s inside). These are things that are good for their own sake and not
pursued for the sake of something else. Glaucon’s examples: pleasure, happiness,
knowledge, art. Other examples could be knowledge, art , biodiversity
2) “… and what about things which are welcome not just for their own sakes, but also
for their consequences?” (these have instrumental value only- good as a means to
something else that’s valuable- not value in of itself- Glaucon’s examples e.g
exercise, medical treatment, making money- These are things that are good merely
as means for having things that have intrinsic value.
3) “And isn’t there, in your experience, … a third category of good things … regarded as
nuisances, but beneficial, and are not welcomed for their own sakes, but for their
financial rewards and other consequences.” (have both intrinsic and instrumental
value) e.g friendship, intelligence, sight
The challenge:
- In the rest of the second book, Glaucon gives reasons why he thinks justice (the core
virtue of being a just person) has merely instrumental value and not intrinsic value-
following the moral code of society is good as a means to other things that are
good- no reason to be moral at all for its own sake
- Glaucon’s challenge for S- The challenge for Socrates is to show that being just and
moralty has both instrumental and intrinsic value. He wants Socrates to show that
we have reasons to be just also for its own sake and not merely as a means to other
ends.

G presents three reasons why morality has only instrumental value- makes challenge
harder:

1) First argument=social contract argument

- In 358e-359b, Glaucon offers a theory of the origin of morality which is supposed to
show that morality was created only because it had instrumental value. Creating a
morality was beneficial for achieving other ends.
- This theory has been hugely influential in the history of philosophy- word social
contract not used, been used in modern times. This theory begins the social
contract tradition (a term not used here). It had a huge influence on Thomas Hobbes
and John Locke and it is still defended by many people (such as David Gauthier –
morals by agreement? book today).
- Starting point= doing ‘wrong’ is good for you and ‘being wronged’ is bad for you-you
are harmed.
- If people think in this way, for most of us the disadvantages of being wronged
outweigh the advantages of doing wrong (life is nasty, short and brutish- Hobbes)
- So, people end up thinking that they cannot avoid the harmful consequences of
being wronged and they cannot get the benefits of wronging other people.
- Best thing to do in this situation= make a social contract. Everyone agrees that no
wrong is committed or received.
- This is the origin of morality as a system of rules we are bound by. On this view
morality is a compromise: morality is not ideal it is just unavoidable and necessary
1) You are wrong but you are not wronged (unattainable ideal)
2) You do no wrong and you are not wronged (social contract)
3) You do no wrong but you are wronged (likely state of nature)
- On this view, morality has value only because it prevents worse things happening to
you. It does not have value for its own sake- only instrumental value
- Morality is only practiced reluctantly and only really by those who cannot get away
with wronging others.
- And, there is nothing we can say to those who can get away with it why they should
act any differently.
- Glaucon then uses two illustrations to make this point even more vivid: Ring of Gyges
and the moral and non-moral persons.

2) Second argument=Ring of Gyges

- G tells a story about an ancestor of Gyges of Lydia (359c-360d)
- A shepherd finds a golden ring which makes him invisible.
- By using the ring, the shepherd seduces the King’s wife, kills the King and takes
possession of the throne.
- According to G we would all do this- including the moral person- everyone one of us
would do bad things if we were invisible- no one would be so strong willed to resist
this temptation
- “There is no one, on this view, who is iron-willed enough to maintain his morality
and find the strength of purpose to keep his hands off what doesn’t belong to him,
when he is able to take whatever he wants from the market-stalls without fear of
being discovered, to enter houses and sleep with whomever he chooses, to kill and
to release from prison anyone he wants, and generally to act like a god among men.”
- What does this show?- shows morality is not ‘freely chosen’- we act morally only
because we are forced to by the bad consequences in the current circumstances- the
invisibility ring makes these bad consequences go away. After this, no reason
remains to act morally. This shows that morality is not good for its own sake
 according to Gs reasoning. If you didn’t do wrong in this case, you would be a ‘first
class fool’.
- HOWEVER- could try and tell the person about an afterlife?-but is that just
instrumental as it’s a means of getting into heaven. Or convince them of an
objective morality. Convince them of the love of God and having a relationship
with G.

3) Third argument=The moral and non-moral person

- After the story about the ring, G gives a second illustration of the view he finds
appealing.
- He asks us to compare A) an immoral person- a true expert, gets away with the
crimes he commits, reputation for morality as he is getting away with it b) a moral
person- straightforward and principled but have reputation for immortality and its
consequences. Flogging, torture, imprisonment, eyes burnt, being impaled.
- We would all want to be the immoral person. There is nothing good about being the
moral person here for its own sake.
- We can just focus on the question, is being just good for its own sake independently
of its consequences? Gs answer is a resounding NO!.
- All kinds of good things happen to the immoral person – even the Gods smile on
him…
- Adeimantus’s addition: everyone sings praises of morality (the claim its good for its
own sake), the Gods and how they reward morality, but this too is merely done
because of its consequences- justice and morality is praised as good for its own sake
but this too is done for instrumental reasons.

The challenge continued:

- After G makes these three arguments he challenges S to prove he is wrong.
- S is happy to grant that being just has many good consequences. However, in
addition he needs to show that it is good for its own sake.
- That is, even if you are not enjoying the benefits of being moral (and you could get
them in immoral ways), there is still some reason to be moral for its own sake. It is
important to be a good person for itself. WHY? This is a hard question.
- Socrates METHOD: “Now we are not experts … so I suggest that we conduct the
investigation as follows. Suppose we were rather short-sighted and had been told to
read small writing from a long way off, and then one of us noticed the same letters
written elsewhere in a larger size and on a larger structure: I’m sure we’d regard this
as a godsend and would read them there before examining the smaller ones, to see
if they were really identical.
- “Would we say that morality can be a property of whole communities as well as of
individuals?”
- “It’s not impossible, then, that morality might exist on a larger scale in the larger
entity and be easier to discern. So, if you have no objection, why don’t we start by
trying to see what morality is like in communities? And then we can examine
individuals too”
- Investigate what justice is and why its important for a state and then learn lessons
and look back to individual person- Ss method
Lecture 4: State and Mind

Division of Labour
On why there is a community:
Why do we have a society in the first place?
- Animals that live in small groups, mate to have children but then they live on their
own- why are human beings not lonely individuals that only need to have
children?- Socrates answers this
- Socrates (369b): “Well … a community starts to be formed, I suppose, when
individual human beings find that they aren’t self-sufficient, but that each of them
has plenty of requirements which he can’t fulfil on his own”.
- “So people become involved with various other people to fulfil various needs, and
we have lots of needs, so we gather lots of people together and get them to live in a
single district as our associates and assistants. And then we call this living together a
community.”
- After this, Socrates and others construct an ideal hypothetical community from
scratch.
- Historically people were much more self-sufficient than they are today
First stage of society:
- Three things which we need to survive- We need food, shelter and clothing. For this
reason we need farmers, builders, weavers and shoemakers (369d).
- Two ways we could arrange this- one way is that everyone does the three things-
one day farming, one day building… OTHER WAY- is division of labour. Which one
is better? Plato at this time argues for the division of labour. Gives two arguments
for this 1) people are more suited to one type of job, we have natural talents and
skills 2) if spend time doing one of these things your develop your skills- MARX
ARGUES AGAINST THIS- shouldn’t have to do same thing throughout your whole
life
- It’s more efficient to impose a division of labour (and not have everyone do all these
tasks).
- Different people are more suitable for the tasks and they become more skilled as
well. “Productivity is increased and the quality of the work improved.”
- Need more complexity according to Plato- We need more than 4 people. We need
craftsmen who make the tools for the previous 4- need people to help. Also,
shepherds and herdsmen…
- Some things that people cant produce- need imported goods- People will want
fancy imported goods: we need traders too and something we can trade with the
outsiders. This requires more people.
- But the life is still relatively simple (an ideal described in 372a-d)
Second stage of society:
- Socrates seems to suggest that this society would be the ideal- would be pretty
simple and close to nature. HOWEVER- Glaucon says this simple society would not
be the best one- would be like animal community- not sophisticated enough-
speculation over which on is ideal for Plato simple or complicated society?
- Glaucon: you have described a community for pigs. People will want luxuries in life.
We need an indulgent community.
 - “furniture like couches and tables, a wide selection of savouries, perfumes, incense,
prostitutes and pastries (373a).” paintings, gold also mentioned- Prostitutes jumps
out- very sexist but biggest group of prostitutes at the time were young boys- not
even sexist but paedophilia- doesn’t make it better
- All of this requires more people in different professions- more division of labour
- Next we face an issue which brings a fundamental change in the community- society
has to change in a very radical way- need to introduce new group
- Now that we have property, we need to defend it (and to get more).
- We need an army (internal police and external force). This is the guardians-P uses
this word which will be a new big group of people with its own function (373e-374e).
Soldiers also will have their own natural talents and skills- new skill sets from those
that were making things
The governance:
- Socrates also argues that guardians need to be ‘philosophers’: they need to love
learning and knowledge.
- This means that the best guardians, the true philosophers, are then supposed to be
the people who govern the society.
- The philosophers are the rulers- decision makers in society- 3rd group in society, the
workers, guardians and then rulers
- The rulers need both the right natural talents and the right kind of education which
Plato goes onto describe in detail.
- He also describes the virtues of the rulers and how they are to live (from end of book
3 to the middle of book 4, book 5, most of books 6 and 7).

The Principle
The mind:
- Will talk about society next week- not need to go back to the individual person
- This is because, after all, the society in the Republic is supposed to merely illustrate
what is true of the individual.
- The society has three distinct classes who each have their own function.
- This means that, if the analogy holds, the mind too must have three distinct faculties
with their own functions.
- Plato begins to discuss this idea in the middle of the book 4 – 434d onwards.
- How are we to find the relevant mental faculties?- Plato gives two arguments
First argument:
- We expect that the individual will have three mental faculties and that these
faculties have the same purpose and virtues as the three classes in the society.
- Why should we expect this (435e)?
- We need an explanation for why there are people in the community that are very
good in the three roles (workers, guardians, and rulers).
- The best explanation for this is that people have three corresponding mental
faculties and the workings of those faculties explains what the three classes are.
- This suggests that the relevant mental faculties are the desiring part (workers- pair
with desiring part), reason (rulers) (we can pair the rulers with someone who has a
lot of reason) and the strength of will/spirit (the guardians).
Second argument: the principle
- Plato also offers a second argument which is based on a famous principle (436e):
 - “It’s clear that the same one thing cannot simultaneously either act or be acted on in
opposite ways in the same respect and in the same context.”- means if you grab one
object from one place e.g a pen you can either lift it upwards or stay still but you
cant move it in two places at the same time- cant act on it in opposite ways at the
same time- e.g of a door cant push and pull at same time
- Nothing can have opposite qualities at the same time: be both in motion and in rest.
- Applied to the case of a person: If there is a conflict in you, it must be produced by
different mental faculties pulling you into different directions.
- (439b); So, if something is resisting the pull of a desire to drink, this must be some
other part of the mind than the desiring one. Often it is the rational part – reason.
Because we are conflicted there has to be two mental faculties that push us in
different directions- it is desiring part that’s pushing u to drink and reason that tells
you not to- conflict between desire and reason
- Plato gives vivid example of this- “But there’s a story I once heard which seems to
me to be reliable … about how Leontius the son of Aglaeon was coming up from
Piraeus, outside the North Wall but close to it, when he saw some corpses with the
public executioner standing near by. On the one hand, he experienced the desire to
see them, but at the same time he felt disgust and averted his gaze. For a while, he
struggled and kept his hands over his eyes, but finally he was overcome by the
desire; he opened his eyes wide, ran up to the corpses, and said, “There you are, you
wretched! What a lovely sight! I hope you feel satisfied!”
- You want to look at corpses but also don’t- e.g see car crash kind of want to look
but don’t- another e.g is horror film
- Cant just be conflict between desire and reason- Here desire is not only in conflict
with reason (weak) but also with the strength of will which is fighting for reason. This
explains why the person is so torn.

Freud
- A lot of Fs psychology is based on this inner conflict- in same way that P did Freud
used this conflict to try and explain what the faculties of the mind are
- Sigmund Freud relied on Plato’s principle to investigate different faculties of the
mind.
- He too focused on conflicts – situations in which we are mentally torn.
- Freud posited three elements of the mind- different to Plato thought three were
desiring part, the will and the reason- F came to different conclusions about what
the three parts of the mind are
- The first classification: conscious, unconscious and pre-conscious.
- Later on: id (unconscious impulse), ego (rational component) and superego (moral
component).
Faculties of the mind:
The state:
The state has three classes:
1) The workers. They have needs and desires. Their role is to produce things in the
division of labour so that everyone’s needs are eventually met. The main virtue of
the workers is self-control.
 2) The guardians. Their role is to defend the state from both internal and external
threats. They get their instructions from the rulers. The main virtue of the guardians
is courage.
3) The rulers/the philosophers. Their role is to govern. They listen to the needs and
suggestions of the workers. They determine how to best organise the society so as to
satisfy the needs and desires of the workers. They use the guardians for this purpose
– the good of the society. The main virtue of the rulers is wisdom (different kinds of
knowledge).
The mind:
If the previous arguments are along the right lines, then the mind too has three different
faculties:
1. The desiring part. This is like the workers. The desiring part of the mind has its own
needs. Both basic needs and desires for luxury. The basic virtue of the desiring part
of the mind is self-control.
2. The strength of will part. This is like the guardians. The main role of the strength of
will is to enforce the decisions of the reason on the desiring part of the mind. It is to
make the desiring part to want what reason says is good. The basic virtue of the
strength of will is determination and courage.
3. Reason. This is like the rulers. What distinguishes reason is access to knowledge
about the world, what is good, and so on. Reason listens to the desiring part too and
considers how to best form a plan to satisfies the needs. The main virtue of reason is
wisdom.

Persons:
- Now that we have the relevant three faculties, we can consider people in whom the
different faculties are the strongest.
• Desiring, passionate and spontaneous people- desiring part of your mind has
taken over the role of reason and is making all the decisions. Could also be
hedonist person- another example of desiring person
• People who are soldier-like, whose strength of will rules. These are principled
people who are concerned with merit and honor (sometimes even
foolhardy). Spartans for the Ancients. Almost soldier like, they stick to
principle and has a lot of integrity
• People whose reason is the strongest (is this good or bad?)- they deliberate a
lot- do a lot of research- are scholarly
• What kind of a person is the best? Three different kinds of life but which
one is best
• Plato assumes reason is best one-they are best people?- Paper by Susanne
Wolf who is one of first people who challenges this idea- argues people who
are led by reason are boring- wouldn’t want to live that kind of life

States: 5 diff types of societies

- In the same way, we can classify states in terms of which group of people governs
them (Book 8, 544c onwards)- clear hierarchy
- Plato calls the best system aristocracy. This is the system where philosophers (and
their knowledge and wisdom) rule.
 - Timarchy is the society ruled by the guardians (strength of will and military
achievement rules).
- Oligarchy is the rule of the richest – they get hold of the guardians by corrupting
them.
- Democracy is a society ruled by the workers. Plato has a dim view of such a society –
it leads to chaos.
- The final development is tyranny where the strongest take over from the mass rule-
worst state in hierarchy according to Plato
- We can then go back to the mind and consider people like this.
- Many people have accused Plato of paternalism and of defending tyranny (an enemy
of the open society)

Lecture 5: Justice
SUMMARY SO FAR:
Metal City Mind Function

Gold Rulers Reason Governance/knowing/learning

Silver Guardians Strength of Maintenance of

will/spirit order/execution of the rulers
decisions/ protection
Bronze Workers Desiring part Desiring and needs, working,
production of action,
satisfaction.
- Glaucon and S constructed a city and the city had three different groups of people:
workers, guardians and rulers. All of these needed in city.
- The mind has corresponding three parts: reason, desiring part and strength of will
- Also uses analogy of three different types of metals- gold is supposed to be
corresponding with reason and rules and so on
- How he specifies each type of the city is its function- that’s the defining feature

We started with two questions:

1) What is justice?
2) Is justice good for its own sake?- why would it be intrinsically valuable
Neither of these have been answered yet

- We wanted to answer these questions first on the bigger scale (the state) and then
draw conclusions about the individual.
- Plato answers the first question in book 4, 427c-434c.
- He answers the second question in books 8 and 9. These arguments culminate in
576b-587b.
WHAT IS JUSTICE?
The main argument:
- At this point, Socrates and Glaucon have tried to describe a state that is perfectly
good in the sense that it has all virtues (427e)- nothing needs to be added- if
something was added would be worse
- They also assume that there are just FOUR virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation,
and justice. If a state (or a person) has these traits, then it (or he or she) is fully
virtuous.
- The question then is: if the state has all these four virtues, where are they in the
state (given that they have to be somewhere)? Who has them? What parts of the
mind has these virtues?
- Socrates then introduces a principle/method- it does make sense but whether it is
good method to use in this context is controversial- If we recognise where three of
these virtues are, finding the fourth one is easy – it will be in the part of the state left
over. E.g if lived in a house with four rooms, if lost key in house and then go look
for them in 3 rooms and key is not in 3 of rooms, can conclude that key will be in
last room (Jussi’s example)
- S and G then locate the three virtues that are easy to locate and give explanation
of these three virtues- start with wisdom, then courage then moderation
- Wisdom: this is ‘good counsel’ which must have to do with knowledge of things.
- The city is not called wise because of the knowledge carpenters have but because of
what the rulers know. How the state best deals with itself and other states (428d).
- So wisdom can be found with the rulers- not the knowledge that the workers have-
if city has this kind of knowledge it can make wise decision- can locate wisdom
where the rulers are
- City is called courageous because of the way it defends itself against threats. This is
done by the guardians – and so this group is where the second virtue can be found.
- Moderation is accord and harmony. Mastery of desires. This is the virtue of the vast
majority of people – the workers. But it also resides in the rulers – the same opinion-
Plato says that virtue of moderation cannot be just with workers- have to be
between workers and rulers- about harmony between what rulers decide for city
and what workers want- not enough for workers just to have moderation- needs to
be harmony.
- So, where is justice then?- should be fourth part where justice can be found
- PROBLEM= we were supposed to have 4 rooms we have used all the rooms??- we
don’t have anywhere to put justice- haven’t located justice??? (don’t understand
this problem)

Plato’s solution:
- G and S say to themselves that they are being silly and have already located justice
but haven’t seen it- if city has previous three virtues (wisdom, courage and
moderation), nothing more Is required for justice. If rulers make wise decisions,
guardians are courageous and workers and rulers are in harmony have
moderation- city already is just
- The state, described in this way, is already just when the different groups in the state
act according to their virtue.
 - Therefore, justice is not located in any one individual group or what they do but
rather in all of the state as a whole.
- So, Socrates concludes that justice consists of each group minding their own
business and not being a busybody (433a-b). Justice is each part of the city carrying
out their function- does not try to do something else that it is not supposed to be
doing
- This fits with the common sense idea that justice has to do with no one having what
belongs to others (433e).
- Meddling harms and is a form of wrong-doing. Injustice.
- This is a theory of justice that we end up with- doing your own function in the city
- common sense view of justice that Plato basis it on- you have a just state of affairs
when everyone gets what they deserve- doing your own role is identical to this
idea that you get what you deserve.

Justice and the person:

- Exactly the same theory at the level of the individual- city was the larger example
now bringing it back to individual- what G and S do in the dialogue
- This view of justice then is supposed to apply also on the level of the individual
person.
- The virtue of reason is wisdom, the virtue of strength of will/spirit is courage, and
the virtue of the desiring part is moderation (and harmony with reason).
- If your mind has these three virtues, you are already just. In a just person, each
mental faculty is in harmony – they are doing their own business and not meddling in
the affairs of the others (435c).
- Way to become immoral person is where faculty in mind tries to do something,
they are not meant to be doing at all
- At this point then, Plato has suggested a general theory of what the nature of justice
is.
- Problems with the argument: it is an argument from exclusion. Has all the
alternatives been excluded? Have we considered all virtues too? Have we considered
all mental faculties? Are there other parts of the mind as well? Not just reason,
desire and strength of will- would those parts need to be virtuous
- What if in order to be fully just person or just city have to have other virtues e.g
kind or honest- how would this affect the argument? Where would we find these
other examples?
- Jussi likes view about justice but whether argument given for it might not be
strongest argument

The value of justice

The challenge:
- Now we know what justice is. However, Socrates was also supposed to show that
justice is incredibly valuable for its own sake. In the text, these arguments are in
books 8 and 9 and especially at 576b-587b.
- Plato does this by comparing two lives again – the lives of a just and unjust man-
MAIN ARGUMENT FOR VALUE OF JUSTICE
The just man:
 - In the just man, each mental faculty is carrying out its own function virtuously
(reason is wise, strength of will is courageous, and the desiring part is moderate). No
faculty is meddling in the business of the other faculties.
- This type of a person can enjoy of inner unity, harmony and peace. This is a concrete
good.
The unjust man:
- In contrast, the unjust man must suffer from inner conflict. His mental faculties
meddle in each other’s business. This leads to conflict, regret, and fear.
- A timocratic person is governed by strength of will – a sense of duty and honour at
all costs. This leads to ruin. Strength of will takes over and rules- only care about
honour and merit- would defend their principles till the end
- An oligarchic person is governed by desire for money and greed- reason is not ruling
but desire for wealth takes over- this is bad life as money is only instrumentally
good
- A democratic person – different desires pull her into different directions. Always
regrets about other desires they fail to satisfy
- A tyrannic person – a strongest desire, an addiction, takes charge- WORST kind of
person- like an addict
- It is then supposed to be evident that these individuals are not living as good of a
life. Only by being just you can organise your inner life.
- This is the main argument, but there are also two other ones (580c-587b).
- (HANDOUT) One worry about the argument: does it really show that justice is
intrinsically valuable and not merely valuable as a means to inner harmony. Plato
needs to show that justice is constitutive of inner harmony in some stronger sense.
Christine Korsgaard has attempted to fix this argument by talking about self-
constitution (“Self-Constitution in the Ethics of Plato and Kant”).

Other arguments:
- Plato does give two other arguments for the claim that justice has a lot of intrinsic
value (580c-583a and 583b-587b).
- These rely on distinct desires and pleasures of each faculty of the mind. The basic
crux of these arguments is that whilst the desiring part of the mind desires gain and
the strength of will honour, reason desires learning and wisdom.
- The claim then is that reason can better judge the importance of satisfying these
desires (so it should rule) and that the pleasures of learning and wisdom are more
important than the other pleasures from the satisfaction of the other desires (and so
it again should be in charge).
One concern about the argument:
- Let’s grant that justice leads to harmony, unity and internal peace whereas injustice
in person leads to internal conflicts.
- One worry is that this sounds like an argument to the conclusion that justice is
instrumentally valuable. Plato needs more than this. He needs to say that being just
is somehow constitutive of inner harmony and so this value could not be gained in
any other way (justice is not merely instrumental but rather an internal essential
element of the good state of affairs).
- Another way to fix the argument: Christine Korsgaard: being just in Plato’s sense is
constitutive of being an agent. As far as you are an acting agent, you must value
 justice. Why still intrinsic is that the goods we are talking about, you cant get them
in any other way need to be just person. If this is only way then this is close
enough for being intrinsically good

THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE:

- Plato has given us a theory of what justice is is (minding your own business and not
meddling) and why this is good (inner harmony and unity).
- At this point, you might be disappointed. He hasn’t said anything about what a just
person does or why justice is intrinsically valuable. What kind of actions do morality
require us to do? This is not answered- nothing about substance of just- we want
to know what’s just.
- His actions are governed by reason and reason has an access to the IDEA/FORM of
the good.
- But, Plato hasn’t described what that idea consists of. What does a person who is
governed by the FORM of the good do? What is right and wrong?
- What would Plato say? He might not have an access yet to that FORM. We have to
wait until there are people with right natural talents and education (which he
attempts to describe in detail).
- Plato uses the allegory of the cave to illustrate what the situation is with respect to
us and those who know what is right and wrong.
- The allegory is in 514a-517c. “… human beings as though they were in an
underground cave-like dwelling with its entrance, a long one, open to the light across
the whole width of the cave. They are in it from childhood with their legs and necks
in bonds so that they are fixed seeing only in front of them, unable because of the
bond to turn their heads all the way around. Their light is from a fire burning far
above and behind them. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a road above…
- “Then along this wall human beings carrying all sorts of artefacts, which project
above the wall, and statues of men and other animals…” [so basically the prisoners
see nothing but the shadows on the wall and they start to talk about them]
- “then most certainly such men would hold that the truth is nothing other than the
shadows of artificial things”
- One prisoner is then released, but this is a hurtful experience and he wants to go
back into the cave. But gradually the prisoner would begin to see, understand and be
happy. If he went back, people would just laugh though.
- This is a very powerful metaphor
Lecture 6: Aristotle and explanations
Background: LOOK UP
- One thing to note is that Aristotle was Plato’s student. He spent decades at Plato’s
Academy in Athens.
- Because of this, his work is inevitably on the same themes as Plato’s and it draws
much from it.
- Aristotle was a great, original thinker of his own right though.
- In many cases, he criticizes Plato in illuminating way and also improves his views
significantly.
- Was more of a systemic thinker- more scientific
- A big difference in texts. Instead of polished dialogues, we get something like lecture
notes that have gaps, repetition and which are often fairly dense.
Texts:
- We’ll start from Aristotle’s more theoretical philosophy (first two weeks) and then
we’ll look at this view about the good life and virtue (last three weeks).
- We’ll be reading excerpts from his Metaphysics, Physics and Nicomachean Ethics.

WONDER:
- The famous opening sentence of Aristotle’s Metaphysics: “All men by nature desire
to know” (982a23)
- “For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to
philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, the advanced little
by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g., about the phenomena
of the moon and those of the sun and the stars and about the genesis of the
universe.” (982b12-17).
- We start from having experiences through our senses.
- Many aspects of the experience are puzzling – no wonder: the universe is a complex
and puzzling place.
- We start from simple/practical puzzles. Eventually we end up with philosophical
questions like: Is the Universe bounded? What explains the regularities in nature?
Does God exist?
- Most people think about these things. A lot of people are doing a lot of investigation
and we find learning pleasant.
- Why do we try to understand the world so hard?
- Aristotle: It’s in our nature- its hardwired, not something we choose- its inevitable.
The previous quotes tell us that we have a natural drive to acquire knowledge. Not
merely for instrumental reasons.
Wonder and explanations:
- Controversial claim: we have a natural essence. It’s the hardwired qualities that
make us who we are. We are not free to make our own nature, as Sartre would later
argue.
- That we all wonder and learn is evidence for this.
- Undeniable fact: when we wonder and when we try to alleviate our puzzlement, we
are seeking EXPLANATIONS.
- The aim of explanations is to satisfy our curiosity.
 - Many different kinds of explanations. Also, some are good, some bad, some
theoretical, some practical… So, explanations can be evaluated in different ways.
Kinds of Good Explanations: Contemporary explanations (A didn’t like)
- One way to talk about explanations: interest-relative and subjective explanations.
- Interest relative- In order for a match to light, it needs to be well-made, dry, there
must be oxygen, no strong electromagnetic field…
- Imagine that one match is lit. Why did this event take place?
- “The match was dry”: in some situations this is a good explanation. It satisfies the
inquirer’s interests.
- “It was warm enough” does so in another context.
- Subjective explanations need not even be true: that matches lit up was explained by
the presence of phlogiston (what explains the fact there is a fire is that this
phlogiston gets hots enough to create a fire- this doesn’t exist, not true).
- Aristotle is not interested in this type of explanations.
Objective explanations:
- Instead, Aristotle is looking for objectively good explanations.
- X objectively explains Y when: (only objective explanation when:)
1) X and Y are obtaining facts (phlogiston ruled out- have to exist)
2) Facts of the type X cause facts of the type Y to obtain.
- “Since the object of our inquiry is knowledge, and we do not think we know a thing
until we have grasped why it is so (where this is to grasp its primary cause), it is clear
that we must also find this in the case of coming to be, perishing, and of all natural
change, so that when we know the principles of things we can endeavour to refer
what we are seeking back to these principles” (194b17-23).
- Genuine objectively good explanations are causal explanations based on general
principles.

SUMMARY= HUMAN BENGS ARE CURIOUS, WANT EXPLANATIONS- THEY HAVE TO BE

OBJECTIVE

THE FOUR CAUSES:

- For X to explain Y, X must then be the cause of Y.
- This means that in order to understand what good explanations are like we need to
understand the notion of a cause.
- Causation is a philosophical puzzle – it continues to be much debated. Aristotle was
leading the way.
- Aristotle’s view: when we explain, we can mention different kinds of causes. Causal
explanations do not form a unified sort.
- In fact, there are always four different types of causes.
Central quote (Physics 194b23-35)
- In one sense, then, (1) that out of which a thing comes to be and which persists, is
called 'cause', e.g. the bronze of the statue, the silver of the bowl, and the genera of
which the bronze and the silver are species.
- In another sense (2) the form or the archetype, i.e. the statement of the essence,
and its genera, are called 'causes' (e.g. of the octave the relation of 2:1, and
generally number), and the parts in the definition.
 - Again (3) the primary source of the change or coming to rest; e.g. the man who gave
advice is a cause, the father is cause of the child, and generally what makes of what
is made and what causes change of what is changed.
- Again (4) in the sense of end or 'that for the sake of which' a thing is done, e.g.
health is the cause of walking about. ('Why is he walking about?' we say. 'To be
healthy', and, having said that, we think we have assigned the cause.) The same is
true also of all the intermediate steps which are brought about through the action of
something else as means towards the end, e.g. reduction of flesh, purging, drugs, or
surgical instruments are means towards health. All these things are 'for the sake of'
the end, though they differ from one another in that some are activities,
others instruments.

FOUR CAUSES:
See an object never seen before- very different- we can ask four different kinds of
questions about objects- these correspond to four different causes. First question what is
object made out of? Second- what kind is it? Third- what made the thing exist? Fourth-
why does it exist?

Material cause
- The first type of cause is the simplest.
- When you see something new and puzzling, one thing you can ask yourself ‘what is
that made out of?’.
- When you find out that it is wood, or plastic, or metal, or… at least some of your
curiosity is satisfied.
- What the thing is made out of also explains many of the qualities of that thing.
- Way to specify what the thing is made out of: Genera/genus (what is shared,
example: metal) Differentia (what is a distinguishing feature, example: species)
- Many scientists use same classification that A used today

Formal cause
- We want to know more. Even if we know that an object is made out of metal, we
want to know what it is.
- Is it a bird, a plane, a person, a statue, a car, a building, a flower or what?
- Here we want to know the structure of the thing that is made out of certain material.
This is the way in which the matter is arranged. It includes the shape and the
functional elements.
- The formal cause is what gives the thing its essential properties: the features it must
have in order to be a car or a computer or a flower.
- Aristotle thinks of these structures (the formal cause) as kinds that each have their
own essence.

Efficient cause
- After we know the material and the kind, we can also be puzzled about what caused
the material to have the shape/structure/form it has.
- Was the object man-made?
- Was it created by God?
- Was it produced by the forces of nature?
 - Evolution? Big Bang? Parents? Accident?
- What produced the thing? What made it what it is? What initiated the change?
- This is very much the contemporary understanding of a cause.
- Aristotle thought that causes in this sense are simultaneous with the effects.

Final cause
- We often cite final causes (purposes, reasons) when we explain:
1) Actions. Why did she run? She ran in order to catch the bus.
2) Events. Why was there a large protest? People marched so that their opposition to X
would be known.
3) Artefacts. Why are knives sharp? So that they cut well.
- Aristotle wanted to claim that, whatever we are explaining, we will always need to
refer to the final causes. This includes explaining why rocks fall, volcanoes erupt, and
so on. Here too we would need to find things for the sake of which these things
happen.
- Aristotle suggests that a complete, objectively good explanation must describe all
four causes.
- He also claimed that there are no other types of causes (try to come up with one!).
- E is an adequate explanation if E correctly cites each of the four causes: material,
formal, efficient, and final.
- ARGUES EVERYTHING IN NATURE HAS THIS FINAL CAUSE

Final Causes:

Two objections:
1) Final causes are merely useful fictions and so they can be dispensed with. They can
be reduced to better other types of causes. [often, beliefs and desires caused the
actions and events, and even artefacts].
2) It is also argued more strongly that the whole talk of final causes is empty and
incoherent. We must get rid of it as the success of modern sciences suggests.
Voltaire gives e.g of sleeping pills- in order to explain how they work according to
A is to describe their purpose which is to put people to sleep- but this does not
explain anything does not add anything to our understanding. If you give
information about chemistry and how it affects the human neurone system more
effective.
So, Aristotle owes us a defence of why we should accept final causes.
As Aristotle is aware:
- “A difficulty presents itself: why should not nature work, not for the sake of
something, nor because it is better so, but just as the sky rains, not in order to make
the corn grow, but of necessity? What is drawn up must cool, and what has been
cooled must become water and descend, the result of this being that the corn grows.
Similarly if a man's crop is spoiled on the threshing-floor, the rain did not fall for the
sake of this-in order that the crop might be spoiled-but that result just followed”-
Physics 198b16-23.

Aristotle’s responses:
FIRST EXAMPLE
- Let’s set actions and artefacts aside as a special case. How does Aristotle argue that
final causes are in nature?
- He asserts (Physics 199a9-20) that we have the same reasons to think that there are
final causes in nature as we have in the case of artefacts.
- We see that certain things are fitted to do certain tasks and those tasks explain what
the object is like (structure).
- Compare a Wifi-router with a heart or an eye.
- Aristotle did not think that the objects with function in nature were designed (in the
way that many people later on did).
- He thought that there are function-laden entities in nature which are designerless.
- Parts of organisms and organisms themselves too (including us).
SECOND EXAMPLE?? (NOT SURE WHICH ONE IS FIRST AND WHICH IS SECOND)
- Why not a designer?
- Well, there are actions that are done for the sake of an end even if they are not
deliberated on or designed. Tennis player.
- Lack of deliberation is compatible with teleological causation.
- Relevant difference: the tennis player has a mind whereas nature does not!

- Argument 1: But, we cannot give up thinking that things in nature have purposes:
hearts are for pumping blood, teeth for chewing…
- The claim is that you cannot eliminate these final causes from nature. That hearts
and teeth exist could not have come about as an accident.
- No one is saying this. This is why this is a bad argument: there are regularities that
are not based on final causes.

Overall:
- In all of Aristotle’s philosophy and science, teleology and final causes play an
essential role.
- He does not offer a compelling knock-down argument for this.
- Several indirect arguments such as:
1) Widening the circle: begin from actions and artefacts, broaden to parts of organisms,
organisms themselves, plants, and perhaps inanimate objects.
2) Attempt to argue that these are explanatorily necessary. This is the argument which
modern sciences have tried to challenge.

Lecture 7:
Another areas of As philosophy: view in metaphysics about what objects are and how we
can explain change
PARADOX:
- A paradox is a set of claims which are all appealing on their own but together lead to
a contradiction or some other absurd conclusion- on their own are plausible but
when put together are contradictory
- E.g. of this is The Horned Man:
1. I have not lost horns
2. What you have not lost, you have
3. Therefore, I have horns
- Before A, philosophers were. Already investigating paradoxes like this. Several
paradoxes seemed to lead to the conclusion that change is impossible.
- So, one thing Aristotle very much wanted to explain was how change is possible. This
is a significant motivation for this worldview.
- A lot of As philosophy is explaining these paradoxes
Parmenides Paradox:
- Aristotle’s own statement of this paradox is pretty cryptic:
- Parmenides Paradox- “Because [Parmenides] supposes that beyond being there is
non-being, he thinks that being is of necessity one and there is nothing else”
(Metaphysics 986b28-30)
- Here is a better way to understand the paradox:
1. If you successfully think of something, the thing you are thinking of must exist (there
must be an object of thought)
2. Everything that exists can in principle be thought of (any object is a potential object
of thought)
3. So, what is what can be thought of are the same
4. So, you cannot think of what isn’t
5. It is possible to think of change only if it possible to think of what isnt [you first need
to think of what isnt and then what is…]
6. From 4 and 5 follows that it is impossible to think of change
7. And, from 6 and 2 iit follows that change is impossible
- Of course, we think that we can think of change. However, is the paradox ‘works’, we
are mistaken about this. It is an illusion that we can think of change.
- Aristotle’s general view of the world is an attempt to deal with this paradox: to
explain how change is possible and how we can think about it.

Dissolving the Paradox: The crucial distinction

- As response to Ps paradox is in Physics, Book 1, sections 7 and 8, 189b30-191b35
- Philosopheres love distinctions. A uses here one to a great effect.
- Lets distinguish between two types of change (any form of alteration whatsoever)
1. Generation- after some process something comes to exist where there was
previously nothing- e.g big bang
2. Qualitative change- there is something that continues to exist, but it gets new
properties. E.g when you sit in the sun you get a tan, the process of getting a tan iis
e.g of qualitative change. Qualitative change is not generation. Its not that a pale
version of you diees and new a tanned you comes into being. You continue to eexist
through the change in your features.
 - A calls generation ‘coming to be’ and qualitative change ‘coming to be so and so’
- Parmenides “failed to make this distinction..and because of this ignorance [he]
lapsed into still greater error: [he] thought that nothing beyond what is comes to be
or exists, and thus [he] did away with all generation” (191b10-13)
- The crux= when you think of generation, you might have to think of something
coming out of nothing. And, perhaps this is a problem.
- However, when you think of qualitative change you do not have to think of
something that doesn’t exist.
- As plan= we can explain instances of alleged generation as instances of qualitative
change.
- In this way we can understand what is paradoxical in terms of what is not
problematic.

FORM AND MATTER

- There is part of Ps paradox which A surprisingly accepts (191b13-15)- “we also affirm
that nothing comes to be without qualification from what is not”
- So, there is no genuine brute generation. Something cannot come from nothing (BIG
BANG?)
- But, we do experience change, what is going on?

- According to A, all change involves complexity. In all change, there must always be
something that persists e.g you in the tanning case or bronze in a statue case.
- There must also be something that is gained or lost in the episode of change (so we
get qualitative change that looks like generation)
- A calls the persisting thing ‘matter’ and the gained or lost part ‘form’
- Any objection or being is then a complex consisting of both matter and form.
The argument for existence of form and matter:
1. There is change (we should not accept Ps paradox)
2. There could not be change without matter and form
3. So, there is matter and form
- All change must involve complex things- metaphysical compounds rather than
simples
- The view that each ordinary physical object (include artefacts and organisms) is a
complex of matter and form is called ‘hylomorphism’ (matter-formism)

Hylomorphism:
- Matter and form are tied to one. Another
- Matter is what underlies change in the acquisition or loss of a form
- Form is a positive attribute gained or lost by matter in the process of change.
- E.g. of a house is bricks in a certain structure. The structure (form) makes the house.
Same bricks in a different form would be a heap.
- A biological organism comes to being when the matter realises a form characteristic
of the species to which the organism belongs. Humans to.
- Difference= with organisms, an inner principle of change is part of the form of the
being (its own code of development). For artefacts, the organising principle comes
from the outside.
 - One objection= A seems to have to commit himself to primary matter- we think the
most basic elements of universe are particles e.g. atoms and parts of atoms. These
are the building blocks to everything in universe. A cannot accept this view
because if we take one of these atoms it will have qualities that change which
means for A to explain how the basic particles change he has to assume that
behind them there is matter that always stay the same and have some forms that
they lose or gain. Lots of debate in history of Philosophy, was orthodox view
before modern science- even catholic church accepted this view. Debate about
what we should say about this basic matter

Actuality and Potentiality: Second response to paradox of change

- A also mentions a second response to Ps paradox.
- Even if we might not be able to think of something that does not exist, we can still
think of something that is actually G (a thing of a certain kind) but only potentially F
(a thing of another kind). E.g a thing can be actually a nut and at the same time
potentially a tree.
- Two forms: essential forms (form what makes you who you are- explain shape and
elements- give essential qualities) Accidental forms (can change even if you remain
the same kind of thing e.g qualities like being pale/tanned- can lose and gain
easily) A says that essential forms explain a lot of accidental forms
- A then claims that there is a close connection between matter and potentiality on
the one hand and form and actuality on the other: “Matter exists in potentiality,
because it may move into a form, and to be sure, when it exists actually, it is in its
form”. (Metaphysics. 1050a15-16)
What A is saying:
1. To be matter is to exist in potentiality
2. To be a form is to be what makes what exists in potentiality to exist in actuality.
- This is slightly confusing, but potentiality and actuality are here the basic notions and
we can use them to explain what matter and form are.
- Potentiality is more than possibility. It is having a real capacity (potentiality for love
isn’t merely a possibility) that is grounded in real facts.
- E.g if take wolf he has wolf form and has potential to become a good wolf. As HB
have diff form and don’t have inclination to hunt in packs. DIFFERENT KINDS HAVE
DIFFERENT FORMS.
- GOD IS DIFFERENET HE IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAS PURE ACTUALITY NO
POTENTIALITY

Lecture 8: Good life for Human beings

Good life for Human Beings
Nicomachean Ethics:
- The rest of the three weeks we will be looking at Aristotle’s ground-breaking views
about good human life and virtue- talking about his practical philosophy
- We will focus on the first three books of the Nicomachean Ethics.
- The first question we will consider is:
- What is a good life for humans like?
- How should I live?
 - A does not start with individual actions- start with idea of a good life- start with
personalities and characters- Aristotle starts from the idea that we act purposefully.
In acting, we always pursue some goal. We can get a sense of what this goal is by
asking ‘Why?’ questions. Why did you do X?
- These questions easily chain up. In order to get food. Why did you want to get food?
In order to not feel hungry. Why do you not want to be hungry? …
- Natural assumption: at the end of the why questions there is some ultimate good
which we pursue in all actions. Question: What is this ultimate good? What is it we
are all trying to achieve?
- In As own words- “If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire
for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not
choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would
go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must the
good and the chief good.” (Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1, part 2, 1094a19-24).
- A lot of debate about whether this infers from the fact that all actions aim at some
end that there is just one end to which all actions aim. People say he makes a
fallacy- he seems to conclude from the premise that all actions have a goal or end
and this does not seem to make sense why cant there be many goals. (Jussi doesn’t
think he is guilty of his fallacy)
- Set that aside. Let’s just follow Aristotle and ask what could the ultimate good be.
The method: the way in which is is trying to approach the question
- To see how Aristotle wants to find out what the ultimate good is, let’s consider the
analogy of the “median earner”- this is not As example- just the way in which
people understand Aristotle.
- There are 3 stages to the method A uses
1. At first stage, we can give a description of the median earner. He or she is the person
who is such that if we arrange everyone in terms of how much they earn this person
is exactly in the middle.
2. We can then give the median earner a name. Call him or her ‘Alex’. Alex is defined as
the person who satisfies the previous description (the person who is such that…).
There is nothing more to the name.
3. We can finally investigate who Alex is and how much Alex earns.
- In the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle follows these three steps to
investigate what the ultimate good for us is.
Step 1:
- So, at the first stage, we must describe on a general level what the ultimate good is
like (in the same way as we had to describe what the median earner is like).
- Aristotle claims that we know five things about the ultimate good:
1. The ultimate good is pursued for its own sake (‘the good has rightly been declared as
that which all things aim’ 1094a2).
2. We wish other things for its sake (‘everything else is desired for the sake of this’
1094a20).
3. We do not wish it on account of other things (‘we do not choose everything for the
sake of other things’ 1094a21).
- These three descriptions are simple. Note that 1 and 3 are different. How? Ultimate
good would belong to things which have intrinsic value ONLY according to Plato.
- The last two descriptions of the ultimate good are a little more controversial:
 4. The ultimate good is complete (teleion-greek word). It is always choice-worthy in
itself and always chosen for itself. (“But the chief good is evidently something final.
Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what we are seeking, and if there
are more than one, the most final of these will be what we are seeking” (1097a26-
33).
- The circumstances cannot change the status – compare pleasure.
5. It is also self-sufficient (autarkes). If you have the ultimate good, your life is not
lacking in anything (1097b6-16). This is because of the presence of the ultimate good
alone.
Step 2:
- Now we can give the ultimate good – the condition in life that satisfies the
conditions 1-5 – a name in the same way that we called the median earner ‘Alex’.
- Aristotle’s name for the ultimate good is “eudaimonia”.
- This is translated as ‘happiness’, ‘fulfilment’, ‘flourishing’, and so on.
- Each of these translations have their advantages and problems.
- Note that, at this point, the word is just a name for the ultimate good that has the 5
features.
- We’ll use the word ‘happiness’ (just as long as you remember that here the word
doesn’t mean feeling content).
Step 3:
- This lets us investigate: what is happiness? What constitutes the ultimate good
which is pursued for its own sake, for the sake of which other things are pursued,
which is not wished for the sake of other things, and which is complete and self-
sufficient?
- Aristotle first goes through many conventional responses to this question and he
argues that these fall short- they are not what ultimate good is
- He then argues for his own famous alternative: his view of what kind of life is good
for human beings- some people continue to defend
- We’ll follow him in this.

Conventional views of good life

Happiness:
- There is of course much disagreement about what the ultimate good – happiness –
is:
- “Verbally, there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and
people of superior refinement say that it [ultimate good] is happiness, and identify
living well and faring well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is
they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise.” Nicomachean
Ethics, 1095a16-21.
The common candidates discussed in book 1, section 5:
- Pleasure
- Money-making
- Life of honour
- [desire satisfaction]

Pleasure:
 - A view called ‘hedonism’ which was stated by John Stuart Mill in this way: “By
happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and
the privation of pleasure”(Utilitarianism, chapter 2).
Aristotle:
- “To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type,
seem (not without some ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure
(1095b15).”
- Not much of an argument against this view other than to state that this is ‘life
suitable to beasts’.
- People who live in this way fail to recognise their rational nature – they pursue
‘unminded’ life. Pleasure pill/machine intuition.
- Pleasure is good but a life full of pleasure is not a good human life.
-
Money-making and honour:
- “The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion and wealth is
evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of
something else (1096a5).”
- In order to have a good life you have to be wealthy
- This proposal fails one of the conditions for the ultimate good: it must be pursued
for its own sake and not for the sake of something else.
- What about life of honour? Good opinion of others- you have honour when other
people think well of you- makes good life depend too much on others- other
opinions are fickle. If honour was ultimate good could go from very happy to
unhappy over night- ultimate good has to be more robust and stable
- Honour is good but not the final good (1095b23-1096a4). If you are seeking fame for
its own sake, then your happiness will much depend on the whims of other people.
Because of this, honour is not complete and self-sufficient as an end. Final good is
‘genuinely our own and hard to take from us’ (1095b24).
Desire satisfaction:
- More contemporary alternative- A doesn’t discuss thisi
- One alternative which Aristotle for some reason doesn’t discuss is the desire
satisfaction theory of happiness.
- This is a popular subjectivist view today.
- The basic idea is that happiness consists of our desires and plans being satisfied. This
is the overarching final end.

- Perhaps Aristotle would have rejected this view of the following reasons:
- Sometimes that our desires are satisfied gives us no pleasure (but rather
puzzlement).
- Some of our desires are not worthy of us. If your desires are satisfied in this case,
you might still not be living the best life for you.

SUMMARY:
- Ultimate good has to satisfy the 5 key features- saying why pleasure, money etc.
cant be goal of ultimate life

The Function Argument:

- Aristotle explains and defends his own view of the ultimate good – happiness – in
section 7 of the book 1.
- This section begins by reminding the reader of the general features of the ultimate
good and why the previous alternatives do not satisfy those conditions.
- The argument then is based on the general idea that what is the ultimate good for
humans is determined by the nature of human beings. Remember the idea that
every kind of being has a form as a nature.
- Remember also that one central part of any nature/form is a teleological structure –
what the being is for (or the potential).
- What is good for a knife can be understood in terms of the function/purpose of knife
– cutting things. This is why sharpening the knife is good for it.
- Assuming HBs have a function or purpose by nature- The idea then is that what is
good for a human being – what is the ultimate good – can be understood in terms of
the function of man.
- We then need to find the function of man. The famous passage:
- “Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude,
and a clearer account of what it is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we
could first ascertain the function of man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or
an artist, and, in general, for all things that have a function or activity, the good and
the 'well' is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to be for man, if he
has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or
activities, and has man none? Is he born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot,
and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that
man similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this be? Life seems
to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us
exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of
perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every
animal. There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational
principle” (1097b22-1098a4)
- We judge goodness in functional terms (good craftsmen, good eye, good hand).
- If human beings have a function, then we will know their goodness on the basis of
that function.
- We know the function of men, when we know what is unique or characteristic to
men.
- The distinguishing feature (cant be sense perception for example as animals have
that): reasoning: using reason both theoretically (art/science- contemplation-
learning and acquiring new knowledge) and practically (political – living together
with other people in the State). Should use both types of reasoning- theoretical and
practical
- The ultimate good for human being (a good life) is then the activity of exercising the
human function – the activity of the soul in accordance with reason-( the way A puts
it- based on his metaphysics- we have a form and the form provides that function
and we have to satisfy this function or purpose)
- This argument very much assumes Aristotle’s hylomorphism and four types of causes
which we discussed earlier.
- EXAMPLE of wolf- what’s a happy life for a wolf- start from the activities that are
characteristic to the species- to hunt in packs and live in wilderness and have
 hierarchical communities- diff species have diff characteristic species- works in
same way for humans- start with activities we do characteristically and according
to A they all involve using reason and so when we can do these successfully then
we are living a good human life.
Questions and Comments:
This argument raises a lot of questions about:
- Uniqueness (not all activities unique to humans are essentially the function of
human beings and some reasoning seems to be done by animals too). A says that
what the function of us is- we find it by thinking about what’s unique- that leads to
two problems. 1) if it turns out that dolphins e.g. could reason than reason could
not be the human function on this view and that is pretty plausible- human
function could be shared with another species 2) some of the things that are
unique to us doesn’t seem to lead to a happy life e.g. flush the toilet
- Is reasoning a self-sufficient good? Should this be understood in a very narrow sense
or broadly as activity that includes many others? Narrow= monist interpretation- its
only the actions of using your reason that are included- maybe some cases of
theoretical. Wider says we use reason in many different activities in e.g
friendships, sports, art- all those activities where you at least in part use your
reason comes under self-sufficient good- J likes second interpretation better
Note also:
- Good life is an activity: something you do rather than something that you
experience- not something that passively comes to u
- Good life is objective in a strong sense. It doesn’t depend on what you want but who
you are.
- Good life can only be evaluated over lifetime- it’s a lifetime measure- in a given
moment hard to measure how well a person’s life is going

Lecture 9: Virtue and the Good Life

Good Life and Virtue:
- Last week, we followed the function argument to the conclusion that the ultimate
good, happiness, is activity of the soul in accordance with reason.
- Immediately after this (Book 1, section 7), Aristotle gives a surprising alternative
formulation of his view:
- “human good turns out to be activity of soul exhibiting virtue, and if there are more
than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete one (1098a16-17).”
- So:
- Human Good = activity of the soul where reason is used in a virtuous manner. Not
just in accordance with reason but also have to be in virtuous manner- has to be
both- have to virtuously be using your reason
- Where does this notion of virtue come from? Nothing has been said about it up to
this point. What does virtue have to do with good life?

- We have a very moralized pre-theoretical conception of virtue. We think of it in old-

fashioned terms as personal qualities like ‘chastity’ (very old fashioned). E.g
beneficence, kindness, honesty
- This is not what Aristotle was thinking.
 - For him the word “virtue” (ârete) means excellence in a broad, non-moral sense.
Have to use reasoning in good way- be successful at it
- We too use this virtue in this sense: one virtue of a GP is that she makes a diagnosis
quickly.
- So, the previous claim means that the ultimate human good, happiness, consists of
excellent expressions of the rational features essential to human soul. Being
successful in the human activities. The claim is that what the ultimate good of
human beings is is doing the activities that is characteristic to human beings where
you have to use reason successfully, in an excellent way. If you are successful, then
you are leading a good human life.
- Note- notion of virtue means excellence or success not about being honest or kind
etc.
- This is desired for its own sake, not for the sake of anything else, and it makes life
complete and lacking in nothing.
- The rest of book 1 and book 2 will then investigate virtue generally and the rest of
Nicomachean Ethics individual virtues.
- Books for 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 discuss individual virtues but we do not go over all this on
this course.

What is virtue?
Two Parts of Reason:
- Aristotle believed that there are two domains or elements of reason: theoretical
reason and practical reason. When A talks about the faculty of reason he discusses
two different types of domains- both responsible for different activities. T=
scientific enquiry, contemplation, philosophy. P= living everyday life in political
community with other people- navigating your way around successfully in a social
world.
- Both theoretical and practical reason can be responsible for activities that exhibit
virtue (human excellence).
- As a result we get: a) intellectual virtues (theoretical reason- mainly about wisdom-
not going to talk much about it) and b) moral virtues (practical reason- what makes
you a good person).
- We will mainly focus on the moral virtues. Moral virtues are virtues (excellences) of
character. Character-traits that enable you to live paradigmatic social human life
successfully.
- These are the character-traits which a good person (a person who is living a good
human life) has.

What is virtue? (the genus):

- Argue excellences of character they could be emotions, capacities or stable states
of the soul- one thing we know about virtue is that we get praised for it and we
don’t get praised or blamed for emotions as they are not under our control and we
don’t get praised or blamed for capacities whereas we do get praised for stable
states of the soul- our character traits- we get evaluated as people.
- Aristotle first argues that virtues are neither emotions nor capacities (Book II, sec. 5).
One reason: we are praised for our virtue, but not really for our emotions or
capacities. As a result virtues must be states of the person:
 - “We must, however, not only describe virtue as a state of character, but also say
what sort of state it is. We may remark, then, that every virtue or excellence both
brings into good condition the thing of which it is the excellence and makes the work
of that thing be done well; e.g. the excellence of the eye makes both the eye and its
work good; for it is by the excellence of the eye that we see well. Similarly, the
excellence of the horse makes a horse both good in itself and good at running and at
carrying its rider and at awaiting the attack of the enemy. Therefore, if this is true in
every case, the virtue of man also will be the state of character which makes a man
good and which makes him do his own work well.” (II.6, 1106a14-24).
- Explaining quote- One thing we know about character traits that count as virtues-
when we call someone a good human being we make an overall evaluation on the
basis of their character traits. We also know (this is more important) the character
traits make “him do his own work well”- gives us definition of the virtues that are
character traits- its not that all character traits count as virtues- e.g being ill or
sleepy is not virtues- question is which character traits are virtues and answer is
last sentence- ones that make us do our work well. Work meaning characteristic
human activities- whatever humans do characteristically.

- What do character traits consist of?- The ultimate good, happiness, is activity of the
soul in accordance with reason (paradigmatic human activity).
- Virtue is a stable state of the soul that enables a person do this activity successfully –
to perform the function well (II.6, 1106a14-23). These stable states constitute the
person’s character.
- The stable state must enable the person to make the right decisions at the right
circumstances and motivate him to act in the right way.
- The state consists of beliefs (know when to say truth- e.g someone asking whether
they look nice?/ look fat?), patterns of emotions (being angry at the right time-in
order to be successful in social life have to get angry at some point and know when
not to be angry) and desires/motivations of the right sort (wanting money to the
right degree-using money in correct way will make you successful in social life) and
dispositions to have them. A right set of motivational states (a thoughtful desire).
Once have these three things (beliefs, emotions and desires) going to have stable
character trait that will enable you to be successful.
Acquisition of virtue: where can you get these character traits- how to become successful
person with these character traits who lives a happy good life.
- Aristotle did not think that moral virtues are natural. Human beings do not have
them innately as a part of their nature.
- Intellectual virtues are acquired through teaching and learning. Teaching and
learning is not enough- need practice and then they become habits
- How do we then get moral virtues? This is the topic of Book II, section 1.
- Aristotle claims that we acquire virtues very much like other skills (such as lyre-
playing).
- We first copy others often for external rewards. This requires repetition and practice.
Through repetition we acquire the skill and we also come to see the internal rewards
of the activity.
- Process of acquiring virtues that A gives us- seems to apply to many skills today e.g
playing a certain sport or learning a language
 - In the same way, we practice the paradigmatic human activities. Often this is first
based on copying others and external rewards. As a consequence, we acquire the
habit and come to see the worthwhileness of acting in this way. E.g. we might first
of all practice a sport for health results but after a while start the like the activity
for its own sake.
- Virtues are dispositions you acquire when you are young.

Doctrine of the Mean:

Appropriateness:
- We are praised for our virtue. This happens when we respond to the situation we are
in appropriately by emotion and motivation.
- So, a habitual disposition is a virtue only if the pattern of emotional responses is
appropriate. This depends on the circumstances.
- Analogy (given by A?): a healthy diet. Professional wrestler and a normal person. For
both, a good diet is the appropriate one (neither not too little nor too much) but for
them amount of food is very different.
- Moral virtues are then too ‘lying in the mean’. A virtue disposes to the appropriate
reaction in the situation (not underreacting or overreacting). The amount may
depend on the context (but not anything goes).
- Can have right reaction- right amount of emotion e.g- can overreact or underreact
but depends on circumstance.
- Some people are argue this is all subjective and relative- but not true- A says in
every context there is an objectively right thing to do- A just wants to take the
situational factors into account when seeing what the right thing to do is.
How do we know? What is the right reaction in a given case and how do we know?
- This is what differs As ethics from other ethical theories- in other ethical theories
e.g util you calculate what the right thing to do is e.g hedonic calculus- Kant u take
maxims and see whether everyone can act on same maxim- simple principles that
enable you to calculate what right thing to do is- A is completely opposed to this-
he argues the social moral world is far too complex cant provide this simple
calculation- in order to see what the right thing to do is we always have too use
judgement and rely on our emotions and motivations.
- So how can we know what the appropriate response is?
- There is no general rule. We must use judgment (wisdom) which is shaped by habit
and practice.
- “But this is no doubt difficult, and especially in individual cases; for it is not easy to
determine both how and with whom and on what provocation and how long one
should be angry; for we too sometimes praise those who fall short and call them
good-tempered, but sometimes we praise those who get angry and call them manly.
The man, however, who deviates little from goodness is not blamed, whether he do
so in the direction of the more or of the less, but only the man who deviates more
widely; for he does not fail to be noticed. But up to what point and to what extent a
man must deviate before he becomes blameworthy it is not easy to determine by
reasoning, any more than anything else that is perceived by the senses; such things
depend on particular facts, and the decision rests with perception” (II.9).
Virtues:
 - So, virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in the mean relative to
us (1107a1). “Now, it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess
and that which depends on defect (1107a3).”
- In chapter 7 of Book 2, we then get a list of virtues.
1. Some virtues have to do with feelings. Take fear and confidence. The virtue of having
these appropriately is courage. The vices: cowardice and foolhardiness.
2. Some virtues have to do with external goods like money. The virtue is liberality and
vices prodigality and meanness. e.g being liberal with your money- have to be able
to spend enough money on buying rounds for people- cant spend too little on
rounds people will think your stingy- if buy too many rounds will lose too much
money and wont be successful.
3. Some virtues have to do with social life (anger, truth-telling and humour). With
truth-telling, the virtue is truthfulness and the vices boastfulness and mock modesty.

Right and Virtuous Action:

A puzzle:
- Section 4 of book II contains an interesting discussion of virtuous action.
- We get a distinction between doing a virtuous action and being virtuous
- It is clear that for Aristotle there must be a distinction between a virtuous action (the
just act, the temperate act – these are done in accordance with the virtue) and
acting virtuously (acting justly, acting temperately). Why?
- Well, when we are not yet virtuous ourselves, we can still do the actions that are
virtuous. After all, by practicing these actions, we acquire virtues.
- For Aristotle, acting virtuously seems to be primary and then we can use the account
of acting virtuously to explain what the virtuous action is.
- E.g telling the truth- someone who is not fully honest might not be a virtuous
person butt can still be honest- a fully virtuous person also tells the truth- they can
both act virtuously- being virtuous requires more than just carrying out a virtuous
act.
Acting virtuously:
- A person is acting virtuously when:
• She knows what she is doing (“in the first place he must have knowledge”).
So you can keep your promise virtuously only if you know that you are
keeping the promise (and not do this accidentally). E.g if you borrow book
and return it- in order to do it virtuously then need to know your returning
it- if just doing it because you think your friend might want it and not
remembering your promise to give it back.
• She aims to do what she is doing ‘for what it is’. That is, the person must be
keeping the promise, for example, for its own sake (and not for the sake of
some further reward). E.g if return book to library late just in order to avoid
fine then not doing action virtuously rather only if you think you should
return book that’s late- that’s only way you can act virtuously.
• Most controversial- The action is produced by ‘a firm and unchangeable’
character-trait, which counts as an excellence (helps with paradigmatic
human activity). Something you would normally do- not a one off action-
would not be enough to act virtuously.
 - In contrast, you can do virtuous actions even if you are not acting virtuously. In this
case, you do what the person, who has the virtue would do virtuously, without
satisfying the conditions.
Virtue Ethics:
- This difference between acting virtuously and virtuous action has lead virtue ethicists
more recently to suggest a general theory of right and wrong actions.
- According to this view, an act is right if and only if, and just because, it is an act
which a fully virtuous agent would do characteristically.
- Define what’s right and wrong in terms of what the fully virtuous agent would do-
put the fully virtuous person in your situation- see what they do- right action is by
definition the one that the fully v person would do and wrong ones is the one that
the fully v person would avoid.
- We can then supplement this with virtue rules “be kind”, “be truthful”, “be
courageous”. Might not know what the fully v person would do- v ethicists have
given rules of thumb- take character traits that count as virtues- e.g kindness-
would say be honest or be kind- we can start from these virtues rules which are
based on descriptions of the virtues themselves- this is from Rosalind Hursthouse
virtue ethics. Julia Annas also virtue ethicist.
- But, this is not a decision procedure. Virtue ethicists emphasise that there is an
ineliminable element of judgment when it comes to right and wrong.
- (47.40) Right and wrong is last step- start from function argument- uniqueness of
humans then get to activities we use reason- leads to happiness and ultimate
good- use ultimate good to define virtues and character traits- they enable us to be
successful- then use character traits to define right and wrong. FUNCTION-
ACIUTIVTIES- CHARACTER TRAITS- RIGHT AND WRONG ACTIONS- order is
important

Lecture 10: Choice and Responsibility

Voluntary Actions:
- Aristotle discusses philosophy of action- what’s difference between action and
events- answer has to start with your thinking- action is produces by something
that goes own in your mind but when there is a reflex nothing happens in your
mind.
- Not first person to discuss free will and responsibility- first to discuss philosophy of
action?
- In the first five chapters of Book 3 of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle both begins
philosophy of action and makes a significant contribution to thinking about moral
responsibility and free will philosophically.
- When we talk about talk about moral responsibility, we are interested in the
appropriateness of blame and praise. Someone is morally responsible to blame
someone when it is appropriate or fitting
- The appropriateness of blame and praise is then assumed to depend on whether the
actions of the agent were genuinely “up to her”.
- These topics are still very much investigated in contemporary philosophy and it all
begins here.
Terminology:
 - If have all actions (past present and future and possible ones) in one box- it is a
logical space-the logical space represents the possible and actual actions. A divides
these actions into 3 parts. Voluntary, involuntary and not voluntary.
- Voluntary – intended action- these are the actions we are responsible for
- Involuntary – contrary to the intended action- against what you intend to do- end
up doing opposite of what you intended
- Not voluntary or non-voluntary – unintended- the middle ground in the box- don’t
intend to do them but not against what you intended to do- inbetween the other
two in the box

- Good and bad characters are liable for praise and blame, and so are also actions that
‘flow’ from these characters- character is primary target of our evaluation- action
reveals a persons character
- Which actions are then relevant for determining a person’s character? Which actions
are liable for praise and blame?
- People are praised and blamed for voluntary/intended actions and receive a pardon
for involuntary/contrary to intended actions (1109b30 (the opening sentence of the
section)).
- We then want to know when actions are involuntary/contrary to intended? When is
a person not responsible for what she does? When are characters indicative to who
they are?
- The actions we are responsible for are the ones that flow from a person’s
character-** it is the first box (voluntary actions) which we are responsible for as
we intended the actions. Involuntary actions don’t tell you what sort of a person
you are so we cannot be responsible for them.
Causes of non-voluntary actions?:
a) FORCE:
- Action is involuntary/contrary to what is intended when it is produced by an external
force.
- Imagine that someone pushes you into another person. You push them involuntarily.
You did not want to do it in any sense. The action was not produced by you (“moving
principle is outside” 1110a).
- Pressure of circumstances does not count for him: Think of kidnapping/ransom cases
or the ship’s captain who has to throw the cargo overboard because of the storm.
- For Aristotle, these are voluntary and intentional actions even and so the agent is
responsible (but not to be blamed because they often do the right thing). “They are
chosen at the time and the end of an action is relative to the occasion” 1110a12.
- Moving principle is inside the agent – it is in her power to do and not to do.
b) IGNORANCE:
- Ignorance would belong in middle character- non-voluntary actions
- E.g Buy sweets from shop and didn’t know they were poisonous and give it to your
friend
- A says three things about ignorant actions:
- If you had known what had happened and you would not have done it then you
are not responsible- e.g if you would not have given the sweet to your friend not
responsible- if you had known would have been involuntary action
 - If your responsible for your own ignorance then you don’t have excuse- if you get
so drunk you do not what’s happening around you you have no excuse because
you are responsible for making yourself ignorant/drunk in the first place.
- Other type of case is when you are ignorant of facts, which, had you known them,
would have led you to act in a different way. This is discussed from 1110b7 onwards.
- Distinguish between:
- Involuntary – contrary to what you intend
- Non-voluntary – unintended
- The mere fact that a feature of your act was unknown to you (and therefore
unintended – non-voluntary) is not enough to remove responsibility.
- Responsibility removed only if the feature was contrary to your intention. If you had
known, you would not have done the act. “If I had only known”.
- No excuse if you are responsible for the state of ignorance (1110b25-32). Only
excuse if ignorance of particular facts.

Choice
- Why is Aristotle then interested in choice? Because chosen actions definitely reflect
character and they are also voluntary (from handout)
- Actions that reflect character are voluntary and what it is appropriate to blame and
praise. Which ones are they?
- At least, all chosen actions are like this. As Aristotle puts it, choice “better indicates
character than action does (1111b6).”
- Note that even if all chosen actions are voluntary and intended, not all intended and
voluntary actions are chosen (animals, children, spur of the moment). There can be
some voluntary actions for which we are responsible and did not actively choose to
e.g young children can do things voluntarily even if they cannot choose to do these
things/ when your dog plays with you, he intends to play with you but does not
indicate that he chooses to.
- The question then is: what is choice?
Choice and other motivations:
- Aristotle distinguishes choice from 3 other motivations:
1. Choice is not appetite (desire) or spirit (anger). Choice has to do with using reason.
And, choice can conflict with appetite/spirit. In cases of weakness of will, the latter
win out (1111b13-15).
2. Choice is not a rational wish either. We can rationally wish impossible things but not
choose to do them (1111b20-22).
- You can only choose what is in your power. You can choose to apply for a job but not
choose to get it- as you cannot have power over the result- you have access to
means but not the end result
- This is why Aristotle thought that you cannot choose the end (success – getting the
job) but only taking the means to an end (apply for the job). So, what is choice?
- “what has been decided by earlier deliberation (1112a15).” Choice is what is
intended as a result of deliberation!
Deliberation:
- So, in order to know what counts as a choice, we need to understand what
deliberation is.
- We start from an envisaged goal (achievement).
 - We deliberate about how to achieve that goal. As a consequence of this deliberation,
we intend to take certain means to the goal.
- Intending to take those means is the CHOICE. The choice best reflects the agent’s
character and it is what you are appropriately blamed/praised.
- When we deliberate about the means and settle on one action- this is CHOICE.
Have a goal- deliberate about the means- decide on an action- this is the chouce-
choice is piickiing the best means in your deliberation.
- Example: you might have the goal of getting to London. You deliberate about how to
get there and as a consequence you take the 11.04am train from New Street station.
- “We do not deliberate about ends, but about how to achieve them. For a doctor
does not deliberate whether he will cure nor an orator whether he will convince...
nor does anyone else deliberate about his end. But having laid down an end, they
consider how and by what means it will be attained (1111b11-16).” We cannot
deliberate about the means we have- seems counterintuitive as we can think ab
out our own goals in life e.g having a family (Objection raised) and we do not
merely think of the means
- It’s not altogether clear why Aristotle thinks this. Why is the case that we cannot
deliberate about ends?
- This is where different interpreters disagree.
- Criticism of A- David Wiggins: the end of happiness is set for us. We can deliberate
what is consists of and how to achieve it. Even if goal of happiness is set for us we
can think about what does happiness consist of and what the means to happiness
are- you are really thinking about the elements of your happiness not actually
thinking about the means and goals of your happiness. (11.36)

Freedom
Chapter 5:
- In the first 4 chapters of book 3, it has been assumed that in general we are
responsible for our actions, we intended to do them, we choose to do them, and we
can be appropriately praised and blamed.
- After chapter 5, Aristotle turns to discussing individual virtues.
- In chapter 5 of the book 3, Aristotle discusses the presupposition of the previous 4
chapters. In doing so, he faces what has later been called the problem of free will.
- Later on, this topic became pressing because of theological predestination and
scientific determinism. Aristotle doesn’t discuss the problem in those terms, but he is
discussing the same topic (in a ground-breaking way).
- Reason we are sceptical about moral responsibility- laws of nature are true and
god has perfect knowledge
Initial thoughts:
- Aristotle already mentioned the issue quickly in chapter 1 of book III. Excuse:
pleasant (cant say was doing the most pleasant thing- just an excuse) and good
things force you to act in the way you do. The actions you do because u think are
pleasant or good things are voluntary actions- still deliberating about the means of
the actions and therefore you are responsible for these actions.
- Aristotle: this would make all actions forced. Instead, what you do with pleasure is
paradigmatic voluntary/intended action (1110b9-17).
 - In book 5, Aristotle takes things more seriously. He begins from the idea that we
have to be consistent:
a) If it is in your power to act, it is in your power to refrain from action.
b) If it is in your power to act rightly, then it is in your power to act wrongly.
c) If you excuse thieves and vandals (heredity/environment), you cannot praise good
people either.

The problem:
- In 1114a, Aristotle really faces up to the problem.
- Aristotle: we are born without character and we acquire a character through
training.
- The people who educate us are responsible for our character- our character is based
on our education. Because of this, they are also responsible for the actions that we
do in accordance with our character.
- They should be blamed and praised and not us.
- Culpable ignorance: you should have known better.
- The excuse the person can give: I’m not the sort of person who will find out. This is
determined by how I was brought up.
- Aristotle: we are still responsible because we are responsible for becoming the sort
of person we are (even if this is bad). How so?

Aristotle’s solution:
- As a solution to the previous problem, Aristotle appeals to reason.
- Even if you are brought up to be a thief or a vandal (who will unless changed end up
in misery), you can always change – whatever training you had. This is because you
can use reason to recognise the facts and then retrain yourself better.
- Even if you have bad education still have opportunity to use your reason to figure
out your that kind of person and try to carry out actions that change your
character- should be able to exceed the upbringing and education u had- because
you had the ability to use your reason to do this you are responsible for your
action. Would that depend on your character too if you decide to do that?
- Smokers, drug addicts and so on. They too can see where they are heading to, make
an effort to change and sometimes they do succeed.
- Because of this, we are in part responsible for our character and the actions that
flow from it.
- Does this remove the philosophical problem? What would the free will sceptic say?
How would Aristotle respond?
- Aristotle recognises an element of luck.

The challenge (regress):

- Choice=deliberation + goals provided by character.
- You are responsible for choice only if you are responsible for your character.
- You are responsible for your character only if you chose it.
- Your self-forming choice is a consequence of deliberation and your earlier character.
- You are responsible for your self-forming choice only if you are responsible for your
earlier character.
- You are responsible for your earlier character only if you chose it.
- Your even earlier self-forming choice is a consequence of deliberation and even
earlier character…
- See where this is going. And it cannot go on indefinitely. When you were born you
did not have the first character.
- Is there anywhere we can break this chain? Aristotle was not clear on this.