Studies in Meaning home
Ethics and Logic in High School
An Outline
For a Course In
HIGH SCHOOL ETHICS
By
Joseph Sguigna
EXTRACTS CONCERNING ETHICS FROM THE MANUSCRIPT
ETHICS AND LOGIC IN HIGH SCHOOL
Joseph Sguigna
FOREWORD
The following pages outline an extract for the implementation of a public high school ethics (or moral values) course as has been successfully taught by me for ten years (1972 -1982) at Holly wood Professional Academic School, Hollywood California.
CONTENTS
1. Extracts Concerning ETHICS from the Manuscript
"ETHICS AND LOGIC IN HIGH SCHOOL"
2. Course Outline for Ethics Course
3. A Preliminary Teacher's Manual for Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
4. A Preliminary Teacher's Manual for Plato's The Republic
5. Selections of Students' Evaluations of High School Ethics Course, and Writing Assignments on
Ethical Issues
6 Bibliography
Prefatory Remarks
The following compendium consists of extracts from a more comprehensive treatment of parts 2 and 3 of the ethics segment of my manuscript, Ethics and Logic in High School. These extracts deal with my personal experience of teaching these subjects at the high school level, grades 10 through 12. Should some of the statements in these extracts seem somewhat incomplete or arbitrary, I would suggest the reading of the entire manuscript in order to derive a broader perspective and understanding of this crucial subject matter concerning the teaching of moral values at the secondary level.
HIGH SCHOOL ETHICS AS A STUDY
The teaching method of the class is ethical enquiry, not moral instruction.The class is directed from an analytical, psychological, humanistic approach.
Such concepts as happiness, virtue (or moral excellence), moral responsibility, friendship, justice, integrity, the distinction between a moral act and a moral agent, etc., are discussed in depth and in relation to practical living.
As a disciplined academic study, there is no place for sermonizing, moralizing,, indoctrinating, reforming,, nor the resolving of personal problems.
High School Ethics not Taught in a Religious Content
Ethical enquiry (or philosophical ethics) is not a religious study.
Moral conduct nowadays is based more on humanistic motives than on religious considerations.
Altrusim, self-realization, moral honor, moral obligation, utilitarianism, are some motives other than religious ones for acting rightly.
Religious morality is too rigid and self-denying for most of the younger generation to ascribe to.
For ethics (or moral values) to have meaning to most young people, it must be more earthward, closer to man, humanistic.
However diverse one's moral motives and incentives may be (religious or otherwise), I can see no reason why anyone cannot learn and profit by different perspectives to the same subject matter other than one's own perspective.
ACADEMIC ADVANTAGES AND RELEVANCE OF HIGH SCHOOL ETHICS
Advantages:
Ethical enquiry fosters the student's analytic powers through discussion and writing.
Ethical enquiry sharpens the student's readiness of mind to be better able to deal effectively with moral situations.
Ethical enquiry can and does contribute significantly to constructive, effective thinking and learning in matters closest to us as moral beings.
Relevance
Our culture has reached a crucial stage in its moral consciousness which can no longer be ignored; this holds especially in such areas as equality, justice, respect, integrity, consideration.
Young people nowadays are more aware of moral and social issues than ever before; and so are more receptive, perceptive, capable, and in need of moral guidance and discussion.
My own observations of student discussions on ethical matters bear out their good sense and keen recognition of falseness and insincerity.
PROPOSED PROCEDURE, CONTENT, AND MATERIAL IN TEACHING ETHICS
Preliminary Remarks:
Ethics cannot be adequately taught through, or as an adjunct tog, other studies, such as history, psychology, literature, etc. However, ethics can be introduced through these subjects.
The home and church, while helpful, are generally not sufficiently qualified teaching agencies to be capable of dealing adequately with today's complex and existential issues and concepts.
Two Problems to be Considered:
1. The teaching procedure of ethical enquiry.
2. The question of qualified teachers.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, OBSERVATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS IN TEACHING ETHI C S
The teacher must recognize that not all students are interested in the subject matter, or with class discussions, for various reasons.
The class has to be conducted on two fronts: (1) teaching the subject efficiently and challengingly, (2) moderating efficiently, class discussion.
Such controversial topics as religion, politics, sex, are best avoided by adhering to text material.
The teacher must be neither dogmatic, absolute, attitudinal, nor partial to any one student to the exclusion of, or fairness to, the ideas of others. Ideas, and not personalities, are what count.
Comments and criticisms of students' ideas by the teacher are to be given in fairness and respect for their efforts., however erroneous, or "ridiculous."
I begin each semester by imparting the following information to the students:
1. That the subject matter of ethics deals with moral conduct and values with which they are all more or less familiar.
2. That the procedure and progress of the course depend largely on class participation: questions, evaluations, comments, criticisms.
3. That they will doubtlessly hear ideas, and points of view contrary to their way of thinking, and perhaps not to their liking; but that If they are open-minded and objective enough, they will learn that many views can be held on one subject, that not everything is either black or white, or only as they considered it to be.
4. That they should feel free to criticize constructively text material, my interpretation of it, as well as the views of other students, without fear of displeasing the teacher and thereby jeopardizing their grades;-as a matter of fact, I reassure them that their critical comments can only benefit their grades, because then I know that they are interested, and are thinking about the material.
5. That no personal problems are to be discussed, though any personal experiences which may supplement class material is welcome.
6. That the course does not include moralizing, or moral instruction; rather, that it is concerned with what it means to be good, not with making the students good -- if that results, fine; but that is not the main purpose of the course.
7. That the two main objectives of the class are to enhance and refine the student's moral consciousness, and to clarify as well as verify his own feelings and thoughts on ethical matters.
8. That most certainly they will at first be confused by the complexities of the subject-matter; but to' be patient, and they will gradually see their way clear. I inform them not to expect hard and fast answers to the Issues that arise, and that in fact we will often leave a topical discussion more confused than when we started. I impress upon them that though absolute answers are extremely hard to come by in the realm of ethical conduct, still there are constructive answers to be had, and that our inquiries will help stimulate clear thinking when confronted with moral perplexities.
9. That they will be writing philosophical papers on text and 'discussion material, which will require precise, specific thought.
10. That the study of ethics is to understand the material rather than to memorize it; and consequently because of the difficulty of the subject, we will proceed slowly but surely.
After these opening comments, I then proceed to introduce the class to the general scope of the subject-matter by presenting various definitions of 'ethics'.
Next, I present the class with various moral problems in order to give them a feel for the complexities of resolving such problems.
As Regards Textbooks
I briefly introduce our two authors and their works scheduled to be studied for the year: first semester, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (The word "Nicomachean" in the title refers to Aristotle's son Nicomachus for whom the book was posthumously titled); second semester, Plato's Republic.
These two unique classics of Western thought I consider to be ideal because they examine in considerable detail and with rare simplicity the fundamental problem of human conduct which in one way or another deeply affects us all for good or for ill: namely, the relationship between happiness and virtue (i.e. right conduct).
I discountenance of any textbook which presents a comparative approach to various ethical theories, because too many contrasting ideas would be too much for the student's mind to absorb sufficiently, or to derive a clear understanding of any one theory. Too much knowledge at one time would diffuse as well as confuse the beginner's mind. Besides, the object of this course is concerned not so much with expounding moral theories as it is with providing reasons for being moral. Hence the historical approach would defeat the purpose of an in-depth study of the subject.
My 10 years experience of teaching high school ethics has thoroughly demonstrated to me that, taken slowly, and in conformity with the general intellectual level of the particular class, high school students can very easily comprehend the profound and abstract thoughts of Aristotle and Plato; and that after the initial stumbling blocks in introducing the style of these authors, students generally "catch on" and continue to move fairly easily through difficult material. There is an essential procedure to be pursued here; namely: be sure that most students understand each fundamental step of the subject matter before moving on to the next.
There is material in each text that is beyond the ken of most students, and so the teacher will accordingly gauge the material to be omitted. The teacher's manual will guide them in this.
The fundamental good sense that issues from both philosophers has a very apparent and satisfactory appeal to .practically anyone's sense of right conduct.
Both Aristotle and Plato have a rudimentary, though sound understanding of human nature; so much so, that on reading them, it is evident that though moral conventions have changed through the centuries, human nature intrinsically has not.
Both philosophers indirectly deal with the crucial distinction between social morality, which varies with time and place, and moral virtues which are permanent intrinsic habits of mind and action not subject to variation of time and place. [I discuss this distinction to some length in the manuscript, pp. 59-61.]
Contrary to chronological order, I teach Aristotle first semester and Plato second for the following reasons: (1) Aristotle's treatment of the relation of virtue and happiness is an easier introduction to the subject, and (2) whereas Aristotle's study is wholly positive, Plato introduces sharp criticism to the moral life of which he. must answer, and does convincingly.
As to my manner of teaching these two masterminds, I do so slowly, and step by step. I read a passage, and depending on the range of difficulty and pertinence, I ask questions on the materials expand the topic, sometimes critically evaluate it, and answer questions and comments by the students. Once I am certain there is a general satisfactory understanding of each pertinent passage, I then move on to the next.
I do not intend to cover the whole of either book in a semester,, nor do I think it necessary to do so; since there is more than enough matter for discussion packed into practically every paragraph of these two thinkers to keep a class busy and interested through the school year.
With Aristotle, I normally cover the first two books (or chapters, in our method of book division) including the sections on the various virtues in books three and four.
With Plato, I normally cover the first part of his Republic (approximately 143 pages) Which takes us through a critical analysis of various overgeneralized definitions of justice, to the -projection of an ideal society, to the definitive meaning of justice (or right conduct). Excellent fundamental psychology is included in the text.
By not being rushed to complete "so many pages each day," I am able to maintain a rather relaxed attitude, which contributes very effectively to the learning process of a difficult subject.
THE QUESTION OF QUALIFIED TEACHERS
Properly moderating the class in an orderly disciplined manner is essential.
The teacher must be perceptive to the sensibilities of the students as well as to the topics in discussion.
The teacher must ever be alert not to inject his own personal biases or prejudices into discussion.
It is to be hoped that a high school ethics course would not only help to enhance young people's ethical awareness academically, but practically as well, inasmuch as this awareness might contribute to the improvement of family relationships. Hence, for a teacher to teach the class in such a way as to offend either the intelligence or feelings of the students would be to automatically defeat this possible purpose of improving family relationships; for he would turn parents against the course. [A briefly extended discussion (pp 64-65) on how an ethics course can help improve family relationships is presented in the manuscript.]
My experience in teaching high school ethics bears out that the first imperative for the instructor is that he teach the text material faithfully; and that when he does expand or deviate from it, always to keep the author's view in mind; otherwise the students will surely recognize, to their chagrin, that he is interested in expounding his own ideas than Aristotle's or Plato's. He is to keep his own personal feelings, opinions, biases, and peculiarities at the barest minimum.
An ethics teacher, especially, is more or less on trial by the more perceptive students until he has gained their confidence and respect. This is true of an ethics teacher mainly because of the subjective nature of the study. He or she must riot only "know his business," but be able to maintain the delicate balance between interpersonal rapport and professional distance. This balance establishes mutual respect, and forms a common humanity which can inspire the students to feel that the instructor in his professional dignity is nevertheless "one of us."
As regards the professional qualifications of the ethics instructor, I would propose that perhaps the most suited would be those of the philosophy graduate who has not only specialized in ethics, but has had a comparatively liberal education. As a matter of fact, I think that a liberal education in the humanities, literature, history, science,, and so forth, is the main requisite of an ethics teacher regardless of his special field; though, of course, the philosophy graduate would be the most qualified; with the exception of social studies instructors, and perhaps even English teachers. Social studies instructors have the advantage of being trained in history, sociology, political science, and so forth, which would be an important advantage in teaching Aristotle and Plato since they both recognized the inseparable link between ethics and politics, as is witnessed in their treatments of ethics.
In any case, trial and error I think will reasonably determine this thorny issue. One thing is likely though, and that is, that instructors who are dedicated to teaching moral values to young people, and who are sufficiently prepared with a background of research and interest In the subject, and who have foresight and sensitivity, will be successful in imparting this knowledge.
COURSE OUTLINE FOR HIGH SCHOOL ETHICS
Title of course: ETHICS
Prerequisite: None
Requirements met by course:
Graduation x
College Preparatory x
Elective
Grade Levels: 10, 11, 12
Credit: 5 units per semester
Course Description:
Course is an Introductory study of moral conduct presented through the ethical Writings of Aristotle and Plato. Such topics as the nature of happiness, and the foundations and development of moral virtue will be examined and critically evaluated in light of the principles of human nature and conduct.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals:
To attain an enhanced awareness and deeper understanding of ethical concepts., such as, justice, right action, integrity, friendship, responsibility, honor, practical judgment, &c., in relation to personal and interpersonal conduct.
To Instill in the student a well-balanced perspective and insight into the fundamentals of human nature and behavior.
To develop a more discerning outlook of the various instances and consequences of ethical situations.
To provide a more panoramic viewpoint of moral conduct in contrast to a narrow, subjective, opinionated view.
Behavioral Objectives:
The student will do the following:
Critically comment and evaluate text material in open discussion.
Paraphrase in writing, daily, pertinent text material.
Write a philosophical term paper on independently chosen textbook chapter.
Be responsible for homework writing assignments once or twice a week based on discussion material.
Evaluation Criteria:
The student will be able to do the following on completion of course:
Correctly identify, explain, and spell the basic terms of the course.
Explain orally, or in writing, the fundamental insights he has gained from the course.
Be better able to evaluate ethical situations and standards.
Be more conversant with the motives and intentions underlying moral conduct.
Be able to demonstrate a more objective, comprehensive, and understanding attitude toward the basic notions of moral values in their manifold settings.
Textbooks: Nicomachean Ethics, and The Republic
Course Topics:
Fall Semester:
Happiness
Moral virtue
Moral responsibility
Friendship
Practical Wisdom
Textbook: Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (translated by Martin Ostwald, Bobbs-Merrill)
Winter Semester:
A comprehensive study of justice (or right conduct) in relation to the individual and the state.
Textbook: The Republic, Plato (translated by Francis MacDonald Cornford, Oxford)
A TEACHER'S MANUAL [Sample]
For
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
CENTRAL IDEAS OF ARISTOTLE'S ETHICAL PHIL0SOPHY
1. The highest good attainable by human activity is happiness which results from both moral virtue in action and of contemplation of universal and eternal truths. Happiness also requires sufficient external goods to ensure health, leisure, and the opportunity for virtuous actions.
2. Moral virtue is a disposition or habit of mind which consists in observing a relative mean between two extremes of excess and deficiency in actions and emotions. Moral virtue is not possible without practical wisdom which deals with what is just, noble, and good for man.
3. Moral virtue is acquired by a combination of knowledge, habituation, effort, and self-discipline.
4. Virtuous acts require conscious, voluntary choice motivated by right reason. Some people are more naturally disposed to virtue than others.
5. Man is morally responsible for his actions.
6. A morally strong person enjoys bodily pleasures moderately and is rot overcome by them; a morally weak person is one who pursues bodily pleasures to excess and contrary to right reason.
7. Friendship is of two general types: perfect and imperfect. Imperfect friendship is either one based on mutual utility or usefulness, or one based on mutual pleasure. Perfect friendship is ore based primarily on the goodness of character between people.
8. Pleasure in itself is a human good, but the pleasures proper to man are those which complement him as a rational being engaged in virtuous and contemplative activities.
9. A life active in conformity with virtue contributes essentially to a happy life, but the highest degree of happiness is attained by the wise man engaged in contemplation.
10. Moral virtue involves social interaction, and so favorable social conditions are necessary for moral action. Accordingly, ethics and politics are closely related, for politics is the science of creating a society in which men can live the good life and develop their full potential.
TOPICS COVERED IN THE NIC0MACHEAN* ETHICS
Book 1, Chap. 1-3: The nature of Ethics and methods of studying Ethics.
Book 1, Chap. 4-12 Extensive discussion of the nature ofHappiness as the highest good of
human life.
Book 11, Chap. 1-9: Discussion of the nature of moral virtue and its attainment.
Book 111, Chap. 1-5: The meaning of free choice and its relation to virtuous action and moral
responsibility.
Book 111, Chap. 6-12, and Book IV: Discussion of particular virtues.
Book V: Justice.
Book Vl: The Intellectual Virtues relating to excellence of thought.
Book Vll, Chap. 1-10: Continence (moral strength) and Incontinence (moral weakness).
Book Vll, Chap. 11-14: Discussion of pleasure.
Book Vlll and IX: Friendship.
Book X, Chap. 1-5: Further discussion of pleasure.
Book X, Chap. 6-8: Happiness as the end of human life.
Book X, Chap. 9: The relationship between ethics and politics.
The essential topics of the text, happiness and moral virtue and the relation between them, are discussed in Books 1 and 11 including an extensive discussion of the particular virtues (truthfulness, generosity, courage, gentleness -- or calmness, wittiness, friendliness) in Book 111, Chapters 6 -12, and Book IV.
A well-covered one semester course will normally leave little time for further discussion of the other six books, which is just as well, since they are generally highly abstract, and I think above the intellectual capacity of most students. However, they do contain some extremely interesting and pertinent subjects, such as, friendship, pleasure, free choice, moral strength and weakness, contemplation, which the teacher can assign to the students as a term project.
CHAPTER OUTLINE OF BOOK 1 WITH SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
BOOK ONE: HAPPINESS AS THE CHIEF END OF MAN
Ch. 1: The Good as the Aim of all Action
Outline
All human endeavors aim at some definite good as their end.
There is a diversity of ends, some of which are activities solely (e.g. singing), and others, products as the result of activities (e.g. a ship as the result of shipbuilding).
The end (e.g. a ship,) is more important than its means (shipbuilding).
There are as many ends (or goals) as there are actions, arts, and sciences; e.g. the end of medicine is health, the end of strategy is victory.
Some ends are subordinate to a more essential or master end, as for example,, the purposes of carpentry, plumbing, plastering, painting, etc. owe their existence to the master science of architecture. Accordingly, the ends of the master sciences are preferable to the subordinate sciences.
LEADING IDEA FROM TEXT.. BOOK 1, CH. 1
(a) "...the good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim."
Suggested Topics for Discussion & Writing Assignments:
By "the good," what does Aristotle mean: (1) good as the proper end of an activity or function? (2) good as an ideal aimed for though never perfectly achieved? (3) good as being pleasurable? (4) good as being happiness?
Do "things" aim at what is good, such as an acorn, planetary motion, earthquakes, and other such natural phenomena?
What is the difference between "things" which aim at the good, and "man" who aims at the good? Consider the difference between acting by choice and natural movement, as the earth on its axis.
Consider the problem that some people seem to aim at self-destruction and evil rather than good. Is this their good?
Ch. 2: Politics as the Master Science of the Good
Outline
If our actions aim at an end which we desire for itself, and this end determines all other desires as means toward its attainment -- then surely this end is the good that is absolutely good.
Knowledge.of this good will be a great help in human living since we should be more likely to act rightly in particular circumstances.
It would be wise then to get at least a general idea of the nature of this absolute or highest good, and to know which of the sciences or arts it belongs.
Since politics is the most comprehensive of the practical sciences, it obviously is the study of which this good belongs. (Supplementary remarks: The purpose of politics is to create the most favorable conditions in which citizens can lead a good life, and this can only be attained by a knowledge of the good. The study of ethics, which is also concerned with human good, is a branch of politics.)
Though the good of the individual coincides with that of the community, it seems much better and more perfect to secure the good of the community before the Individual, since the community is made up of many individuals.
LEADING IDEA FROM TEXT, BOOK I, CH. 2.
(a) "Thus it follows that the end good for man."
Suggested Topics for Discussion & Writing Assignments:
In what sense of "the good for man" is politics concerned? Is it the citizen's material and social well-being, or is it his personal well-being as regards his moral character, or is it his spiritual well-being? What is the difference between these three types of well-being? Which type falls under the study of ethics?
Can a person fulfill the potentialities of his moral nature without the security, the economic resources, and the educative agencies of a politically organized society? And if not, does this imply that natives of a primitive culture, without these agencies, do not "fulfill the potentialities of their moral nature
LEADING IDEA:
(b) "For even if the good is the same for the individual and the state, the good of the state clearly is the
greater and more perfect thing to attain and to safeguard."
Suggested Topics for Discussion & Writing Assignments:
What should be more important, the good of the individual, or the good of the state? Or more specifically, is it ever right to sacrifice one life in order to save many? A stock illustration of this dilemma is the overcrowded lifeboat situation.
Is it true that the good is necessarily the same both for the individual and the state? What if the good of an oppressive government is to rule by force and injustice. Is such a government conducive to the individual good? Do the people have the right to overthrow such a government if it cannot be changed otherwise, for example, by legal means or by civil disobedience?
Ch. 3: Limitations of the Study of Ethics and Politics
Outline
Precision of scientific treatment depends on the subject matter.
Matters of what are noble and just (the subjects of politics and ethics) present so much diversity and differences of opinion that to many people they exist as matters of convention and not as absolute standards of conduct resulting from human nature or from the nature of things.
Because of poor judgment, many have been harmed even by good things, as is instanced by men who are ruined by wealth, or others by courage. Thus all the more does this matter of good present much irregularity.
Because of the variability of this subject, one must be satisfied with a rough approximation of the truth, with probable conclusions from probable premises. An educated person seeks precision relative to the subject matter; he does not accept probable reasoning from a mathematician, nor strict demonstration from a public speaker; since everyone who has been long trained in his specific field is a good judge of what he knows, and he who has been well educated in all subjects, a good judge in general. It seems to follow that the young are not properly prepared to be students of polities or ethics, for they are not experienced in the business of life which is the basis of these subjects. Besides, the young, as well as those immature in character, are too swayed by their emotions for this study to have any practical effect on them. Those, however, who desire and act according to right reason will benefit greatly from a knowledge of this study.
LEADING IDEA FROM TEXT, BOOK I, CH. 3
(a) "Problems of what is noble and just, which politics examines, present so much variety and irregularity that some people believe that they exist only by convention and not by nature."
Suggested Topics for Discussion & Writing Assignments:
Although Right and Wrong are not abstract and immutable as are the principles of mathematics, do they nonetheless exist on by mere convention? Are there not some acts right or wrong regardless of convention or opinion - murder, adultry, theft (wrong); honesty, consideration, truthtelling (right)?
A distinction should be made here between the general favorable attitude toward moral virtues (courage, Integrity, generosity, loyalty, selfcontrol, affability, etc.) which is not subject to change as the attitude of people toward shifting standards of social morality.
LEADING IDEA:
(b) "...a young man is not equipped to be a student' of Politics [ethics included] for he has no experience in the actions which life demands of him, and these actions form the basis and subject matter of the discussion, moreover, since he follows his emotions, his study will be pointless and unprofitable, for the end of this kind of study is riot knowledge but action."
Suggested Topics for Discussion & Writing Assignments:
Is it true that a young person has "not" experience "in the actions which life demands of him"? Does Aristotle's statement apply to young people of our day? Is there not a vast difference between our culture and his?
Do young people follow their emotions rather than right reason all the time? Do only young people follow their emotions; are not many adults governed by their emotions? Besides, are not many young people more mature in character than a good number of adults? Even granting that a young person is especially subject to his emotions, does this fact necessarily imply that a study of ethics would be "pointless and unprofitable"? What then would be the value of a high school ethics course?
Ch. 4: Happiness is the Good, but Varying Views are Held about it
Outline
(1) The purpose, or good, of politics as a science is the highest good-achievable by action, ind this good is called by both uneducated and educated alike Happiness, by which is meant "living well" and "acting well".
(2) People differ, however, about the meaning of happiness; most think it is some obvious and tangible good, such as sensual pleasure, material well-being, or honorable status,, and so on. Often a person's view of happiness changes with his circumstances, in which case., when he is sick, he thinks it is health, and when he is poor, that it is wealth, or if he is ignorant that it is knowledge. Some thinkers have even claimed that there exists some abstract and absolute good which determines all other human goods.. There are many other views held about this highest good, happiness.
(3) There would be little point in examining all the views held on the meaning of happiness, so only-those which are most krown, or which seem to be based on good sense, will be examined.
(4) As regards the method of this examination, it will proceed from arguments which lead up to fundamental principles (inductive reasoning) rather than from arguments which proceed from fundamental principles (deductive reasoning).
(5) Since this subject Is to be approached from the standpoint of what is known to us, it is necessary that the student of ethics have a proper moral upbringing so that he will be able to grasp the fundamental principles of ethics, which are the fourdation of this study.
LEADING IDEA FROM TEXT, BOOK I, CH. 4
(a) "...let us discuss what is in our view the aim of politics, i.e., the highest good attainable by action... happiness"
Suggested Topics for Discussion & Writing Assignments:
In light of political history, is it true that the main concern of politics has been the happiness or well-being of the people? Is it rot more concerned with the preservation of the state regardless of citizens' happiness? Are riot a good many politicians concerned more with personal honor and with remaining in office than with the good of the state? Certainly the aim of politics should be the "highest good attainable by action"; but why isn't it?
Granting that happiness or well-being is the highest aim of politics, with what kind of happiness is it concerned: personal happiness or social happiness?
LEADING IDEA:
(b) "...both the common run of people and cultivated men ... understand by 'being happy' the same as 'living well' and 'doing well'."
Suggested Topics for Discussion & Writing Assignments:
Can a person be happy who lives well (i.e. materially, healthily, comfortably, successfully) yet who does 'not do (act) well; and vice versa? In other words, are "living well," and "doing well" mutually inclusive for happiness?
______________________
Below is a brief selection of moral issues and situations which can be integrated into class discussion of text material, or as alternative material at the teacher's discretion.
A BRIEF SELECTION OF MORAL ISSUES AND SITUATIONS
What constitutes a truly generous act?
Is he who darts "blindly" into a burning building to save a life, courageous?
Is it ever right, or justified, to take the life of one person in order to save many?
Is it true that everything is relative, i.e. the point of view that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another; or are there some modes of conduct that are intrinsically right or wrong?
How does honesty differ from truthtelling?
Plato held that if a person really knew what was right and good, he could not but act accordingly? Is this-true?
Is a good-hearted person necessarily a morally virtuous person?
Is it true that virtue is its own reward?
Is that which is right necessarily good; and vice versa, is that which is good necessarily right? What is the difference between the terms 'good,' and 'right'?
Why be moral?
Can selfishness ever be justified? Can selflessness, or altruism, ever cause "more harm than good"?
Consider the moral rule: "Be honest." Must this rule be upheld in all cases? Consider this situation: Does honesty compel you to return the one penny too much change that the clerk has given you, even if to do so means driving back fifty miles to the town where the purchase was made? And if not, how much money should determine whether you should go back -- fifty cents? a dollar? two dollars?
Consider the moral rule: "Do not steal." Are you stealing if you take something that you think belongs to you, but,as it turns out, really does not? Are you stealing if you enter the apartment of someone who has stolen from you and take from him your possession; or if he no longer has it, take from him an object of equal value?
What should you do if you discovered that the company you worked for was illegal? Should you just ignore it and continue receiving the income you desire and need to support your family, or should you stand on principle and resign regardless of the inconvenience and loss?
A committee of three students arranging for a dance given by their class is allowed $150 for a band. When the three find that they can get a satisfactory band for $120, they feel justified in keeping the remaining $30 for themselves. comment on this action.
Which of the following are a matter of moral 'concern? Why?
a. cheating at cards
b. cheating on examinations
c. jaywalking
d. keeping your car washed
e. stooping your car in a traffic jam simply for the fun of it and letting the cars behind you try
to get past
f. getting drunk every couple of days
g. doing two hours work for eight hours pay
h. not mowing my front lawn
Do you think you have the right
a. to open mail addressed to your son, aged five?
b. to open mail addressed to your son, aged fifteen?
c. to open mail addressed to your son, aged fifteen, marked "personal"?
The following is a sample final test on Aristotle's ethics.
1. According to Aristotle,, how does a person become just? self-controlled? courageous'?
2. Explain briefly how the mean (virtue) of self-control is destroyed by each of its two extremes.
3. Why does Aristotle believe that moral virtue is concerned with pleasure and pain?
4. What are the three essential characteristics of the morally excellent person?
5. Aristotle argues that virtue is a characteris tic (or habit) of the moral agent, and not an emotion or
capacity. Why is virtue neither an emotion nor a capacity?
6. What does Aristotle mean that virtue is a median "in relation to us"? How does th median differ
from the median in terms of "arithmetical proportion"? [An example to illustrate the difference
between these two types of median will help answer this question.]
7. How does the generous person differ from the extravagant person?
8. Aristotle says that bad-tempered people are worse to live with than apathetic people. If you
agree with him, why do you think he believes this? If you don't agree with him, give your reasons.
9. Aristotle claims that the friendly person "will be the same toward those he knows and those he
does not, toward people with whom he is familiar and people with whom he is riot, except that in
each particular case his behavior will be appropriate to he person." What do you think he means
by this?
_____________________
A TEACHER'S MANUAL [Sample]
For
The Republic of Plato
CONTENTS (Partial)
INTRODUCTION
PART I (Book I). SOME CURRENT VIEWS OF JUSTICE
CHAP. I Cephalus. Justice as Honesty in word and deed.
II Polemarchus. Justice as Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
III Thrasymachus. Justice as the Interest of the Stronger .
IV Thrasymachus. Is Injustice more profitable than Justice?
PART II (Books II - IV). JUSTICE IN THE STATE AND IN THE INDIVIDUAL
V The Problem stated. .
VI The Rudiments of Social Organization
VII The Luxurious State
VIII The Guardian's Temperament
IX Primary Education of the Guardians
§ 1 Censorship of Literature for School Use
§ 2 The Influence of Dramatic Recitation
§ 3 (398 C-400 c). Musical Accompaniment and Metre
§ 4 (4°0 c-403 c). The Aim of Education in Poetry and Music
§ 5 (4°3 C-412 B). Physical Training. Physicians and Judges
X Selection of Rulers: The Guardians' Manner of Living
XI The Guardians' Duties. .
XII The Virtues in the State
XIII The Three Parts of the Soul
XIV The Virtues in the Individual
.....
NOTE: Parts 3 through 6 of the book are omitted in the course, as they deal with more involved philosophical topics, such as whether such an ideal state could ever come into existence, and if it can, then that state would have to be ruled by philosopher kings, who would have to have a very specialized education. But even were there such rulers, human fallibility would eventually limit them to grasp the whole of human psychology, that is, it's destructive side; and so the ideal state would gradually decline, generation after generation, to unjust forms of government until finally the unjust, despotic, rulers predominate. But these despotic rulers, and their followers, all the way down to, citizens, are the most unhappy of men, simply because the wrong part of their “soul” is ruling them, either by their desiring or appetitive parts rather than their reason, which in the end, define man as human.
It is the just person who is happy overall because he has attained a relatively just balance between the desiring, appetitive, and rational parts of his soul.
So an unjust society is as much out of balance as an unjust person; and conversely, a just society is as much in balance as a just person. And since not much good can come out of the former state of affairs, it is obvious enough that a well-balanced (just) person would lead a much happier life than an ill-balanced (unjust) person; and a well-balanced (just) state would be much more beneficial to its citizens than an ill-balanced (unjust) state. It is therefore, justice that pays, not injustice, however it may seem to pay on the surface, in the short run. Hence. Socrates has proved his original point.
|
PART I (BOOK I)
SOME CURRENT VIEWS OF JUSTICE
The main question to be answered in the Republic is: What does Justice mean, and how can it be realized in human society? The Greek word for 'just' has as many senses as the English 'right.' It can mean: observant of custom or of duty, righteous; fair, honest; legally right, lawful; what is due to or from a person, deserts, rights; what one ought to do. Thus it covers the whole field of the individual's conduct in so far as it affects others - all that they have a 'right' to expect from him or he has a right to expect from them, whatever is right as opposed to wrong. A proverbial saying declared that justice is the sum of all virtue.
The demand for a definition of Justice seems to imply that there is some conception in which all these applications of the word meet like lines converging to a common centre; or, in more concrete terms, that there is some principle whereby human life might be so organized that there would exist a just society composed of just men. The justice of the society would secure that each member of it should perform his duties and enjoy his rights. As a quality residing in each individual, justice would mean that his personal life-or as a Greek would say, his soul was correspondingly ordered with respect to the rights and duties of each part of his nature.
A society so composed and organized would be ideal, in the sense that it would offer a standard of perfection by which all existing societies might be measured and appraised according to the degrees in which they fell short of it. Any proposed reform, moreover, might be judged by its tendency to bring us nearer to, or farther from, this goal. The Republic is the first systematic attempt ever made to describe this ideal, not as a baseless dream, but as a possible framework within which man's nature, with its unalterable claims, might find well-being and happiness. Without some such goal in view, statecraft must be either blind and aimless or directed (as it commonly is) to false and worthless ends.
CHAPTER 1
In the first Part of the Republic Socrates opens up the whole range of inquiry by eliciting some typical views of the nature of justice and criticizing them as either inadequate or false. The criticism naturally reveals some glimpses of the principles which will guide the construction that is to follow.
CEPHALUS: JUSTICE AS HONESTY IN WORD AND DEED
The whole imaginary conversation is narrated by Socrates to an unspecified audience. The company who will take part in it assemble at the house of Cephalus, a retired manufacturer living at the Piraeus, the harbour town about five miles from Athens. It includes, besides Plato's elder brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, Cephalus' sons, Polemarchus, Lysias, well known as a writer of speeches, and Euthydemus; Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, a noted teacher of rhetoric, who may have formulated the definition of justice as 'the interest of the stronger,' though hardly any evidence about his opinions exists outside the Republic; and a number of Socrates' young friends. The occasion is the festival of Bendis, a goddess whose cult had been imported from Thrace. Cephalus embodies the wisdom of a long life honourably spent in business. He is well-to-do, but values money as a means to that peace of mind which comes of honesty and the ability to render to gods and men their due. This is what he understands by 'right' conduct or justice.
Writing Assignment: According to Cephalus, what is right conduct. How does Socrates criticize his view?
CHAPTER II
POLEMARCHUS: JUSTICE AS HELPING FRIENDS AND HARMING ENEMIES
The argument now becomes more serious. Polemarchus, though puzzled, clings to the Ibelief that it must be right to help friends and harm enemies. This was a traditional maxim of Greek morality, never doubted till Socrates denied it: no one had ever said that we ought to do good, or even refrain from doing harm, to them that hate us. Socrates' denial rests on his principle, later adopted by the Stoics, that the only thing that is good in itself is the goodness, virtue, well-being of the human soul. The only way really to injure a man is to make him a worse man. This cannot be the function of justice.
Writing Assignment: What are Socrates' criticisms against Polemarchus' definition of justice as benefiting your friends and harming your enemies? What two absurd conclusions are arrived at if such a definition is followed?
CHAPTER III
THRASYMACHUS: JUSTICE AS THE INTEREST OF THE STRONGER
Socrates has opposed to the popular conception of justice one of his own deepest convictions. Polemarchus'" ready acceptance of this provokes a violent protest from Thrasymachus, who represents the doctrine that might is right in an extreme form. He holds that justice or right is nothing but the name given by the men actually holding power in any state to any actions they enjoin by law upon their subjects; and that all their laws are framed to promote their own personal or class interests. 'Just' accordingly means what is for the interest of the stronger, ruling party. Right and wrong have no other meaning at all. This is not a theory of social contract: it is not suggested that the subject has ever made a bargain with the ruler, sacrificing some of his liberty to gain the benefits of a social order. The ruler imposes his 'rights' by sheer force. The perfect example of such a ruler is the despot (the Greek 'tyrant'), whose position Thrasymachus regards as supremely enviable. He is precisely the man who has the will and the power to (do good to himself and his friends and.to harm his enemies.'
The discussion begins by clearing up the ambiguities of Thrasymachus' formula. The word translated (stronger' commonly means also ('superior' or 'better'; but ('better' has no moral sense for Thrasymachus, who does not recognize the existence of morality. The superiority of the stronger lies in the skill and determination which enable them to seize and hold power. ('interest,' again, means the personal satisfaction and aggrandizement of the ruling individuals.
Thrasymachus has already shifted his ground. At first 'the stronger' meant only the men ruling by superior force; but now their superiority must .include the knowledge and ability needed to govern without making mistakes. This knowledge and ability constitute an art of government, comparable to other useful arts or crafts requiring special skill. The ruler in his capacity as ruler, or the craitsman qua craftsman, can also be spoken of as the craft personified, since a craft exists only in the man who embodies it, and we are considering the man only as the embodiment of this special capacity, neglecting all personal characteristics and any other capacities he may chance to have. When Socrates talks of the art or craft in this abstract way as having an interest of its own, he means the same thing as if he spoke of the interest of the craftsman qua craftsman. Granted that there is, as Thrasymachus suggested, an art of government exercised by a ruler who, qua ruler, is infallible and so in the full sense 'superior,' the question now is, what his interest should be, on the analogy of other crafts.
CHAPTER IV
THRASYMACHUS: IS INJUSTICE MORE PROFITABLE THAN JUSTICE?
Socrates now turns from the art of government to Thrasymachus' whole view of life: that injustice, unlimited self-seeking, pursued with enough force of character and skill to ensure success, brings welfare and happiness. This is what he ultimately means by the interest of the stronger.
Socrates and Thrasymachus have a common ground for argument in that both accept the notion of an art of living, comparable to the special crafts in which trained intelligence creates some product. The goodness, excellence, or virtue of a workman lies in his efficiency, the Greek arete, a word which, with the corresponding adjective agathos, 'good,' never lost its wide application to whatever does its work or fulfils its function well, as a good knife is one that cuts efficiently. The workman's efficiency involves trained intelligence or skill, an old sense of the word sophia, which also means wisdom. None of these words necessarily bears any moral sense; but they can be applied to the art of living. Here the product to be aimed at is assumed to be a man's own happiness and well-being. The efficiency which makes him good at attaining this end is called 'virtue'; the implied knowledge of the end and of the means to it is like the craftsman's skill and may be called 'wisdom: But as it sounds in English almost a contradiction to say that to be unjust is to be virtuous or good and wise, the comparatively colourless phrase 'superior in character and intelligence' will be used instead.
Where Socrates and Thrasymachus differ is in their views of the nature of happiness or well-being. Thrasymachus thinks it consists in getting more than your fair share of what are commonly called the good things of life, pleasure, wealth, power. Thus virtue and wisdom mean to him efficiency and skill in achieving injustice.
Writing Assignment: How does Socrates contradict Thrasymachus' statement that justice is in the interest of the stronger?
...
______________________
SELECTIONS OF STUDENTS' EVALUATIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL ETHICS COURSE
J. A. / Male
10th grade
June 1973
On a personal basis, this course has helped me to understand more clearly the underlying motives of people's actions; lt has better acquainted me with ideals of conduct, along with sound, logical arguments for their fulfillment; it has helped to give me a greater incentive to try to make sure I do the right thing, make the right judgment, and act in the right manner in my dally life; and it has enabled me to engage in intellectual intercourse, exchanging ideas and concepts with other people, while at the same time learning to listen to their opinions and judge them in an objective light.
From ny experience with this course, I would recommend it highly for anyone who has a mind eager to reach out and grasp philosophical concepts such as, justice, generosity, friendship, happiness, and the good, and can discuss them intelligently with a sense of purpose.
This course would have a profound sociological effect if it could be taught to more young people oil a larger scale (that is, if it could be more widespread in the world's high schools).
Reading over what I have written, I realize that it might sound like some sort of propaganda to promote this course, but in all honesty, I cannot find a single point on which to criticize this course; I have only praise for it. I sincerely hope what I have said here will help convince people that a course such as this one can be successfully taught to high-school students as an integral part of their moral upbringing; for a better world awaits us if all students can gain the knowledge that I have from this course. I felt that the depth and range of understanding was very clear, and wasn't hidden and subdued.
G.C. / Male
11th grade
June 1976
Of all the classes or subjects I've ever taken, this class has by far been the most relevant, important, and meaningful. In high school I have experienced very little challenge, but ethics has brought about a real challenge In and out of class. Discussion isn't possible in most classrooms, but it is essential in ethics, and that made the course in-the classroom unique. But even though writing in other classes, when at home or something, I've found no real attraction to the subject. Ethics, on the other hand, requires more effort than the other subjects, but doesn't bog the mind or make one bored. It's nicer to learn and study about oneself and those around you.
Of the varied instructors, you have been... Even though our worlds are of great differences, ethics brought about a common ground, and this made me understand you more.
D.H./ Female
10th grade
June 1973
I know I've gained something from this ethics class, but I can't pinpoint it. One of the things I've noticed is that now, before I do anything like making decisions, I think twice before doing it (or not doing it.
I feel that when we talked about the elements of the soul, it helped me understand myself better. I've noticed I don't get really angry anymore, and instead of criticizing things (and people), I try and find what makes them tick, and why.I have negative reactions about them. It also makes me look at myself, and try to find out what makes me tick.
About the "Justice" part of the course, I've always heard as a little girl growing up that "crime does not pay." I always thought: Then how come people get away with it. This course has made me take a deeper insight on it. I think if everybody could understand this [Plato's theory of the nature of justice], there wouldn't be as much crime and violence. That's why I feel the government should use this book in their rehabilitation programs. Seriously.
M.A. / Female
10th grade
June 1976
When I first started ethics, I didn't really enjoy it, because I didn't understand what was going on, or what was being said. Because I eras not used to the style of writing. I was used to understanding everything I read without having to read it over. But in this course, even if you didn't want to really put that much attention to what was going on, the reading caught my mind, and I wanted to understand it. After awhile it became more and more interesting. I wanted to know what was being said, so I put attention to everything that was going on. But I still didn't find lt easy reading over and over. I kind of had to read between the lines, and that made it easier.
At this point, I.can think better; it's not so much that, but that before I want to do something or make up my mind about something, I think about it a whole lot more than before. I give reasons for my actions, and I ask for reasons for other people's actions. I don't want to accept things so fast; I want to be sure. I just feel that ethics has helped my way o