Ethics

There are many moral philosophers, dating back to Plato and Aristotle, which have treated happiness as the supreme good. However Kant in his “Groundwork” stated that duty, not happiness, was the supreme moral motive.

Bentham is one of the philosophers who does identify happiness as the supreme moral principle, but Bentham identifies happiness as pleasure. Bentham is a Utilitarian so he argues that pleasure is the main cause of all action, and an action should be considered in regards to the amount it increases pleasure or reduces pain. He not only regarded happiness as being the equivalent of pleasure, but he also regarded pleasure in itself as simply a sensation. “Pain and pleasure are what everybody feels to be such”. The relation between an activity and whether it causes pleasure or pain is just cause and effect. The value of every pleasure is the same, regardless of what has caused it, so the happiness you feel when you see a fine piece of art, and the happiness you feel when you when you itch that scratch you couldn’t reach, are the exact same. The important thing is the quantity of pleasure or pain caused, not the value of the action. Bentham offered systems for measuring pleasure and pain which are laid out in his “Felicific Calculus”. There are seven elements that have to be considered;

1.       Intensity

2.       Duration

3.       Certainty (how likely is it that the pleasure will happen?)

4.       How soon it will occur

5.       Fecundity (how likely is it that it will result in a subsequent series of pleasures?)  

6.       Purity (how likely is it that it will subsequently cause pain?)

7.       Extent (how many people will it affect?)

Number 7 is the most important one as the main foundation of utilitarianism is “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. Bentham contrasted utilitarianism with asceticism, which is to judge an action by the amount it reduces happiness. However Bentham admitted that this principle of self-inflicted misery could never be upheld by any living thing.

John Stuart Mill was also a utilitarian, but in his “utilitarianism” he laid out that some kinds of pleasure are more valuable than others. This solved the criticism that utilitarianism reduces humans to being no better than swine by simply following our pleasures. It is this ability to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures which sets us apart from the animals, “it’s better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”.

Schopenhauer  links his ethics to his metaphysical view that the world of experience is merely an illusion, and true reality (the thing in itself) is the universal will. Morality is a matter of training the character. The will is free from eternity to eternity but everything in nature, including human nature, is determined by necessity. If you could get complete knowledge of a persons character and the motives which drive them, then you could predict all of their future conduct. We believe we are free to decide because prior to the choice we have no knowledge of how “the will” is going to decide. The belief we can decide for ourselves is merely an illusion. Our wills can never change but there are different degrees of awareness of will. Repentance or regret never comes from the will, but from a greater sense of self awareness. Schopenhauer believes that it is unlikely we will ever be content. The will by nature is insatiable. The basis of all will is need and pain, we suffer until our needs are satisfied, but if the will becomes satisfied and loses desire then life becomes boring.

Kierkegaard’s moral system is similar to Schopenhauer’s in that they both take a pessimistic view. However whereas Schopenhauer’s ethics aims towards erasing individuality, Kierkegaard aims to put the individual in full possession of their own character as a unique creature of God.

Nietzsche says that history shows two types of morality; master morality and a morality for the herd (the poor and weak). Nietzsche argued that the revolt of the slaves triumphed with Christianity, “the success of Christianity lead to the degeneration of the human race”. To save the human race we must reverse the values of Christianity. Life forces us to establish values, and human life is the highest form of life so far, but it has sunk back to the levels of those which had preceded it. We must bring life to a new level past the system of master and slave, the Ubermensch (superman). The Ubermensch would be the highest form of life, the will to live. The will to live must not favour the weak, it must favour power, “man is a bridge, not a goal”. The Ubermensch will not be achieved through evolution, but only through the exercise of the will. Nietzsche encouraged war, war is an education in freedom.    

Science and Certainty

So, we’re back in the warm and cosy arms of Winchester University, having somehow survived the workload, feeling brave and ready to face the pressure of second year. It just got serious. We’re now working on WINOL…well not quite yet, but we know what our roles are and it won’t be long before we take off our training wheels and try our hand at being serious journalists.

What better way to kick start the second year than with a healthy dose of HCJ? You can’t deny it, everyone has been missing their weekly confusion of philosophy. So, here it goes…

Science and Certainty
Science is the search for truth.

Kant would argue that the universe is ultimately unknowable. Kant and many other modern theoretical physicists hold the view that the cosmos (the universe as a whole) is more like a computer game where the objects, landscape, space and time are created in consciousness and then fade away again. First into the distance where you can still see them, and then they disappear completely. The objects in themselves “noumena” are still there and are unchanging, it is our perception of the objects “phenomena” which changes. What you are looking at will alter depending on your point of view. A simple example of this is the fact that things look smaller when they are far away but, as the majority of people acknowledge, the object has in fact not changed size. Schopenhauer agreed with Kant in the sense that he noted the difference between noumena and phenomena. However Schopenhauer believed there was only one universal noumena: the “will of the universe” as a thing in itself.

From Kant Schopenhauer and Nietzsche we inherit the idea that existence is not a predicate of any possible objects as nothing “causes” existence. Existence is a necessary precondition of our perception and consciousness. This is regarded as one of the big breakthroughs of the scientific revolution but it remained submerged during the 19^th century by the empiricists, derived from Aristotle. It wasn’t until the 20^th century when Einstein’s revolution in physics awakened the West from the ideas of Aristotle, and Newton’s “clockwork universe” (universal laws of causation, Newton believed the world was ordered and knowable).  Einstein’s theory of relativity lead to an increase in doubt and uncertainty in what were regarded as the most reliable principles of scientific experimentation.  There was an explosion in technological innovation as people were beginning to work on the basis that we know virtually nothing, but humanity has the ability to strive to know more.  

Logic – Deduction VS Induction
Deduction :
All swans are white
This is a swan
Therefore it is white

If your axiom (all swans are white) is wrong then your argument will fail. This is an example of a flawed deductive argument as in fact not all swans are white, there are black swans too. An example of an axiomatic truth is “cogito ergo sum” I think therefore I am.

Newton’s law of motion describes motion as being from one point to another, but then this raises the question, can there be any motion if there are infinite distances? Newton was regarded as objective fact for over 200 years. The laws of motion were seen as true independent of perception, and were said to be read off nature like a mirror.   

In Einstein’s theory of relativity he abandons the idea that the universe has a time. Time is a mental phenomena and is a part of our perception. According to Einstein’s experiments there are different types of time and this has been confirmed by space travel. For example, time elapses at different rates not only in different theoretical points in the universe (such as black holes), but also in empirically observable points such as at the top of a tall building or during space travel. This means that astronauts are hours younger than they should be because time is going slower.

In Wittgenstein’s “The Tractatus” he stated the “world consists of facts”, there is no objective truth only language games. Even logic itself is regarded as a language game. The Verification Principle argues that the truth of any proposition is the way in which you verify it. If a proposition cannot be verified then it is neither true nor false it is merely vocalisation, like the quacking of a duck. However Karl Popper later constructed the argument that the Verification Principle itself cannot be verified therefore the core of the principle is flawed. The Falsification Principle goes on to argue that something isn’t true unless it can be both verified and falsified.  

A bit of light reading ...

Bertrand Russell ‘A History of Western Philosophy’ is not your typical light reading, carrying it around is a work out in itself. Unfortunately as a champion of slow reading, working through book one resulted in many late nights, and a few too many cups of coffee. Caffeine fuelled I managed to work my way through it, and just in the nick of time.

Part one concerns Pre-Socratic philosophers, based in the city of Miletus in the region of Ionia, who created a foundation of philosophy for Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The first Pre-Socratic philosopher we encounter is Thales. As a Greek philosopher, scientist, and mathematician he theorised that everything in the universe is made up of water. What was also found to be shocking was that he made no accounts of ‘the Gods’, which at the time were central to civilisation. However his upmost achievement was the successful prediction of a solar eclipse in 585 BC.

Anaximander, who was thought to be the student of Thales, argued that ‘the boundless’ is the source of all things, and it is an accumulation of all the elements which makes up the universe, not just water. Anaximander was criticised by Aristotle for never giving an explanation of what he meant by ‘the boundless’.

Pythagoras is the next philosopher to cross our path, but unlike Thales and Anaximander he was more focused on the idea of form, rather than matter. He wanted to use mathematics and geometry to explain the universe and all that is contained within it. However I cannot deny that I am pleased that not all of his theories have made it through the generations, I don’t think I could survive as a student without Heinz baked beans. With Parmenides there is very little to say on him, other than he believed that everything comes from one substance.

 It then leads us to Heraclitus, who is considered to be the most important of all the Pre-Socratic thinkers, and possesses a pessimistic view of human nature. Writing his doctrine ‘On Nature’ he stated that the world is made up of a conflict of opposites and is in a constant flux, coining the famous phrase ‘you can’t step into the same river twice’.

Part Two focuses upon Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These familiar names were surprisingly reassuring, bringing back memories from A-level philosophy, a subject I felt so grateful to escape back in June.

Socrates was the teacher of Aristotle, and one of the most influential philosophers of all time, despite never actually writing anything down. As the years went on he became absorbed by philosophy, resulting in self-inflicted poverty. Unfortunately his life was cut short as he was accused of impiety, and had to end it himself by drinking hemlock.

Plato is a well-known student of Socrates, and most of what we know of Socrates has come from Plato’s writings. His most well renowned piece of work is ‘The Republic’, which seems to lay out his plans for a utopian society. He covers the concept of justice, politics, ethics, and what is knowledge?

Aristotle was a student of Plato, who argued about ethics, politics, physics and logic. Unlike Socrates and Plato, who believed that knowledge was innate, Aristotle argued that knowledge is gained empirically. Like Socrates he was charged with impiety, however unlike Socrates, he ran off and escaped his fate.

Part Three tells us about Stoicism. Their main belief is that only Zeus is granted with immortality, the other Gods were created at the beginning of the Cosmos, so are not as high in status. If you lived a ‘good’ and virtuous life you would be granted with immortality and a place among the Gods.

For the Epicureans, the soul and death affected their view of the afterlife. They stated that the fear of death is the main thing that plagues the human race, not death itself.

After the Hellenistic period, the population fell under the sway of Aristotelian teachings again, where no part of the human soul possesses immortality.

I feel it is safe to presume that you are damn right knackered from reading all of this, and I am shattered from writing it. I bid you adieu.