1:55 Functions of Human 2:27 What is virtuous? 3:01 Virtue and Mesotes 3:25 Example of Virtue as Mesotes(middle) 6:06 Virtue as a Practical Wisdom 6:16 Habit 6:33 Moral Exemplars 7:20 Eudaimonia
@@wheresmyeyebrow1608 oh im sorry sir. I made this stamps to my classmates in College to understand this topic. I send the link and this comments to know its overall content.
i agree that naturally become a good person by having good intent and wisdom and focus with passion (i theorize passionate view of the world and inner philosophy) makes someone virtuous but i dont agree that EVERYTHING is in the middle I think that there need to be a good balance like he said, but some things are both closer to the stronger (extremes) but in the middle in total/part at the same time let's say there you had an bag full of wood, and important items are not in your bag and you might be able to fight the guy, then you make a deal to give that bag to the robber if he leaves the grandma alone and you do it by offering him your bag full of shitty wood and luring him away from the old lady by leaving your bag on the floor and laying down 25 feet next to it, but you dont fight him, that is both less rekless than typical courage but more brave and virtuous than typical courage so it is both i think the philosophical psychology of aristotle is that he knew the good focus created good virtuous character, but he did not know how to justify his theory and lol
@@nono-hp5kx Aristole believed actually that the better "road" for everything is in the middle,a balance between good and bad (lack and exaggeration). He admits that both exist but middle is right way in art,in life and to achieve our goals.. It's a shame that we can't find the middle in today's civilisation of fanatism and decline! (Anyway I gave exams on this subject..)
@@minissa2009 Yes! The phyloshophy of Budishm was this idea of the "middle" Western philosophy has this "white and black" destinction but the Asiatic has grey zones!
Me too. Imagine if everyone followed this life philosophy. The golden rule essentially. Act in accordance with how you yourself would wish to be treated(works in most cases). We would also work much better as a society since individual happiness is often dependent on how well the group is doing. And Aristotle clearly recognizes our basic human need for community. Its literally in out DNA. Of course the goal is always to give individuals the freedom to express themselves in accordance with their nature, as long as it doesn't get in the way of others ability to do the same. The collaboration of the group is an ends to a means. Not the goal in and of itself. A tool, but a tool we all have an equal right to.
I think Plato had some great ideas but Aristotle's always seem to be more practical. Plato's ideas were thought provoking but Aristotle's ideas seem to be timeless, irrefutable and worth following rather than just contemplating. It doesn't matter if you believe in God, gods, no god(s) or a spaghetti monster; Aristotle's golden mean makes sense. How many philosophers can actually create philosophies that everyone can agree on that isn't blatantly obvious?
The theory does have flaws, but so does every theory. I tend to approach philosophy in an individualistic sense, meaning that I pick and choose parts that define my personal viewpoint. The golden mean is one of the useful things I take, as well as parts of pragmatism (judging things based on practical value), and bits of Confucian social theory, and many other bits and pieces.
+Bob Stanvo : I would say the reason you need to keep working at eudaimonia is not for reasons of self satisfaction, which is a conceit. You seem to completely skim over the part where it is explained that the golden mean is situational, not categorical. You don't get to decide what is right. You take stock of the situation through the mindset of pragmatic empathy. There is always a new situation, new information, social paradigm shifts. The nature of reality is changed by our perceptions of it and we must adapt to the ways our virtue is challenged. Ultimately, the best thing about virtue is that as long as you actively seek the golden mean in every situation, it doesn't mater what the government, or the religion, or the media, or your friends and family say. You will know the right way to act and think if you pursue the path of virtue.
Bob Stanvo but Aristotle does in fact have a more exclusive conception of eudaimonia, i.e., it is not as subjective as this video makes it sound. Aristotle says that all humans have logos, or reason (also translated as language), and we use logos to communicate with one another because living in complete isolation (for a human being) is practically impossible. So we are meant to live in cities or communities, and insofar as this is the case, we must possess virtues and exercise virtuous activity so as to continue living and make possible the best life available to humans, i.e., virtuous activity and theoretical wisdom. So by adopting some relativist conception of human eudaimonia that does not include practical or theoretical wisdom, than you are not acting in accordance with nature. In other words, you are not performing the function of good human being, and so your action can never be good for you
"Eudaimonia doesn’t mean a life of cupcakes and rainbows. It means the sweet pleasure of sinking into bed at the end of an absolutely exhausting day. It’s the satisfaction of knowing you’ve accomplished a lot, and that you’ve pushed yourself to be the very best person you could be." ~Crash Course Philosopy #38
The golden mean switches based on the situation. So the mugger example, the mean is closer to recklessness, but if someone has a gun to your face demanding money the mean is closer to cowardice.
i agree that naturally become a good person by having good intent and wisdom and focus with passion (i theorize passionate view of the world and inner philosophy) makes someone virtuous but i dont agree that EVERYTHING is in the middle I think that there need to be a good balance like he said, but some things are both closer to the stronger (extremes) but in the middle in total/part at the same time let's say there you had an bag full of wood, and important items are not in your bag and you might be able to fight the guy, then you make a deal to give that bag to the robber if he leaves the grandma alone and you do it by offering him your bag full of shitty wood and luring him away from the old lady by leaving your bag on the floor and laying down 25 feet next to it, but you dont fight him, that is both less rekless than typical courage but more brave and virtuous than typical courage so it is both i think the philosophical psychology of aristotle is that he knew the good focus created good virtuous character, but he did not know how to justify his theory
I'm from Greece and eudaimonia ("ευδαιμονία", but you may also see it as "εὐδαιμονία" from anciet greek) is come from 2 words. The 1st word is the prefix "ευ-" which means good and the 2nd word is "δαίμονας" (or "δαίμων" on ancient greek) which means demon. But we use this word in order to say: This man has good spirit (Αυτός ο άντρας είναι καλόψυχος).
Glad you cleared it up. But actually demon is misleading because back in antiquity demon didn't insinuate sin and bad spirits e.t.c it just meant gods but not the 12 gods ,rather the gods who distributed to someone their features . (διανέμω >δαίμων) . They were something like the Fates (Klotho , Atropos, Lachesis ) . For example, Socrates in Symposium calls Love s Demon because love more or less fixes our lifes
This is by far one of the most well-done videos i've ever watched recently. I like the content, the way it's put.. Really appreciate your work! Thanks Crash Course!
So a few comments: 1. The place of virtue in the soul is important to note because of Aristotle's ultimate goals. For Aristotle, the ultimate goal is happiness (which we know because everyone desires it), and happiness for Aristotle is rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. This is because there are essentially three parts of the soul to Aristotle (well, two and a half). The first part is pure reason, the rational part of the soul. The other parts of the soul could both be considered "nonrational," but one of them (the appetitive part), is capable of following reason. The reason I bring this up is because it's necessary to know to understand why virtue is important at all- it's the means of the nonrational to cooperate with the rational. 2. Virtue is not an arithmetic mean, but rather a circumstantial one. Hank somewhat implies this, but it's important to be said more fully, as the interpretation of it as an arithmetic mean was done extensively in the middle ages, which is actually a pretty terrible misreading. Consider the purpose of a virtue like temperance- if someone has the virtue of temperance, they are able to fight against the urges of the body and have reason overcome them. Considering this an arithmetic mean, like the church did, puts a hard limit on not doing things like drinking, which removes the focus of the virtues from the idea of cooperation with rationality. Like I said, the rationalism is important. 3. Virtue also can't just be done, it has to be intended. Children are able to do virtuous things by accident, but that does not mean they are virtuous. This is something that Hank actually misses a bit. The importance of intention, once again, connects to the idea of rationality. I bring this all up because it's easy to overemphasize character virtues in Aristotle's works. The rational aspects of it are just as important, and shouldn't be neglected to be noted in an introductory video. Not criticizing, just expanding.
Calling someone a positivist is one of the worst insults you can call a modern philosopher. It's tantamount to saying they are a pretentious bag of hot air and nonsense.
Annaelle Jacques-Morel Well, I meant that it feels more positive to me. "If you try to behave well on a daily basis, you'll do good." English is not my first language, so maybe I didn't explained well.
While that's kinda true, I believe none of those (the "golden mean" and the "middle path") overlap one another. It's just another golden nugget of life. Take these philosophies together: the "middle path" (buddhism), the "golden mean" (aristotle) and the "golden rule" (Confucius, "Treat others as you'd want to be treated" for short), and they're all kinda related, but they only reinforce themselves as ideas and philosophies of life (and death), together to create a somewhat "Golden Path".
adam forsstrand I'd have to say the US Army Rangers have them all beat. "Do as the natives do." Of course you have to take a general concensus to get a handle on social norms, you can't just take the first knucklehead you see and make them the gold standard. You take what you know and you give concideration to the environment your in and act accordingly. If you've been paying attention up to that point and not self-absorbed, you'll do just fine. People tend to stress about their own problems to a point that they haven't really made the time to consider the problems of others. You may have a brother or sister or many who are in the same boat, literally or by means of the stress it causes them, emotionally, physically, etc. Everyone's problems are great to themselves because they effect us directly but other peoples' problems have indirect effects that can be just as important (i.e. they lash out one day, they pass away, they quit their job, they give up on getting a job, they are angry or sad and it slowly makes you angry or sad, etc.) It's too deep for me to encompass in a single message but I hope I've made and reenforced my point from an angle that a) you may not have thought of and b) turns out to be positively influential influential some way.
Indeed, very similar. I would call Buddhist ethics virtue ethics. Although in Buddhism, morality alone is just the beginning' and morality alone doesn't give rise to eudaimonia or release from sufferring. Morality is a foundation from which to build wisdom, or insight into the true nature of things in order to avoid the trappings of craving, attachment and other delusions. For example, coping with the loss of loved ones, rejection, poor health, and the subtle rise and fall of the ego - all the while acting morally unblameworthy. It's broken down into 1. Avoid the bad (morality) 2. Do only good (skillful action and kindness - also included in virtue theory) and 3. Purify the mind (meditation and contemplation)
Out of interest, have you seriously studied Aristotelian or Buddhist ethics? With the utmost respect, I have to say there really is nothing you have apparently imbibed from the US Army Rangers that was not profoundly explored and considered by those noble traditions thousands of years ago.
I didn't say conventional utilitarianism, I said my theory of Practical Utilitarianism. I'm building my own moral theory based on logic and my own thinking.
That's because I haven't explained it to you. Classical Utilitarianism states that an action is good based on its consequences. But we cannot see the future; when making moral decisions we can only predict a fraction of a percent of its consequences, making Utilitarianism impractical. My version says we should focus on the things that we know, and not take unnecessary risks claiming that the ends justify the means.
This is no different from classical utilitarianism. In fact, in his book, «Utilitarism» John Stuart Mill addresses what you seem to think are problem to utilitarianism in the last 2 sections of the second chapter. Objection number 9 and 10 : Objection number 9 says that we can't know the future and calculating outcomes takes time and is uncertain, so what should we do. The answer is to follow the usual rules of ordinary morality (which is, as it turns out, virtue ethics). It is utilitaristic to do so, Mill argues, because we should assume that ordinary morality has been empirically successful at producing morality in most ordinary circumstances. (Ordinary here being, of course, a code-word for «in circumstances most familiar with straight cis white able-bodied adult men») Objection number 10 worries that utilitarianism be in such a way that agents would see their own examples as exceptional cases and be more inclined to make exceptions for themselves and trust in their own judgment. Mill then relfects and conclude that this is not a significant weakness of utilitarianism when compared to competing theories, and that utilitarianism has the advantage of being able to decisively resolve conflicts of moral obligations in a satisfactory manner and is thus superior that way because we can then easily spot and sanction those who make exceptions for themselves.
TL:DR : 1- Classical Utilitarianism isn't broken in the ways you see and already has the fixes you claim to bring. 2- Classical Utilitarianism is broken in other ways, and modern utilitarianism already has the fixes for it.
Thank you Crash Course for reminding me how much of a virtue ethicist I am and how I should never forget the goal of Eudaimonia. This is why I buy stuff from your website.
It's a good thing John didn't do this episode. All he'd say is "Everything Aristotle is wrong and I hate him. You shouldn't believe anything he says as it's automatically wrong"
In some way its really similiar with Confucianism moral standards along with several eastern philosophies.. I really like how philosophy solves such deep problems with no particular answer to every situations.. That leaves us responsible to learn every aspects and apply it with our own better judgment..
They were not 'ahead of their time'. It was a cultured civilization which is in certain ways far better than our own, one of the best times and places for a person to live in. Our age is in certain ways barbaric compared to theirs.
So, Aristotle says you can't learn virtue from books, but I disagree. Maybe not from philosophy books, but from narrative fiction. Literature, Film, TV, Video games, etc. You as an individual can't experience even a small amount of every kind of scenario. But in a well told story with fleshed out characters you can imagine how such an experience might come to be, and what may come from different decisions made by those characters.
You're right, but I think what Aristotle meant was that you can't enunciate general rules that can be just applied because moral dilemmas, in reality, are complex. Narrative fiction doesn't deal with general rules, but with specific situations, therefore it probably wasn't really what he was talking about. Also, gotta remember that in his day books weren't available in all forms, amount and variety as today.
RGapskiM of course, narrative media wasn't... let's say what it is today. i also did that thing where I confused Aristotle and Socrates, who... if i remember correctly, wasn't a fan of the theater
Aristotle deals with narrative media specifically in his famous and much admired and cited Poetics (absolutely an essential read for anybody seriously interested in narrative media). He is indeed concerned with more general principles in the Ethics.
Socrates infamously attacks and exiles the poets in the Republic of Plato, but there is a debate over how serious he was and how ironic he was being in the context of that particular dialogue and the point he was making in that context. Throughout the Platonic dialogues Socrates refers to Homer and the dramatists over and over, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, depending on the point he is attempting to make and the general theme of the discussion at hand. It might be true that narrative media was not exactly what it is today, but nobody who really knows Homer deludes themselves he is any less of a master and exemplar of the art of story than he ever was. The Greek philosophers almost lacked nothing when it comes to fundamentally meditating on the issue merely through knowing their Homer.
I most agree with this one. For those questioning it I would say that this kind of morality depends on wisdom, and we're better at recognizing wisdom than morality. We can recognize people who are wise because they are happy, and they make other people happy. And when you follow the virtues of Aristotle it does make you a more fulfilled person.
This is my favorite philosophy theory so far. It's far more realistic and applicable in the real world than Kantian ethics for example (in my opinion).
The reasons for adopting this code of morality and the means by which that is achieved bear a striking resemblance to Pascal's wager. It also seems that both require a person to choose from one ideology among many.
Thank you so much for breaking this down for me! My professor had us reading long essays to learn about virtue ethics but I understood nothing until I came across your crash course. Thank you!
After much thought l have concluded that Eudaimonia is a state only achievable in the memories of others. A conclution reached only after the totality of a single life can be examined. It's totality can not be known until its ending. This is reflected in the stories told about one after their death. In the meantime, leave good spirit (happiness) in your wake. That way perhaps you'll also leave good memories to share
Adrian Duran Mary Sues are normally considered boring and irreal, more of a writer fantasy than a real character. The virtous person should be more nuanced, and not so manichean, in my opinion
Adrian Duran He takes moral exemplars in an particular virtuous habit that they have honed, no one says they are good at everything. Real people they can't be Mary Sues
I would say that a REAL person being a Mary Sue would be a wonderful thing to have in Real Life. In stories they are boring, in Reality they are helpful and useful to others! But I also want to talk about what "is" a Mary Sue. I say there are no "Mary Sue Characters", Only "Mary Sue STORIES". How can I say that? You can always tell a Mary Sue by how the Plot seems to bend toward them, how other characters behave in a way that is Not realistic for them but Advantageous for the Sue. A Mary Sue doesn't even have to BE a "perfect person" but they do have to be disruptive to the story. Mary Sues step into a story like a Black Hole, warping the space around them and sucking up all the attention and glory, only to feed their hyper dense cores and growing to consume ALL! Whether they be perfect characters, or imperfect sympathetic beings, or even an Author Insert (With all the flaws and traits of the actual Author, a flesh and blood human turned to the page), A Mary Sue can come in almost any form. Therefor it is the *Story* that is the true culprit, *not the Character.* A "perfect character" can still exist without being a Mary Sue as long as their existence in the story is not warping the plot around them or bending other characters into unrealistic shapes. Captain America or Haruhi Suzimiya are good examples of "Sue-Esque" characters but who are fleshed out and not Actually Mary Sues. Because the Stories and Characters in which they live amongst do not twist and conform to their wills, desires, or convenience; instead they react naturally and have real consequences for their actions. There are no Mary Sue Characters, Only Mary Sue Stories. =^_^= Thank you for reading~
I'm only right now reading Aristotle at my university and I can't believe you just made a video on him :D. This idea of eudaimonia is how I have been living my life yet not perfectly as I have been distracted by the instant gratification of our modern world. I've been struggling for a while now only till very recently, by which I mean a couple days ago, realizing that if I truly wish to live the life I want that I need to emulate the person I feel would be capable of the task. I totally understand what Aristotle means by that I know what to do and how to be a virtuous person, but the vast majority of people I have met have no clue. I live in a richer area but my family and I are very poor. Being that I was able to gain experiences through my families suffering (of being poor), yet also being a Christian (having great morals that other religions also have), but at the same time I was able to develop my mind (due to my parent's enrolling me in these rich dense school areas), I am very much setup to achieve human flourishing. Thanks for the video and for introducing me to, not the concept but branding or label of, eudaimonia! I'm going live, ofc, but also share this (*＾▽＾)／ (ノ^∇^).
I don't believe that virtue is something predestinated in our personality - but rather the development of human maturity. I do think positive actions are as useless as words as long as their intentions are meaningless or even harmful. But intentions and emotions, for me, tell you more about a person than their actions could, and can compromise a possible negative outcome. I believe that everybody deserves a second chance.
I think i'm gonna try and live by the Virtue Theory now... my aim has always been to 'act like a good person' but it's easier when you have more of a structure... i think generosity is something i need to work on
I helped teach classic philosophy for 5 years - a help to one of the world's leading scholars in ancient Greek philosophy (Prof. Dylan Futter). And in all those years I never pondered audaimonia, until now - and it's life-changing. Thank you.
I have to suggest that perhaps we're just reading Aristotle wrong here. Of course being virtuous is 'good' for you. In the same way, being educated is good for you. Being physically healthy is 'good'. Eating well is 'good'. Being intelligent is 'good'. Having a balanced mental health is 'good'. But it's not 'good' in the sense of making the difference between 'good' and 'evil'. We could praise Nelson Mandela for having good virtue. Indeed, he spent years in jail for his political beliefs and still had the will to push through and get elected and transform his country according to his deep seated beliefs. The thing is, we can say the exact same thing about Hitler and you don't see many people praising his virtue do you? I think we should read Aristotle as a proto-psychiatric description of what a state of optimal mental health is. Not too much positive affect (impulsive behavior) nor too little (apathy). Not too much negative affect (chronic anxiety) nor too little (aloof). Not too hyperthymic a mood (mania) nor too dysthymic (depression). Not too much affective empathy (borderline personality disorder, erratic mood) nor too little (narcissistic / anti-social personality disorder). But no one tells you the DSM-V is an ethics guideline. Could it be that Aristotle didn't intend his writings to be considered as "ethics" in the what that we think of ethics nowadays? It's good guidelines on "building character" to correct for one's temperament. But it's not guidelines for writing policies or laws.
The thing is, Aristotle was obviously speaking about this in the sense OF ethics. If you litteraly read the book he speaks about "the highest good" and even alludes in his book "politics" that man, being a political creature, when seperated from these laws and virtues are practically animals. And on the hitler question, that begs the question if whether the end justifies the mean, or if Hitler was actually being virtuous. In any case, when accepting truth, you may have to also accept things that are unpalatable. Which may include, if true, accepting men such as Hitler were infact right, and we were taught incorrectly about something sonewhere along the line.
actually, other people have pointed this out in the comments, but his ideas on virtue is kind of circular, how do you know good, through virtue, how do you recognize virtue, how do you recognize virtue, by living a life of eudaimonia, how do you live a life of eudaimonia, by being virtuous. This is the real problem with Aristotilian ethics, in fact from what I've heard... it isn't even really an ethics, according to my teacher (who granted might be wrong I havn't read arristotle myself) the way that some people are virtuous and some aren't is simply that some people are raised right. Yeah, as in you are just born a good person due to your circumstances, people born under the wrong circumstances can't really be virtuous (since virtue is more about your intentions and thoughts then your actions). It's a very rudimentary form of ethics that relies more on intuition then anything else.
No he doesn't. He's just telling you what you want to hear unlike the other philosophers. The whole point of ethics is to know what is the right thing to do from the wrong thing to do. Virtue ethics don't do that at all. They're the worst ethical system of all because they aren't an ethical system.
Eudaimonia. Eu( Greek for good) + Daimon ( Spirit,Soul ). Etymologically it means that you are not barely surving but having fun doing so. Being happy in an abstract way. I am a greek and we have to study ancient greek in the curriculum so i know.
That's is very interesting. Especially in that "eu" stands for good. "Eu" in Portuguese means "I". Does this again reinforce the idea that we are all "good" or at least striving for the good throughout our lives?
I study the Tao Te Ching and Lao Tzu is pretty much using this philosophy. How to live that happy median of doing the right thing but not too much or too little of the right thing. Also the Tao Te Ching is vague and instead of being rules it is more like guidelines. I think because Lao Tzu recognizes that rules would imply right and wrong and right and wrong would imply superiority within people, but Lao Tzu does not believe in superiority because he sees the natural goodness in everyone.
Xavier Guillaume Humans have an infinite inalienable intrinsic value. This is distinct from moral and ethical superiority to one another. Hitler did ethically evil things. Mother Theresa did ethically good things. Obviously Mother Theresa is the more virtuous and better person, despite both Hitler and Mother Theresa having the same infinite inalienable intrinsic value. Moral exemplars are de facto better at virtue than those who are not. Virtue does not impact a person’s value.
Etymologically you can break down eudaimonia to "eu"="good" and "daimon"="god" or "spirit". It's essentially the state where the "gods" seem to be conspiring in your favour.
Thank you so much for making these videos. You're making student's life 100x easier, and it's good for people who's not in school to know something valuable in a very concentrate time. I will keep watching your videos even after I graduate!
This sounds similar to what is taught in the New Testament: be a good Christian and you'll just natural want to do what is right, follow Christ correctly and doing what is right will just flow from you. So see Christian morals do work. Great video. So there!! Keep up the good work. Amen!! God bless you.
Bless my parents they were good people, but busy and I ended up learning a lot from the characters in books, many of them became my mentors so to speak. I really should read more again, lot of my personality really was helped developed by the authors of amazing stories with amazing characters, full of human flaws and grace.
That was an incredible presentation of Aristotle put on by CC. Usually you guys try to talk him down, but this was generally well informed. Great job, I take back my harsh criticism these past few episodes.
You help like no other. I researched so much on eudaimonia and I didn't understand it till this video. I'm so happy. Passing Humanities Midterm lets goooooooo
FedJimSmith Not really he has an ego. He's viewed higher than everyone else and considered to be perfect. Guts mentioned that he was never on the earth with them but in the sky. Like he's naturally better than everyone and you see this in his new band of the hawk.
Not really, he just did whatever he wanted because he knew he would succeed since he is special. He looks down on everyone else. Ultimately he is driven by greed, ambition, and selfishness, I wouldn't call that acting virtuously.
Griffith is definitely a virtuous person, in that he is noble, charismatic, humorous, charming, friendly determined and a great leader, yet his own actions tend to be in contradictions in how he tries to achieve his dream to rise to good fortune. For one, he resorts to blackmail, kidnapping, assassination, revenge, squabbling, deceit, and assault and battery to achieve those ends. That is one of the flaws of virtue theory; while one can have great characteristics, they can still have horrendous conduct as pointed out by Kant. Another example of this would be Ender Higgins, in that he's a very intelligent young man, but killed an entire civilization.
Andrea M Vague indeed. This umm... knowing what is good "skill" will probably be will agreed upon in simple situations and not in ones that are complicated.
Consequentialism probably plays in here. If your actions increase the net well being and happiness of people around you and your self, then you are on the right track. Its often really hard in the spur of the moment to know what is best though, but as Aristotle points out, experience is what counts here. Looking back on your own life and learning from others mistakes.
Question of morals. It was covered in previous episodes if you havent watched them already. There is no simple answer to ''what is good and what is bad''. It all depends on how you look on things and which school of thought you consider the best. For example kantianism or utilitarianism. As with everything in philosophy - there is no correct answer, only an opinion of an individual.
Unity of the virtues through prudence, the rational moral virtue! That is why one can assess the circumstances and act according to the "golden mean," as has been said. Virtue is not skill (techne), however. Good attention to exemplars as the model for virtue development and motivation. See Linda Zagzebski's work on this! A great video, nonetheless.
Is it just me, or does virtue theory seem like the existentialist's ethical system of choice. It seems that the state of eudaimonia and existentialism's view of making the right choice for yourself based on how you understand the situation should work quite nicely together.
Good eye. They are certainly compatible theories, and generally more functional than the ethical theories that lay between them. Ultimately, though, virtue ethics needs some modification for be compatible with existentialism. Primarily, existentialism is the broad rejection of purpose, which is why it's fundamentally an atheistic position (yes, it technically grew out of a fundamentalist Christian theory, but the term doesn't apply to that). Virtue ethics is founded on some key assumptions about the way people "should" be. So it ultimately allows far less variety of action than existentialism, which gives the individual complete reign over that. This doesn't mean that you can't combine them, of course. It just means that there is some modification being done on both ends.
Virtue ness will mostly appear in those with a reason to hold on to what they have in life, such as those with items not everyone has. I have made this assumption within the introduction so I might be proven wrong.
About eudaimonia, I've criticized Utilitarians for being too "feelings based", because feelings are malleable. First, pleasure and pain often mislead us away from what is actually good for us. Second, our feelings are malleable, how people feel about things can often be changed. So the correct sequence must always be to first find what is good, and then choose to feel good about it. Thus eudaimonia is not the end goal of morality. Obtaining the best good and least harm for everyone is the end goal of morality. If we are seeking that, then we ought to feel good about it, and satisfied when we achieve it. Creating a good person of ourselves, by a life-long learning of how to be better at being and doing good, is something we should feel good about.
Eudaimonia isn't exactly feeling based. It's more founded on the idea of the "good" and having led a life that was "good". Plato and Aristotle both snubbed the idea of morality being focused on one's feelings. Eudaimonia is described as a kind of happiness, but one that emerges from the good rather the other way around. One didn't live a good life because they wanted to be happy. They were happy because they led a good life.
Bob McBobberbob Yes, pleasure and pain evolved to help provide us guidance, but they are crude tools and often mislead us. A vaccination is good for us even though it's painful. Heroin is bad for us even though it feels good.
Bob McBobberbob The problem with defining the goal in terms of specific genes is that everyone has a unique set. The only way to pass on that set would be to somehow revert back to non-sexual reproduction. There is a survival advantage to having variations between individuals, and new combinations, within the species. That's why I use this formulation: We call something "good" if it meets a real need we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.
Ultimately pleasure and happiness is the aim, but it is understood pleasure and happiness must sometimes be forgone in the short-term to experience greater pleasure in the long-term, and to a certain degree, pain ought sometimes to be avoided in order to prepare oneself for a necessary stage of suffering later on. The principle of simply always seeking pleasure and happiness and avoiding pain and unhappiness outright is usually called hedonism, the opposite being asceticism, and both have been more or less destroyed and dispensed with in every serious and profound ethical tradition as shallow and vain in most circumstances. This is really not so much a moral as a practical understanding, though really they are the same thing. If you were to seek immediate satisfaction and fulfilment in all circumstances you would inevitably compromise your ability to attain them to a greater degree in the future, just as surely as though you never had them in mind. A simple example would be athletes who sacrifice immediate comfort and willingly suffer pain in determined pursuit of ultimate fame and glory down the road. This principle holds true of the human individual as well as the collective.
I love this theory. This, for me, is generally the most helpful in terms of deciding how to act on the spot in ethically demanding decisions. I tend to ask myself, "what kind of person will deciding x make me?" Great coverage of the topic.
