Age of Extremes Essay

The twentieth century was rich in events and outstanding personalities. In his book Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm provides an extensive review of what happened during the Twentieth Century and the impact of those events on human development. According to Hobsbawm, the Twentieth Century was both the Age of Catastrophe and the time of the extraordinary economic growth – a complex sandwich of events and developments that changed the human society â€Å"more profoundly than any other period of comparable brevity† (Hobsbawm, 1995). In the first two chapters of Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm (1995) tries to evaluate the social and historic legacy of the Twentieth Century and creates a brief picture of the events and accomplishments that took place between 1914 and 1991. The author is confident that human society cannot distance itself from the events of the past, because everyone on the globe, irrespective of their life history and personal background, went through more or less similar central experiences that affected them all (Hobsbawm, 1995). Hobsbawm (1995) traces the evolution of the Twentieth Century from the First World War, which marked â€Å"the breakdown of the western civilization of the nineteenth century† (p. 6). The western civilization was characterized by capitalist economy, liberal constitutional structure, bourgeois image of the hegemonic class, and the glory of scientific, educational, technological, knowledge, and moral advance (Hobsbawm, 1995). The decades following the beginning of the First World War were the Age of Catastrophe: until the end of WWII, the society stumbled from one calamity to another and lived at the edge of survival (Hobsbawm, 1995). The failure of the major colonial empires and the economic crisis of unprecedented depth added their share of complexity to the state of world affairs (Hobsbawm, 1995). Hobsbawm (1995) believes that the victory of the Soviet Union over Hitler was one of the most important events of the Twentieth Century. Without it, the whole Western world could have turned into set of variations on fascist themes (Hobsbawm, 1995). The rise of the socialist movements was the direct result of the weaknesses in the nineteenth-century bourgeois society (Hobsbawm, 1995). How and why the world threw itself into the Golden Age of capitalism between 1947 and 1973 remains one of basic historical puzzles; but the Golden Age could not be endless and the global crisis that followed affected all, irrespective of their political, social, and economic configurations (Hobsbawm, 1995). The economic crisis gradually extended to cover political issues – the collapse of the Soviet Union produced an enormous zone of political uncertainty and destroyed the stable system of international relations (Hobsbawm, 1995). The economic and political uncertainties were followed by the moral and social crisis – the crisis of beliefs, which humans had used over the course of the Twentieth Century to win their battle over the nineteenth century’s ideology (Hobsbawm, 1995). The century that had begun with unbelievable optimism and faith in the future ended with a bang and a whimper, leaving the society in the midst of the moral, social, economic, and mental collapse (Hobsbawm, 1995). In Hobsbawm’s (1995) view, the Twentieth Century was the time of unprecedented achievements and dramatic failures. The cyclical nature of evolution resulted in continuous instability and profound economic, social, and political shifts. For many countries, the Twentieth Century became the time of remarkable changes and the beginning of the new era of uncertainty and chaos. Whether countries succeed in resolving the existing controversies depends on how well they can learn the lessons of the past and use wisely the historical, political, and moral legacy of the stormy Twentieth Century. Conclusion The Twentieth Century was the time of unprecedented achievements and failures. The capitalization of the word combination â€Å"Twentieth Century† by Hobsbawm (1995) is not accidental. The author feels that the Twentieth Century reflected a unique paradox: the triumph of the material values and their absolute rejection at the end of the era. The century that had begun with unbelievable optimism and faith in the future ended with the deep crisis of the moral and mental ideologies, leaving humanity in the midst of the social, economic, cultural, and moral collapse. Whether countries succeed in resolving the existing controversies depends on how well people can learn from the past and use wisely the historical, political, and moral legacy of the stormy Twentieth Century.

Human Rights Contemporary Issue

a)Outline the nature of the violation Torture is a serious human rights violation and is strictly prohibited by international law however it still does continue in majority of the countries around the world. Torture is an act of deliberately inflicting severe pain on someone without any legal causes. Torture is not only physical pain but also includes the act of causing mental pain as well such as threats to family or loved ones. Torture has been used as a punishment to intimidate or control a person. The term torture includes a variety of methods such as severe beatings, electric shock, sexual abuse and rape, hard labour, near suffocation etc. Torture is considered a violation of human rights under Article 5 of the UN UDHR which states ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. A location in which torture occurs is Guantanamo Bay detention camp (GTMO) in Cuba. GTMO is a detainment and detention facility of the United States located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The facility was established by the Bush administration to hold detainees from the war in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. It is operated by the Joint Task Force Guantanamo of the United States government in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is on the shore of Guantanamo Bay. A few torture methods being inflicted upon the detainees of GTMO includes sleep deprivation, beatings, locked in confined cold cells, sexual assault and torturing with broken glass, barbed wire and burning cigarettes )Outline the international instruments and mechanisms in place to deal with the violation, and outline how these mechanisms have been breached There are numerous laws in place to deal with events involving torture and the following are the international treaties and mechanisms that determine standards for the human right to be protected from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly . According to Article 5 of the UDHR which states that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman r degrading treatment or punishment’ torture is a human rights violation. Torture is a breach of Article 5 of the UDHR as it is an act of deliberate severe pain inflicted on someone to gain information. Methods of torture such as beatings, sexual assault, rat torture, scaphism are all cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which are prohibited and are a breach of the UDHR. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a treaty adopted by the General Assembly. This covenant elaborates the principles laid out in the UDHR. Torture is a violation of this convention as it is prohibited under Article 7, which states ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. As torture is a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment it is classified a breach of this covenant. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is an international human rights instrument, under the review of the United Nations, that aims to prevent torture around the world. It is the principal UN treaty concerned with torture. It compromises 33 articles covering the rights at stake and the enforcement mechanisms. Torture is a violation of human rights as the Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture and no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be raised to justify torture. Torture breaches this article as it torture still exist today even though there are laws prohibiting its occurrence. The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against torture (OPCAT) entered into force on 22 June 2006 and is an important addition to the UNCAT. The purpose of the protocol as stated in Article 1 is to ‘establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Torture is a breach of this Protocol because it occurs at GTMO as the detainees are treated unjustly such as being deprived of sleep and torturing of dangerous objects. The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. This convention defines humanitarian protection for prisoners of war. The convention states that prisoners of war ‘are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour’ (Article 14) and ‘must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity’ (Article 13). Article 17 specifies that ‘no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatsoever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind’. Therefore torture is a severe breach of this convention as it is an act of inflicting cruel inhuman pain on prisoners of war to detain information which occurs at GTMO. Even though there are various international instruments and mechanisms in place to deal with torture they are still breached which occurs at GTMO. )Analyse the effectiveness of international law in protecting the human rights you have identified International law is the body of legal rules that apply between sovereign states which are regarded and acknowledge highly by the international community. International law may be not as effective in other countries due to state sovereignty, a nation states values and interest and whether or not treaties have been signed or ratified. The core principle of international law is sovereignty. This means that no authority is legally above the state. The states are not obliged to agree to the international law and apply it within their state because of state sovereignty. This may be a reason in which why torture still exists in the world today as it has not been entirely abolished because some states have not agreed to apply the international laws dealing with torture within their state e. g. UNCAT where some states have both signed and ratified the convention, states have signed but not ratified and other states which have ot signed nor ratified the covenant such as Papua New Guinea, Angola, Zimbabwe and Iran where torture is known to still occur today. As long as state sovereignty applies the nation state cannot have any external interference and therefore cannot be influenced as to whether the nation state should apply the international law into their state or not. This limits international law from becoming affective into the nation state. Not every state will agree wit h the values as they are completely different to their own beliefs. It may be used by states to maintain positions of power and gain self interest. Therefore it is not used objectively. For example a state which disapproves of torture may agree to the international laws created to prohibit torture whereas a state which torture may occur and the leader of the state does not want to entirely prohibit torture, will not agree to the international laws as their goals and values differ of other states. If the international law does not benefit the nation state in anyway the nation state may not decide to apply that law into their nation state. So this weakens the developing and appliance of international law. The ICCPR is a covenant respecting the civil and political rights of individuals. This treaty has been signed by Cuba however it has not been ratified. Therefore the nation state does not have to entirely comply with the treaty which results in torture occurring in Cuba at GTMO and the ICCPR loses its effectiveness. This is because no external interference can influence to comply with the treaty and prohibit torture occurring at GTMO. OPCAT is an addition to UNCAT in which Cuba have yet signed or ratified. It is an international inspection system for places of detention such as GTMO. However since Cuba has not signed nor ratified the protocol OPCAT does not have the jurisdiction to inspect GTMO. This reduces the effectiveness of the international law assisting to prohibit torture occurring at GTMO. As a result of state sovereignty, a nation states values and interest and whether or not the nation state has signed and ratified the treaty international is ineffective in reducing and prohibiting torture in occurring around the world today in such places such as GTMO located in Cuba.

The Role of of a phlebotomist Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

The Role of of a phlebotomist - Essay Example Therefore, the responsibilities of a phlebotomist in any healthcare organization are to explain to the patients about the procedures to be undertaken, encourage patients in case they are worried, draw the blood into a tube by inserting a hypodermic needle in the vain, dress the puncture created by the needle, mark the blood sample, deliver the blood sample within the stipulated time and ensuring that the records are complete and data entered in a computer. A Phlebotomist needs also to ensure that any lab tools are disposed off correctly (Stein 2). As a phlebotomist, an individual needs to follow several ethical roles. He or she needs to handle the patient with a lot of care and respect. A phlebotomist should constantly communicate with patients and do his or her best so as to avoid harming the patients. It is also ethical for phlebotomists to ensure that they are in a good relationship with the co-workers. Phlebotomists are supposed to treat their peers with a lot of kindness and respect. The guidelines, rules and regulations formulated by an employer should be followed strictly by a phlebotomist (McCall 150). From the discussion, it is clear that the major function of a phlebotomist is to draw blood specimens from patients. It is also evident that there are several ethical roles of a phlebotomist. Phlebotomist should handle his or her patients with care, relate well with co-workers and follow the formulated rules, regulations and

Industrialization Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Industrialization - Essay Example The foundation of all Marxist leads to the analysis of political parties that formed in the early years in the British history. According to Marxists, the foundation of the Major political parties in Britain was based on the economic status of the society by then. The major aim of the political parties was to address the major issues affecting the life of the common people in the society. Politics of one class of people were being fought by all means and it was all aimed at ensuring equity in the places of work. There came to the formation of the Marxists in the early years. This brought the major political parties we have today in Britain. These are the; Tory Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party (Daub 2005). The three major parties have not been seen to antagonize with the Marxist thesis rather they conform it. Marx revealed the driving forces of history in order to facilitate the making of history. In the course of the struggle between the classes, some acquire or lose coh esion and confidence. Thus political parties act as a weapon in the struggle between classes. In his argument Marx argued that there was a rising tension and disagreement between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. According to Marx, the proletariats were being exploited by the capitalists who were the bourgeoisie. The exploitation being experienced by the proletariat was based on the wealth that was being created and being enjoyed by the bourgeoisie. This major source of the tension being experienced by the two groups was on the economic exploitation where the working had little share of what they produced. The materials produced in the factories could be sold at a price higher than the workers’ wages. This meant that the workers who were mainly the proletariat could work in the factories but could not afford to build the items they produced due to the low wages (Barry 2005). The antagonism that Marx described was based on the wealth superiority. The oppressors wanted to ac quire all the wealth that was being made by the proletariats. This was the major cause of the tension between the two groups. Riots would arise as the oppressed advocated for the equal treatment of the two groups. There arose a revolution aimed at overthrowing the oppressors together with their supporters (Milkovinch 2010). According to Marx, he believed that capitalism was the destructor of the peace between the two major groups. He went on to describe in depth how the wealth being enjoyed by the bourgeoisies was a result of the hard work of the proletariat who were the main workers in the factories. In his observation, Marx argued that this antagonism would lead to a revolution that could be aimed at the oppressors who were the bourgeoisies. The rising competition among the two groups makes the commercial crisis get to a bad state. The increased rioting has been attributed to the oppression by the bourgeoisie (Daub 2005). Marx states that the exploitation of this group of people w ould lead to intensified resentment causing more hatred. A revolution would arise that would lead to the overthrow of the capitalists and their external supporters. However the situation that Marx described seems to have faded today. This is because there are groups that strongly advocate for the equal treatment of all classes of people in the society. There are some who stage their claims and strongly defend the working class calling for meaningful wages. The issue of one group dominating and

Critically discuss the position of legal aid in England and Wales Essay

Critically discuss the position of legal aid in England and Wales - Essay Example The government proposed changes in the civil legal aid as outlined by Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke would see civil legal aid only routinely available for cases where life or liberty was so much at stake (Ministry of Justice, 2009, p.4). The funding would be removed on dispute like (Divorce, welfare benefits and school exclusion appeals, Employment, Immigration where the person is not detained and Clinical negligence and personal injury).However, legal funding would continue for cases like (Asylum, Mental health, Debt and housing matters where someones home is at immediate risk, Family law cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction and for mediation as a means to resolve disputes). Other measures to be put in place are the use of telephone as single gateway to legal advice, purported benefit eligibility to access legal aid being replaced to depend on the disposable capital one has so as to qualify for the legal aid, and also the decrease in fees paid to the solicitors, judges and the barristers that provide the legal aid. The changes proposed in the legal aid are expected to cut the legal aid bill by  £350m a year by 2015. As its It is thought there would be 500,000 fewer civil cases as a result. The plan was taken through consultation from the public starting 15th November 2011 to 14th February 2011, so that the justice ministry could get the view of the public on the intended changes. It would discourage cases that are not worth taking to court being resolved through other methods of dispute resolution like mediation. As Mr. Clarke points out when reading the proposal to the MPs, he says that legal aid has seen unnecessary court cases that would have not reached the court-room door were they not being funded by tax payer’s money, but from the pocket of somebody else. He adds further that the proposal targets civil ‘and family schemes that discourage people to resort to lawyers and courts whenever they have

WORLD WAR II WAS A WAR OF UNPRECEDENT DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, MUCH OF Essay

WORLD WAR II WAS A WAR OF UNPRECEDENT DEATH AND DESTRUCTION, MUCH OF IT FOCUSED ON CIVILIANS, WHY - Essay Example The major control of Germany was in the hand of Adolf Hitler. He was the leader of Nazi party. He conquered the lands of Germany and defeated Poland. This proved to break out war against Germany and slowly nearly whole world indulged into it. In world war 2 more than 63 million people of allied and axis powers were died. This death figure included 24 million soldiers and 38 million civilians in which 90% civilians were from allied nations. Allied nations defeated the axis powers and this was the end of war. The major destruction in this war caused to Allied nation people. Death figure of civilians are given which shows the deadliness of world war 2.Around 11.7 million civilian died in Soviet Union, 7 million in China, 5.2 million in Poland, 2 million in Germany and 0.6 million in Japan. 5 million European Jews died due to genocide. In world war two many new weapons like atomic bombs, missiles, fighter planes, biochemical bombs were invented which caused to mass destruction and genetic disorders.

Comparing and Contrasting Culture and Education in Saudi Arabia and Essay

Comparing and Contrasting Culture and Education in Saudi Arabia and The USA - Essay Example or Mr. as titles. University students however can just call their professors by their first names and mostly, they are encouraged by their professors to do so, which in Saudi would be unpleasant to the ears and may be deemed a sign of disrespect so that adaptation has been difficult for me in this area. In addition, I also observed the form of instruction in the schools. American schools are interactive, with the teachers encouraging the students to participate in discussions, arguing about the subject matter and voicing out their minds with the teacher ready to aid them in channeling their thought to the right decisions, which is greatly different in my country where most of the talking comes from the teacher. The students are expected to sit down and listen in return, never challenging, negotiating or discussing the topic whether an individual agrees or disagrees, a student’s duty is to keep his mouth shut. Christianity is the widely embraced religion in America and the gove rnment founded its constitution in Christian beliefs. Saudi on the other hand established her laws from Islamic ideologies. Although both religions claim an identical story of creation and trace their ancestry to the same patriarchs, the differentiation would be as the names suggest, between the prophets Muhammad and Christ as well as their teachings. Speaking of government, the form used in Saudi is monarchy with council of ministers and consultative council helping the king in his government affairs. The king’s authority is limited because of the context of his role indicated in the Shari’a and other traditions (U.S. Department of State). America on the other hand,... This paper approves that media could be found to be a common phenomenon, affecting the countries’ success and legislation through the distribution of highly competent publications not only in the native tongues of both countries but in other languages as well. Legal issues and individual concepts are placed into the assessment of different sectors as the media make available the information released through broadcast or paper. And this is not just for people to express their interpretations of events but in response to the shared belief of a better environment we all could make. America has a greater number of immigrants from a wider scale of immigrants than that of Saudi. thais paper makes a conclusion that Nations could be entirely different but the fact cannot be denied that somehow, we are somewhat related to each other in unique ways. Looking at the data discussed in this paper, one could easily come up with an analysis of the approach a nation could employ in the making of its policies to meet the specific needs of different nations as each are different. A characteristic may be stronger in one nation than the other but this does not mean that the virtue is solely for that particular nation. In conclusion, as each have varied resources, nations should get involved in the exchange of benefits to build a global relationship that allows every nation to survive in this chaotic world.

Software Usability (HW) Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Software Usability (HW) - Research Paper Example Good usability results to a pleasant man-to-machine interaction while bad usability results to frustration. Evaluating the site usability is a subjective process involving corporate views and user perspectives. The end-users should have to have the last opinion about it. Below could be a set of criteria in assessing site usability: Navigability. First of all, there should be a speedy and easy navigation where a user won’t seem to notice he/she is in fact navigating. A good ride around the site keeps the user stuck for more and exploring for concerns becomes common sense. At the very least, the user becomes at ease about the organization of the site without necessarily knowing what it is (Lawrence & Tavakol, 2007). Frames, table of contents, â€Å"You are here!† flags are just some of the commonplace devices to easy navigation (Spool et al., 1999). Content Layout. Visuals are just of the essence. The site is made for the users not for the developers or designers who can read through intricate machine languages. However, this is not heavily about aesthetics, though – in fact, not at all. This is where the readable text style and size and appropriate color come into the picture of an acceptable page visibility allocated for a user (Peterson, 2005). User-preference. This may be the most important factor in e-commerce sites. Though it may not be useful to all websites, some people will still actually look for the â€Å"Search† button first thing upon getting into the site. Web experts seem to have come into unparalleled conclusions regarding website usability. One may always find loopholes in every argument another makes. Actually, usability is a simple thing people only likely notice when they don’t get it. To end debates like these, consumer research is key. Consumer psychology is a way to marketability. More so, nobody makes a good conclusion without a good research. It

US army reserve in Homeland Security Research Paper

US army reserve in Homeland Security - Research Paper Example The US Army Reserve should engage in Homeland Security and guarding the US borders. It provides trained units in addition to qualified individuals in times of need such as time of war, national emergency, and at times when national security may need them. The security issue within and outside the US is at stake; the number of immigrants is very high in the US because of the illegal entry and smuggling. The paper will expound on the military experience, homeland security expertise, global demand for army forces, and the operational environment in future as the main factors that make the Reserve Component fit for being utilized in Homeland security and guarding the US borders. The paper will also on how the loss of attention in some key areas in addition to pressure on the US economy pose challenge on the integration of the Reserve Component in Homeland Security and guarding the US borders. The Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 expounds on the roles of reserve forces. In section 201 (a) of the 1952 Act claims that the reserve components of the United States have specific roles. They provide trained units in addition to qualified individuals in times of need such as time of war, national emergency, and at times when national security may need them (Marcia, 2012). Often, reservists are only given the opportunity to volunteer for active duties. Participation in volunteering activities denies them the promotion opportunities like other active-duty armies.

Machines in Modern World Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Machines in Modern World - Essay Example Planting the seed is done manually and as the time for reaping comes you spend hours in the fields reaping the corn or wheat with a scythe. It is slow, frustrating and backbreaking work. Of course, the scenario given above did exist some time in the distant past. Maybe one has even read about it or seen such a life in some movie. But after experiencing all the conveniences of the machine filled it is difficult to imagine going back to a world without machines. This article is about machines and how they have enriched our lives both at the workplace and at home. It was also look at some of the disadvantages also. It will also take into account all the advantages and some disadvantages of using machines and in the end will show that after taking into account all the pros and the cons, the world is a better place to live in because of the abundance of machines that we see and use everyday. Man the machine: In effect the human body or the body of any creature that can move can be called a machine. The body is used to carry loads and perform tasks with hands and feet just like machines. Even animals use their body as machines. In fact, no machine quite as complex as the human body has ever been built. The human body has the circulatory system, the nervous system, the reproductive system, the skeletal system, the muscular system and the excretory system and no machine has even come close in complexity. If the body is such an efficient machine it could be asked as to why machines have been built. The answer would be that the body has its limitations. It cannot work continuously as machines can, it cannot carry the heavy loads that machines carry and it cannot repeatedly carry out error free operations as a machine can. But what it can do is, think creatively, and constantly look for ways to make life more convenient. This is the main difference between the human being whe n compared to other creatures.. With their limited thinking capacity, very few animals creatively use tools for more efficiency. The ant still carries its food on its back instead of using a trolley and tigers and lions still hunt using their feet and claws to kill instead of using a gun. But human beings have over the long period of its existence thought of and invented a wide array of machines that can perform tasks far more efficiently and quickly and will continue to do so. So machines are essentially a thing that is intended to make life more efficient and in some cases dangerous for us. To make the matter more clear a detailed look at the limitations of the human body and the advantages machines have over it would be appropriate. Limitations of the human body as a machine: a. Fatigue: No living organism can live or do work without getting energy. Energy is obtained from nutrients that are found in the food that is eaten by a person. A body needs adequate nutrients like fat, proteins, minerals, carbohydrates and water to perform tasks and to survive. A depletion of these nutrients will result in fatigue which in turn will affect his performance. A person can work without food relying on his internal reserves of energy for a few days. Some who are healthier can extend this period for a few more days. But ultimately there is a limit to what the body can take and there will come a time when it will refuse to function the way we want. Of course, energy is needed for machines to work too. But that will be discussed later in the article. b. Thirst: Thirst is taken up for special mention because the human body can

Shitology Essay Example for Free

Shitology Essay There have been many stories told in the past about Gods. Every story has its own supernatural spin, providing a forceful sense of cause and effect events. This almost always forms the cultural plot to describe a bad or good point in time. Certain sequences of myths describe a situation where god destroys mankind for not going through with their intentions when they created mankind, by creating a massive flood. These stories include: â€Å"Noah’s Ark†, â€Å"Tata and Nena†, and the â€Å"Deucalion†. All of these stories have cultural aspects that provide similarities and differences in each other. One thing that is important to point out is that â€Å"Tata and Nena†, â€Å"Deucalion†, and â€Å"Noah’s Ark† all explain what happened to the world after it was destroyed, in different ways. For example in the story of â€Å"Deucalion†, â€Å"Tlaloc then appeared to them and said, â€Å"This is how I am repaid for saving your lives? † They were changed into dogs† (Bierlein30). In the story â€Å"Tata and Nena†, they were asked to only eat corn but instead they ate fish, so then Tlaloc got mad and turned them into dogs, in a world that was completely destroyed with no intention of repopulation. In the â€Å"Deucalion† story, â€Å"These rocks were transformed into people who repopulated the earth† (Deucalion30). Rocks were thrown behind Zeus who then was turned to people who soon remade the world all over again. Also the myth of â€Å"Noah’s Ark† has a different story, â€Å"God then repopulated the world with what Noah had saved. Like the one of each animal† (Noah29). God decided to make the world again and used the animals Noah saved to do so. This all proves that all of the stories had a different way of explaining what happened to the world after it was destroyed. All of the myths describe a different culture involved. Like, In the story â€Å"Deucalion†, â€Å"And it rained for 9 days and 9 nights until the entire world was flooded except for two mountain peaks in Greece, Mt Parnassus and Mt. Olympus, the latter being the home of the Gods†(Deucalion30). This shows that the Greek gods were ignorant and made it rain everywhere except in the Greece Mountains where they were staying. In â€Å"Tata and Nena†, â€Å"During the era of the Fourth Sun, the Sun of Water, the people grew very wicked and ignored the worships of the gods† (Bierlein30). The Aztec gods were mad at humans for not listening to them, and so they decided they needed to flood the whole world. This shows that no one cared at all about anything the Aztec gods wanted. Also, In â€Å"Noah’s Ark†, God flooded the world and then saved Noah. He then repopulated the world and the Jews were afraid of the flood. God then promised the Jews he would not do another flood (Noah29). God basically said he’s tired of destroying the world with water, and he’ll leave the Jews alone for awhile. It’s really obvious that all of the destruction of the world was all to show a side in which they came from and eventually rejoiced. In the stories of â€Å"Tata and Nena†, â€Å"Deucalion† and â€Å"Noah’s Ark† all have similarities. Like in â€Å"Tata and Nena†, â€Å"The god’s became angry and Tlaloc, the god of rains, announced that he was going to destroy the world with a flood† (Bierlein30). This proves that â€Å"Noah’s Ark†, â€Å"Deucalion†, and â€Å"Tata and Nena† all had moody gods that would wipeout the world with a flood if things weren’t going as planned. In the â€Å"Deucalion† he was asked to go in the boat away from the flood. â€Å"These rocks were transformed into people who repopulated the earth† (Deucalion30). In both of the stories of â€Å"Deucalion† and â€Å"Noah’s Ark† the world was repopulated after the destruction. In the story of â€Å"Noah’s Ark†, â€Å"God asked Noah to take his family and get a male and female of every animal then to build an ark† (Noah29). In both stories of â€Å"Noah’s Ark† and â€Å"Deucalion† they were asked to do something and were saved from the flood in the end. This makes it crystal clear that stories have very similar actions during the flood. Noah’s Ark†, â€Å"Tata and Nena†, and the â€Å"Deucalion† showed many similarities and differences. It also showed how Aztec, Jewish and Greek cultures presented their myths, and for the most part, explaining much more than just a flood. To this day there are people who claim they have found huge wooden boats relating it back to these myths. The truth is that people will believe whatever they want to believe. Al Gore is a firm believer in UFOs, and that’s not crazy in our society. The only difference between that and â€Å"Noah’s Ark† is that there are multiple flood myths passed on from century to century.

Comparing Judaism and Islam Essay Example for Free

Comparing Judaism and Islam Essay Judaism and Islam are two of the worlds oldest, and largest monotheistic religions. These religions share a variety of customs, beliefs, and even practices. But at the same time, there are enough differences to make the two religions and cultures oppose each other greatly. Even some similarities between the two have been the source of conflict for thousands of years. Both the Jewish and Muslim faith believe in one God. Being monotheistic means just that, the belief in one God. This is the most obvious similarity between the two religions. In fact a Muslim is defined as anyone who says There is no God but God, and Mohammed is the messenger of God. and the basic creed of Judaism says Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one. Judaism and Islam both have Holy Books from which religious teachings are taken. The Muslim Holy Book is called the Quran, it is spelled in English in many different ways Koran, Kuran, this is because Arabic is hard to translate. The Quran is the word of God as reveled by the prophet Mohammed. The Jewish Holy Book is referred to as the Hebrew Bible. The first five books of the Hebrew Bible is called the Torah. This is the part of the bible lays out a system of moral and religious conduct. The Hebrew Bible was put together in the 1st century A.D. by rabbis and teachers of the Jewish text. The Hebrew Bible and the Quran both set up a system of law for the followers of the Jewish and Muslim faiths. The Hebrew Bible, the book of the Jewish faith sets up more of a code of conduct, a system of moral and religious conduct that is called the halavhah. This addresses how families should be run, personal ethics and manners, social responsibilities, and what people of the Jewish faith should and should not eat. Dietary guidelines are very important in the Jewish religion, everything that is eaten must be Kosher, meaning it is prepared a certain way. The Quran goes one step farther in setting boundaries for its believers. This book of the Muslim faith sets the rules for an Islamic state. Also there are strict rules on women, families, and daily life that are addressed in deep detail in the Quran. Polygamy is accepted in the Quran, a man may have no more that four wives. And women are actually supposed to be mostly equal to men, yet modest.  Equality of women is not always practiced in some Middle Eastern and Islamic countries. As with most religions Islam and Judaism have a variety of holidays. Some are to commemorate an event of the the past, some to celebrate a new year, or maybe the passing of a certain number of years. Ramadan, a holiday celebrated mostly by Sunni Muslims, happens during the ninth month of the Muslim year. This was the month when the Quran was reveled for the guidance of mankind. During this holy month Muslims fast and abstain from sex during the daylight hours. It is a very holy time and is taken very seriously. In the Jewish faith there is a similar holiday called Passover. This holiday lasts for seven days and commerates the deliverance of Israel from slavery. Passover more specifically refers to the evening when the angel of death passed over the houses of all in Egypt killing the first born of each home that did not have lambss blood around the door. During this holiday Jews are permitted only to ear unleavened bread called matzo during the daylight hours, much like the Ramadan fasting. Jews also hold feasts during the first two nights of this holiday. A house of worship is an important component of most religions in our world today. Islam has the Mosque, a place of prayer and teaching. Judaism has the Synagogue, also a place of prayer and teaching. In both these places people gather to perform the customs that are laid out in their religious scriptures. Unlike some religions in the world today both Judaism and Islam require their believers to pray multiple times a day. Jews pray three times a day, once in the morning, once in the noontime and once in the evening. Though this practice is more of a personal choice than the strict guidelines of prayer set in the Muslim religion. In the Quran there are five pillars of the Muslim faith: The first is profession of faith which basically means a Muslims must constantly and openly profess their faith. The second is prayer, which happens five times a day. The third is giving alms to the needy. The fourth is fasting during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. And the fifth is the pilgrimage to Mecca. The second pillar of faith is the  practice similar to the Jewish practice. Five times a day Muslims must pray facing the holy city of Mecca. This however is a very strict prayer, maybe a bit different from the Jewish tradition, but still the same basic concept. Judaism is the oldest of the three major monotheistic religions. The religion began in the time of Abraham which would have been about 1900 B.C, over 3,000 years ago. In many ways this has made the Jewish religion and its followers very strong in their beliefs. Islam, on the other hand, was not founded until 570 A.D., some 2,000 years after the beginning of Judaism. Many Jewish believers will use this difference as an argument. They are the older of the two religions, and so they were the first people in the Holy Land (Israel/Palestine) and so they should be entitled to it and no one else. However, Abraham had two sons, Issac the leader of the Hebrew people and Ishmael, the leader of the Arab people. Though not all Muslims are Arab, the majority of the Muslims in Israel are Arab. So Muslims will use this argument by saying that Ishmael was the first son of Abraham and God told Abraham that He would take care of his first born, so the Muslims have just as much right to the area as the Jews, no matter who was there first. Though there are many similarities between Islam and Judaism, the few differences however large or small seem to greatly outweigh the amazing likenesses for the thousands of followers of both beliefs. These differences as well as the continuing argument over the promised land of Israel/Palestine continue today to escalate the war in the sacred area and drive a wedge even further between the two groups. The truly frightening part of all this is that Holy Wars are extremely hard to resolve. When two groups are fighting over land that was promised to them by a divine entity thats existence cant even be proven, there arent a whole lot of options for peace. All the world can do is educate themselves and try to accept the different religions and continue to look for some sort of compromise.

Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant

Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant The Relation between Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant Introduction ‘Every action and choice is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. (Aristotle: 1094a1-3). Philosophy has always been concerned with trying to determine why we do the actions we do: what are we hoping to achieve by performing certain actions? The above quote is Aristotles opening sentence in the Nicomachean ethics, but how are we actually meant to achieve this good that we are aiming for? Many people in the world would be happy to support the claim that the good is achieved by being virtuous but what exactly does this entail? For Aristotle, ‘moral excellence comes about as a result of habit (Aristotle: 1103a16-17) and ‘happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence (Aristotle: 1102a1-2). It then seems we are safe to claim that the good, (â€Å"moral excellence†), corresponds with happiness, but was he right? And does this happiness include pleasure, or is it excluded? Are virtue and pleasure synonymous? Can they even exist harmoniously at all? Throughout the history of thought, philosophers have attempted to discern that element of human nature that can be most aptly described as the action of taking pleasure in doing certain actions, and in the consequences that arise from any given action. The role of virtue in this pleasure process has been assessed and criticised for hundreds of years; does being virtuous give us pleasure, or does pleasure distract us from doing virtuous things? Is happiness the key to a moral life? My aim in this essay is to address these questions, and related questions, according to the philosophies of Kant and Aristotle. In doing so, I aim to discover what the relation between virtue and pleasure really is, according to these two philosophers. My aim is to discover what the role is of both virtue and pleasure, and the connection between them, in the works of both philosophers, and try to establish where the two philosophies align, and where they are incompatible. At first, it seems as though both philosophers are wholly incompatible in their views of where our morality, our motivation to strive for the good, comes from. Even how the two define what the good is seems to differ too much to offer any similarities. As I briefly mentioned in my opening paragraph, for Aristotle, the purpose of human life is the good, and ‘the highest of all goods achievable by action is happiness. And [many] identify living well and faring well with being happy (Aristotle: 1095a16-19). For Kant however, the question of morality is wrapped up in the concept of â€Å"duty† ‘he does the action without any inclination, simply from duty; then the action first has its genuine moral worth (Kant 1997: 4:398). In this essay I will explain exactly what both meant, and critically assess their ideas, with the ultimate goal of somehow reconciling the two seemingly opposing viewpoints. In the process of doing this I will first give an explanation of the foundations of these views what part of each philosophers lifes work these ideas about morality have arisen from. Background When examining any philosophical theory I think it is of vital importance to understand how those particular ideas have been formed what part of the writers thought and theories have these ideas originated from? In this section, I will give a brief overview of whereabouts in their respective works do Kant and Aristotle expound their views on morality, in reference to both pleasure and virtue. Aristotles Nicomachean ethics is part of his practical philosophy (along with his Eudemian ethics), and is primarily a search for what the ultimate goal of human life is. Aristotle was a student of Plato, and as such was likely to have been influenced by his philosophy. It is nothing new to philosophy to be preoccupied with morality. Arguably Platos greatest work, The Republic is fundamentally an inquiry into morality and justice, and what sort of society would be best for cultivating â€Å"the moral man†. In book II of The Republic, Plato tells a story of the mythical ring of Gyges, which is a ring that renders the wearer invisible. Glaucon (the teller of this story in the dialogue) claims that no man, no matter how virtuous or just he is, could resist acting immorally if there was no danger of punishment (Plato: 359c-360c). Glaucon does not believe that any man who had no consequences to face would be moral his claim is that we are moral because society forces us to be so, through fear of being reprimanded. In this case, morality becomes a social construct, and has nothing to do with the singular man who would dismiss moral behaviour in an instant if he believed he could avoid castigation. Aristotles ethics do not follow this way of reasoning, he believes that man can be moral within himself, and also that a man is not virtuous simply by performing virtuous actions, ‘his action must [also] proceed from a firm and unchangeable character (Aristotle: 1105a32-33). Aristotle is often misquoted about what he really meant, due to a mistranslation of the original Greek. Aristotle describes the goal of human life as eudaimonia, which is oft translated as happiness. However, the original meaning of this word is something more akin to being ‘blessed as regards ones own spirit (Pakaluk 2005: 47), or more literally, human flourishing. Pakaluk (2005) goes on to explain the fundamental differences between our commonplace definition of happiness and how we must understand it as a translation of eudaimonia. Most importantly we must understand that Aristotles happiness is not a hedonistic happiness where ‘pleasure is regarded as the chief good, or the proper end of act ion (OED 1989). Eudaimonia is a stable, lasting condition, one that does not fluctuate according to day-to-day events it is an ultimate goal rather than a temporary one. It is also objectively universal it is not a subjective condition based upon the wants of each individual it is a state of being, not a mood or inclination, which is similar for all human beings and is characterised as living well ‘the happy man lives well and fares well (Aristotle: 1098b20). Aristotles definition of virtue is also similarly misunderstood. The original Greek is arete which means ‘any sort of excellence or distinctive power (Pakaluk 2005: 5). Thus being a virtuous person means possessing a certain sort of excellence (of character) which leads us to act virtuously. This form of morality bases the value of any action on the character of the agent an agent must be ‘a certain type of person who will no doubt manifest his or her being in actions or non-actions (Pojman 2002: 160). We cannot take morality from the actions in themselves, because virtue can be demonstrated through the conscious omission of any certain action morality must instead be based upon the agent. For Kant, his views of how pleasure can affect the goodness, or virtue, of any action can be found most clearly in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. The Groundwork (1786) comes between the two different versions of the Critique of Pure Reason that were published (1781 and 1787), and there is certainly a crossover of concepts, with Kant utilising some of the arguments of the Critique in the Groundwork. Namely, his distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds, respectively, the world as it is in itself and the world as it appears to us. This distinction between the true essence of things, and their appearances provides us with ‘two standpoints from which [man] can regard himself and cognize laws for all of his actions (Kant 1987: 4:452). The aim of the Groundwork is to ‘proceed analytically from common cognition to the determination of its supreme principle (Kant 1997: 4:392). In other words, Kant wants to start from the common perception that every action has some sort of moral value and discover what the underlying principle of morality is, that causes this presupposition. This supreme principle that we uncover must be a synthetic a priori one we must be able to deduce it from what we already know, because we are trying to discern how we ought to be from the evidence of how we are. The Groundwork is the quest to discover what this principle is. According to Kant a virtuous person is someone who performs the right actions for the right reasons (which seems to be similar with Aristotles view the action itself does not hold any value the value instead lies within the agents intent). A person who acts thus demonstrates a good will, which is the only thing to which we attribute total merit ‘It is impossible to think of anything that could be considered good without limitation except a good will (Kant 1997: 4:393). This good will possesses worth completely independently of any circumstances, both the means and the ends are good. ‘Even if this will should yet achieve nothing, then [it is still] something that has it full worth in itself In other words, the good will does not need to achieve its end in order to be good, merely the attempt is so. Kant then introduces the concept of duty in order to explain how we are able to manifest the good will in our actions. The concept of duty ‘contains that of a good will though under certain subjective limitations and hindrances, which, however, far from concealing it and making in unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine forth all the more brightly (Kant 1997: 4:397). If we do our duty from duty (i.e. for its own sake, because it is the right thing to do, rather than due to some other inclination or motivating desire) then we are doing the right actions for the right reasons we are being virtuous. Kant uses formulations of his categorical imperative in order to demonstrate how we can determine what our duty is, although I will not go into them in this chapter. Kant shows that any system used to deduce our duty must be categorical, and not hypothetical, because a hypothetical imperative tells you how to achieve a certain end if you will x, then you must also will y in order to be able to achieve x. A hypothetical imperative is conditional, it depends on something else. A categorical imperative cannot be so it tells us what we ought to do unconditionally, not on the condition of something else. Kant uses his formulations of the categorical imperative in order to demonstrate when we can say an act is done from duty or not. If an act is done from duty for dutys sake, then it is a virtuous action, if not, then it is not, even if the action is not necessarily â€Å"bad†. Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle Virtue can be taken to have several different meanings; the dictionary definition is ‘conformity of life and conduct with the principles of morality; voluntary observance of the recognized moral laws or standards of right conduct; abstention on moral grounds from any form of wrong-doing or vice (OED 1989). For Aristotle the idea of virtue is the mean between two vices, stray but a little from the middle, and you are no longer being wholly virtuous. This Aristotelian view of virtue is often seen as in direct opposition to the Kantian view of virtue that the virtuous man is the man who acts solely from the motivation of wanting to do his duty, without enjoying the act at all. I will explain in full whether this common view of Kantian ethics is correct in the following chapter, and in this chapter I will explain what I mean by my definition of Aristotelian virtue, and exactly what that signifies in relation to pleasure. Aristotles ethics are usually defined as virtue ethics they are agent centred, and depend (like Kant) not on the act that is done, but instead on what sort of person we need to be, what sort of character we need to have, in order to be able to commit virtuous acts. Aristotle starts off the Nicomachean ethics by trying to discern what the goal of human life is, and in book one manages to come up with what standards he thinks this goal must adhere to what are the characteristics this ultimate goal must have in order to be classed as such? Aristotle states that ‘we call complete without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be: for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else (Aristotle: 1097a34-1097b1). Our ultimate goal, the highest good, must be desired for itself only, and not as a means to something else. Aristotle refers to this ultimate goal of human life as eudaimonia, but what does this really mean? Does eudaimonia equate to hedonistic pleasure? Accordingly to Aristotle, eudaimonia is not synonymous with pleasure, he states that ‘happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence (Aristotle: 1102a1-2), so happiness is the achievement of pure excellence, or of complete virtuousness. Human flourishing is what we achieve when we successfully fulfil the human function when we excel at what it is that makes us distinctly human. This means, that in order to understand this ‘human flourishing which is the ultimate goal of human life, we also need to understand the function of human beings ‘Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. (Aristotle: 1097b22-25). Aristotle believed that everything in the world has an â€Å"ergon†, a function, which is ‘that for the sake of which it exists; therefore the achieving of this work, or, more precisely, its doing so well, is its good; but only a good thing of a kind achieves its function well (Pakaluk 2005: 75). For example, the function of a knife is to cut things, so a good knife must be able to cut things well, therefore a good knife must be sharp. If there is to be a human function, then it will be what makes us essentially human what it is that separates us from everything el se in the world the thing that we are best capable of. But what makes Aristotle believe that humans necessarily have to have a function? Aristotle claims that it is merely common sense that man should have a function, because everything else in the world does ‘Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or activities, and man has none? Is he naturally functionless? (Aristotle: 1097b29-30). It seems clear that man must have a function just as any other thing does. So what is this function? If something only achieves its function well if it possesses the certain virtues that make it a good thing of its kind (like sharpness for the knife) then the human function must be something that is best achieved by humans more than anything else in the world. Or even, it may be something that is only achievable by human beings. ‘A virtue is a trait that makes a thing of a certain kind good and in view of which we call a thing of that kind â€Å"good†. (Pakaluk 2005: 75). In this way, Aristotles function argument follows on to an investigation into what qualities human beings possess, what virtues they possess in their character, that makes them distinctively human. In order to find out what the human function is, we need to find something that is distinctive to humans. It cannot be merely living, as that is shared with even plants, and it cannot be perception, because although that rules out plants, it still includes the animal kingdom. Instead the human function must be ‘an active life of the element that has a rational principle (Aristotle: 1098a3-4). In other words the human function, that element of human beings which is characteristic to us alone, is our capability to reason; our rationality. Of course, this definition of the human function as rationality causes some problems in the case of people who have diminished rationality what does this mean for them? Take, for example, the mentally handicapped who have reduced capacities of reason through no fault of their own are they really less capable of living fulfilling and flourishing lives than â€Å"normal† people? Are they â€Å"less good†? It seems as though, according to this argument, we are required to count them as worth less. However, I will not dwell on this problem, as I am more concerned with what this idea of a function implies for the role of pleasure in Aristotles ethics. What then, does it mean that the human function is our capacity to reason? The human function is what we must achieve excellence in, in order to be â€Å"good† (just as the knife must achieve excellence in its function of sharpness, in order to be a good knife). This means that morality, and consequently virtue, are intrinsically linked to the human function, to our rationality it is our reason that allows us to achieve virtue. We must use our reason in order to discern what is virtuous. Our function of rationality is what allows us to achieve our excellence, to achieve our virtue. So how does our reason allow us to achieve our virtue? It allows us to choose whatever course of action we feel would allow us best to achieve our happiness, our telos (ultimate goal). Hursthouse (1991) reads Aristotle as meaning that an action is regarded as â€Å"right† because it is what a virtuous person would choose to do, but is it not the other way round? Does a virtuous person not choose to do certain acts because they are good? This problem is obviously reminiscent of Euthyphros dilemma from the platonic dialogue of the same name is a certain act considered good because God says it is so, or does God say it is so because it is good. For Aristotle the ability to choose the morally right action in any situation is an ability to follow the moral mean ‘that moral excellence is a mean, then, and in what sense is it so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency (Aristotle: 1109a1-3). So for example, the virtue of bravery is the mean between cowardice and rashness. Aristotle also states that virtue is dependent on our character if we have the right character we will be predisposed to commit actions of the right sort. ‘Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit states arise out of like activities. This is why the activities we exhibit must be of a certain kind (Aristotle: 1103b20-22). Therefore, if we habitually perform the right sort of action, then we will generate the right sort of character, thus enabling us to almost automatically choose the correct action, which sits in the middle of this scale between virtue and vice. Our eudaimonia is more and m ore fulfilled by each instance in which our character â€Å"automatically† chooses the virtuous action. Does this idea of virtue as the mean between two vices imply that pleasure is then a vice, being the vice at one end of the scale of the virtue of moderation, whilst the other end is despair? A virtue can be best described as the course of action that allows us to achieve our eudaimonia. So is pleasure more suited to this task than despair (if we take despair to be the other end of the scale)? Would the mean on the scale in actuality lie closer to the end of pleasure than the other? Is this a purely arithmetical mean, the exact midpoint between two extremes, or is it something more flexible? Just as everyone requires different amounts of food in their everyday life (such that everyones â€Å"mean† between scarcity and gluttony differs), would it not make sense that the mean of enjoyment is different for everyone as well? Such that enjoyment of life, whilst it does not mean a slavish commitment to complete hedonistic pleasure, could mean that pleasure does play an important rol e in our lives. I believe that Aristotle would agree with me here, since he states that ‘no one nature or state is or is thought the best for all, neither do all pursue the same pleasure (Aristotle: 1153b29-30). In other words, we do not all desire the same pleasures to the same degree, instead we pursue only those pleasures which are best suited to helping each of us, as an individual, to achieve our eudaimonia. We can therefore agree with Shermans reading of Aristotle, that ‘moral habituation is the cultivation of fine (or noble) pleasures and pains (Sherman 1989: 190). In this way, virtuousness does not mean a complete abandonment of all pleasure, but instead tells us that we should be interested in only those pleasures which are â€Å"worthy† of the rational mind. In some ways this bears similarity with Mills recalculation of Benthams utilitarianism that some pleasures (of the intellect) are worth more in the hedonic calculus than mere physical pleasures (Mill 2001). However, appreciation of the right pleasures is a taught skill also. By that I mean one of habit, such as virtue is according to Aristotle, and as such ‘we ought to have been brought up in a particular way from our very youth, as Plato says, so as both to delight in and to be pained in the things that we ought (Aristotle: 1104b11-13). What is slightly problematic is that Aristotle gives two seemingly wholly different accounts of what pleasure is. In Book II he states that ‘it is on account of pleasure that we do bad things (Aristotle: 1104b10), by this meaning that a love of pleasure for itself will lead us to ignore the virtuous path and live a life of pure hedonism, thus failing to achieve our telos of eudaimonia. In Book VII he states that ‘the view that pleasures are bad because some pleasant things are unhealthy is like saying that healthy things are bad because some healthy things are bad for the pocket (Aristotle: 1153a17-18). This view is nonsensical, and would lead us to having to avoiding almost every type of activity. Some pleasures are bad, but this does not necessarily make all pleasures bad. However, whilst these two accounts do differ, there is a common theme between them, which is that pleasure is not necessarily bad, and can exist in harmony with virtue. However, we need to qualify exactly what pleasures we mean here, as not all pleasure can be called good. Annas (1980) interprets Aristotle as believing that pleasure is only good when done by the virtuousness man, because the habit of his character will lead him to only choose to act on those pleasures which are virtuous ‘it is right for the good man to seek pleasure; pleasure will point him in the right direction. (Annas 1980: 286). Whereas the man who is immoral in habit will only persue those pleasures which ‘confirm the deplorable tendencies of [him], since it will strengthen his habits of wickedness and weakness (Annas 1980: 286-7). Here, the important point is not that we need to avoid pleasure, but that we need to be sure that we are pursuing the right kind of pleasure before we act upon it the pl easure of the virtuous man, not the deplorable man. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that Annas at first glance seems to be claiming that only a good person can access pleasure in a good way. Where does this leave the immoral man who wishes to reform his character? Is there no possibility that he will be able to choose those pleasures that are good for his character? Is this what Aristotle is really saying when he claims that virtue is a matter of habit, of character? ‘If the things [the good man] finds tiresome seem pleasant to someone, that is nothing surprising; for men may be ruined and spoilt in many ways; but the things are not pleasant, but only pleasant to these people and to people in this condition. (Aristotle: 1176a19-22). This quote for one certainly seems to be suggesting that the virtuous man will be able to steer clear of immoral pleasures, whilst the immoral man will not. Aristotle emphasizes several times the fact that his ethics is based upon repeated behaviour, on habit, and ‘a short time [or virtuousness], does not make a man blessed or happy (Aristotle: 1098a18-19). What this means is that a period of immorality in a mans life does not necessarily preclude him from ever achieving his eudaimonia, and similarly, a brief period of virtuousness does not make a man wholly virtuous. Aristotles ethics is a system of right and wrong that demonstrates itself through habit, and habits can change, although it may be hard to dispose of bad habits, of immoral habits, because ‘it has grown up with us all from our infancy; this is why it is difficult to rub off this passion [for immoral pleasures] (Aristotle:1105a2-3). This does not mean that it is impossible, indeed it must be possible to change our character, otherwise what we are taught in our youth would be how we remain for life, meaning that whether we become a good or a bad person depends mor e on our teachers, rather than any attempt at morality by ourselves. We cannot be deprived of a chance at our eudaimonia just because we fail to receive the right training of character in our youth. It must be possible to reform and for the immoral man to pursue good pleasure or how else can he become a man who chooses only good pleasures out of habit? Some might claim that this seems unfair. If moral virtue is merely an act brought about by habit, then it is far easier for the good man to be virtuous that it is for the bad man to be so so where is the incentive for the bad man to change his ways and attempt to cultivate the right sort of character in order to be good by habit? But ‘even the good is better when it is harder (Aristotle: 1105a10), and the bad man will be rewarded if he perseveres. If a bad man successfully changes his character to that of the virtuous man, then he is satisfying the human function, the human ergon, and he will be able to achieve the ultimate telos for human beings eudaimonia his human flourishing. The incentive for the bad man to change his ways, no matter how difficult it may be, is that he will achieve the ultimate goal of complete happiness. In this way does the right sort of pleasure, lead first to the cultivation of a habit of character of complete excellence or virtue, which in turn then leads to ultimate happiness. However, as Hutchinson (1986) points out, there is a problem with this idea that, ultimately, restraint over which pleasures we decide to pursue is how we describe virtue. If ‘discipline produces virtue and, when misguided, defect of character, by means of pleasure and pain, the virtues (and vices) are dispositions for enjoying and disliking things (Hutchinson 1986: 79). Hutchinson goes on to state that this cannot be so, because children are rewarded in the study of arithmetic through pleasure and pain. So then ‘arithmetical skill is a disposition to enjoy or dislike certain mathematical operations. And that is not true; it is simply a disposition to come to the right answer (Hutchinson 1986: 79). For Hutchinson Aristotles argument is unsuccessful merely because it is too vague, a vagueness which allows for the arithmetical comparison to be made, and this would not be a fault suffered if the argument was constructed with more care. Ultimately, this means that although th e argument is open to criticism, it leaves Aristotle quite confident in his claim that virtue is a form of character, created by the repeated habit of choosing the correct moral path that of the virtue at the mean point between two vices. And it is this mean point which will ultimately lead to eudaimonia. As long as pleasure is taken in moderation, it can still be synonymous with virtue, and allows for pleasure to be a part of our eudaimonia, the ultimate goal of human flourishing. Virtue and Pleasure in Kant For Kant being virtuous means acting in accordance with duty, for dutys sake, and not due to some other motivation in the place of duty (even if the same action would result).There are some philosophers (I will go into detail further on) who have claimed that Kants notion of duty eliminates the possibility of pleasure that is, if you take pleasure in any said action, it eliminates any dutiful intent that was previously present. However, I do not believe this is actually what Kant meant, and in this chapter I will explain why I believe this and attempt to elucidate exactly what Kant meant when he talked about duty, and the implications this has for our conception of pleasure. For Kant, an action can only have moral worth (i.e. be virtuous) if and only if it is done from duty, for dutys sake. So, in order to understand exactly when we can claim under Kants theory that we are being virtuous, we need to understand exactly how we are meant to do our duty, and to do this, we need to examine the categorical imperative. Although Kant does state that there is only one categorical imperative, ‘he offers three different formulas of that law (Sullivan 1989: 149) so sometimes in philosophy the term is used more generally to describe these three formulas (and their associated examples) as a whole, rather than just the first formula by itself. Kant states that ‘there is, therefore, only a single categorical imperative (Kant 1987: 4:421), but what is it, and how does he come to this conclusion? As I mentioned before, any categorical imperative must be synthetic because defining our morality depends on being able to formulate a synthetic a priori principle. A synthetic principle adds something new to our knowledge, and if it is also a priori, it means that this new knowledge does not depend on experience we are able to deduce this synthetic principle independently of any particular experience; we are able to deduce it by examining what we already know to be true about the world. This is because, for Kant, moral judgements are based on how the world ought to be, not how it is, so we cannot depend on our experiences of the world as it is to show us how the world should instead be. Morality cannot be based on experience, because we need an ethical theory that is capable of telling us what we should do, even in entirely n ew circumstances. The categorical imperative is essentially a law, because while everything in the world is subject to the laws of nature, only rational beings possess autonomy, possess a â€Å"(free) will†, so are capable of choosing to act according to any given law. ‘The idea of an objective principle in so far as it is compelling to the will, is called a command of reason, and the formula of the command is called an imperative. (Russell 2007: 644) Therefore, a theory of practical morality would be a theory of commands about how to act according to certain laws. A theory of morality would be a theory consisting of imperatives. Kant refers to his categorical imperative as the only one, because ‘logically there can be only one ultimate moral law [although] each of the three formulas emphasizes a different aspect of the same moral law (Sullivan 1989: 49). The aim of the Groundwork is to prove that such a principle (what Kant calls the categorical imperative) does exist. Such a principle would be the supreme principle of morality (Kant 1997: 4:392), in other words, the categorical imperative is synonymous with morality. Kant describes the categorical imperative, through three different formulas. The first is the formula of the universal law ‘act only in accordance with the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Kant 1997: 4:421). This law is Kants ‘single categorical imperative (Kant 1997: 4:421); however this is not exactly what our duty is, since the ‘universality of law in accordance with which effects take place constitutes what is properly called nature. (Kant 1997: 4:421). This means that in order for something to be our duty, it must be determined in accordance with universal laws, because duty is not subjective to each individual, but is something that is the same fo r all rational beings, in so far as we are rational. This means that our duty can and should be phrased as: ‘act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature. (Kant 1997: 4:421). Kant uses four examples Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant The Relation between Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle and Kant Introduction ‘Every action and choice is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. (Aristotle: 1094a1-3). Philosophy has always been concerned with trying to determine why we do the actions we do: what are we hoping to achieve by performing certain actions? The above quote is Aristotles opening sentence in the Nicomachean ethics, but how are we actually meant to achieve this good that we are aiming for? Many people in the world would be happy to support the claim that the good is achieved by being virtuous but what exactly does this entail? For Aristotle, ‘moral excellence comes about as a result of habit (Aristotle: 1103a16-17) and ‘happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence (Aristotle: 1102a1-2). It then seems we are safe to claim that the good, (â€Å"moral excellence†), corresponds with happiness, but was he right? And does this happiness include pleasure, or is it excluded? Are virtue and pleasure synonymous? Can they even exist harmoniously at all? Throughout the history of thought, philosophers have attempted to discern that element of human nature that can be most aptly described as the action of taking pleasure in doing certain actions, and in the consequences that arise from any given action. The role of virtue in this pleasure process has been assessed and criticised for hundreds of years; does being virtuous give us pleasure, or does pleasure distract us from doing virtuous things? Is happiness the key to a moral life? My aim in this essay is to address these questions, and related questions, according to the philosophies of Kant and Aristotle. In doing so, I aim to discover what the relation between virtue and pleasure really is, according to these two philosophers. My aim is to discover what the role is of both virtue and pleasure, and the connection between them, in the works of both philosophers, and try to establish where the two philosophies align, and where they are incompatible. At first, it seems as though both philosophers are wholly incompatible in their views of where our morality, our motivation to strive for the good, comes from. Even how the two define what the good is seems to differ too much to offer any similarities. As I briefly mentioned in my opening paragraph, for Aristotle, the purpose of human life is the good, and ‘the highest of all goods achievable by action is happiness. And [many] identify living well and faring well with being happy (Aristotle: 1095a16-19). For Kant however, the question of morality is wrapped up in the concept of â€Å"duty† ‘he does the action without any inclination, simply from duty; then the action first has its genuine moral worth (Kant 1997: 4:398). In this essay I will explain exactly what both meant, and critically assess their ideas, with the ultimate goal of somehow reconciling the two seemingly opposing viewpoints. In the process of doing this I will first give an explanation of the foundations of these views what part of each philosophers lifes work these ideas about morality have arisen from. Background When examining any philosophical theory I think it is of vital importance to understand how those particular ideas have been formed what part of the writers thought and theories have these ideas originated from? In this section, I will give a brief overview of whereabouts in their respective works do Kant and Aristotle expound their views on morality, in reference to both pleasure and virtue. Aristotles Nicomachean ethics is part of his practical philosophy (along with his Eudemian ethics), and is primarily a search for what the ultimate goal of human life is. Aristotle was a student of Plato, and as such was likely to have been influenced by his philosophy. It is nothing new to philosophy to be preoccupied with morality. Arguably Platos greatest work, The Republic is fundamentally an inquiry into morality and justice, and what sort of society would be best for cultivating â€Å"the moral man†. In book II of The Republic, Plato tells a story of the mythical ring of Gyges, which is a ring that renders the wearer invisible. Glaucon (the teller of this story in the dialogue) claims that no man, no matter how virtuous or just he is, could resist acting immorally if there was no danger of punishment (Plato: 359c-360c). Glaucon does not believe that any man who had no consequences to face would be moral his claim is that we are moral because society forces us to be so, through fear of being reprimanded. In this case, morality becomes a social construct, and has nothing to do with the singular man who would dismiss moral behaviour in an instant if he believed he could avoid castigation. Aristotles ethics do not follow this way of reasoning, he believes that man can be moral within himself, and also that a man is not virtuous simply by performing virtuous actions, ‘his action must [also] proceed from a firm and unchangeable character (Aristotle: 1105a32-33). Aristotle is often misquoted about what he really meant, due to a mistranslation of the original Greek. Aristotle describes the goal of human life as eudaimonia, which is oft translated as happiness. However, the original meaning of this word is something more akin to being ‘blessed as regards ones own spirit (Pakaluk 2005: 47), or more literally, human flourishing. Pakaluk (2005) goes on to explain the fundamental differences between our commonplace definition of happiness and how we must understand it as a translation of eudaimonia. Most importantly we must understand that Aristotles happiness is not a hedonistic happiness where ‘pleasure is regarded as the chief good, or the proper end of act ion (OED 1989). Eudaimonia is a stable, lasting condition, one that does not fluctuate according to day-to-day events it is an ultimate goal rather than a temporary one. It is also objectively universal it is not a subjective condition based upon the wants of each individual it is a state of being, not a mood or inclination, which is similar for all human beings and is characterised as living well ‘the happy man lives well and fares well (Aristotle: 1098b20). Aristotles definition of virtue is also similarly misunderstood. The original Greek is arete which means ‘any sort of excellence or distinctive power (Pakaluk 2005: 5). Thus being a virtuous person means possessing a certain sort of excellence (of character) which leads us to act virtuously. This form of morality bases the value of any action on the character of the agent an agent must be ‘a certain type of person who will no doubt manifest his or her being in actions or non-actions (Pojman 2002: 160). We cannot take morality from the actions in themselves, because virtue can be demonstrated through the conscious omission of any certain action morality must instead be based upon the agent. For Kant, his views of how pleasure can affect the goodness, or virtue, of any action can be found most clearly in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. The Groundwork (1786) comes between the two different versions of the Critique of Pure Reason that were published (1781 and 1787), and there is certainly a crossover of concepts, with Kant utilising some of the arguments of the Critique in the Groundwork. Namely, his distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds, respectively, the world as it is in itself and the world as it appears to us. This distinction between the true essence of things, and their appearances provides us with ‘two standpoints from which [man] can regard himself and cognize laws for all of his actions (Kant 1987: 4:452). The aim of the Groundwork is to ‘proceed analytically from common cognition to the determination of its supreme principle (Kant 1997: 4:392). In other words, Kant wants to start from the common perception that every action has some sort of moral value and discover what the underlying principle of morality is, that causes this presupposition. This supreme principle that we uncover must be a synthetic a priori one we must be able to deduce it from what we already know, because we are trying to discern how we ought to be from the evidence of how we are. The Groundwork is the quest to discover what this principle is. According to Kant a virtuous person is someone who performs the right actions for the right reasons (which seems to be similar with Aristotles view the action itself does not hold any value the value instead lies within the agents intent). A person who acts thus demonstrates a good will, which is the only thing to which we attribute total merit ‘It is impossible to think of anything that could be considered good without limitation except a good will (Kant 1997: 4:393). This good will possesses worth completely independently of any circumstances, both the means and the ends are good. ‘Even if this will should yet achieve nothing, then [it is still] something that has it full worth in itself In other words, the good will does not need to achieve its end in order to be good, merely the attempt is so. Kant then introduces the concept of duty in order to explain how we are able to manifest the good will in our actions. The concept of duty ‘contains that of a good will though under certain subjective limitations and hindrances, which, however, far from concealing it and making in unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine forth all the more brightly (Kant 1997: 4:397). If we do our duty from duty (i.e. for its own sake, because it is the right thing to do, rather than due to some other inclination or motivating desire) then we are doing the right actions for the right reasons we are being virtuous. Kant uses formulations of his categorical imperative in order to demonstrate how we can determine what our duty is, although I will not go into them in this chapter. Kant shows that any system used to deduce our duty must be categorical, and not hypothetical, because a hypothetical imperative tells you how to achieve a certain end if you will x, then you must also will y in order to be able to achieve x. A hypothetical imperative is conditional, it depends on something else. A categorical imperative cannot be so it tells us what we ought to do unconditionally, not on the condition of something else. Kant uses his formulations of the categorical imperative in order to demonstrate when we can say an act is done from duty or not. If an act is done from duty for dutys sake, then it is a virtuous action, if not, then it is not, even if the action is not necessarily â€Å"bad†. Virtue and Pleasure in Aristotle Virtue can be taken to have several different meanings; the dictionary definition is ‘conformity of life and conduct with the principles of morality; voluntary observance of the recognized moral laws or standards of right conduct; abstention on moral grounds from any form of wrong-doing or vice (OED 1989). For Aristotle the idea of virtue is the mean between two vices, stray but a little from the middle, and you are no longer being wholly virtuous. This Aristotelian view of virtue is often seen as in direct opposition to the Kantian view of virtue that the virtuous man is the man who acts solely from the motivation of wanting to do his duty, without enjoying the act at all. I will explain in full whether this common view of Kantian ethics is correct in the following chapter, and in this chapter I will explain what I mean by my definition of Aristotelian virtue, and exactly what that signifies in relation to pleasure. Aristotles ethics are usually defined as virtue ethics they are agent centred, and depend (like Kant) not on the act that is done, but instead on what sort of person we need to be, what sort of character we need to have, in order to be able to commit virtuous acts. Aristotle starts off the Nicomachean ethics by trying to discern what the goal of human life is, and in book one manages to come up with what standards he thinks this goal must adhere to what are the characteristics this ultimate goal must have in order to be classed as such? Aristotle states that ‘we call complete without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be: for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else (Aristotle: 1097a34-1097b1). Our ultimate goal, the highest good, must be desired for itself only, and not as a means to something else. Aristotle refers to this ultimate goal of human life as eudaimonia, but what does this really mean? Does eudaimonia equate to hedonistic pleasure? Accordingly to Aristotle, eudaimonia is not synonymous with pleasure, he states that ‘happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence (Aristotle: 1102a1-2), so happiness is the achievement of pure excellence, or of complete virtuousness. Human flourishing is what we achieve when we successfully fulfil the human function when we excel at what it is that makes us distinctly human. This means, that in order to understand this ‘human flourishing which is the ultimate goal of human life, we also need to understand the function of human beings ‘Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. (Aristotle: 1097b22-25). Aristotle believed that everything in the world has an â€Å"ergon†, a function, which is ‘that for the sake of which it exists; therefore the achieving of this work, or, more precisely, its doing so well, is its good; but only a good thing of a kind achieves its function well (Pakaluk 2005: 75). For example, the function of a knife is to cut things, so a good knife must be able to cut things well, therefore a good knife must be sharp. If there is to be a human function, then it will be what makes us essentially human what it is that separates us from everything el se in the world the thing that we are best capable of. But what makes Aristotle believe that humans necessarily have to have a function? Aristotle claims that it is merely common sense that man should have a function, because everything else in the world does ‘Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or activities, and man has none? Is he naturally functionless? (Aristotle: 1097b29-30). It seems clear that man must have a function just as any other thing does. So what is this function? If something only achieves its function well if it possesses the certain virtues that make it a good thing of its kind (like sharpness for the knife) then the human function must be something that is best achieved by humans more than anything else in the world. Or even, it may be something that is only achievable by human beings. ‘A virtue is a trait that makes a thing of a certain kind good and in view of which we call a thing of that kind â€Å"good†. (Pakaluk 2005: 75). In this way, Aristotles function argument follows on to an investigation into what qualities human beings possess, what virtues they possess in their character, that makes them distinctively human. In order to find out what the human function is, we need to find something that is distinctive to humans. It cannot be merely living, as that is shared with even plants, and it cannot be perception, because although that rules out plants, it still includes the animal kingdom. Instead the human function must be ‘an active life of the element that has a rational principle (Aristotle: 1098a3-4). In other words the human function, that element of human beings which is characteristic to us alone, is our capability to reason; our rationality. Of course, this definition of the human function as rationality causes some problems in the case of people who have diminished rationality what does this mean for them? Take, for example, the mentally handicapped who have reduced capacities of reason through no fault of their own are they really less capable of living fulfilling and flourishing lives than â€Å"normal† people? Are they â€Å"less good†? It seems as though, according to this argument, we are required to count them as worth less. However, I will not dwell on this problem, as I am more concerned with what this idea of a function implies for the role of pleasure in Aristotles ethics. What then, does it mean that the human function is our capacity to reason? The human function is what we must achieve excellence in, in order to be â€Å"good† (just as the knife must achieve excellence in its function of sharpness, in order to be a good knife). This means that morality, and consequently virtue, are intrinsically linked to the human function, to our rationality it is our reason that allows us to achieve virtue. We must use our reason in order to discern what is virtuous. Our function of rationality is what allows us to achieve our excellence, to achieve our virtue. So how does our reason allow us to achieve our virtue? It allows us to choose whatever course of action we feel would allow us best to achieve our happiness, our telos (ultimate goal). Hursthouse (1991) reads Aristotle as meaning that an action is regarded as â€Å"right† because it is what a virtuous person would choose to do, but is it not the other way round? Does a virtuous person not choose to do certain acts because they are good? This problem is obviously reminiscent of Euthyphros dilemma from the platonic dialogue of the same name is a certain act considered good because God says it is so, or does God say it is so because it is good. For Aristotle the ability to choose the morally right action in any situation is an ability to follow the moral mean ‘that moral excellence is a mean, then, and in what sense is it so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency (Aristotle: 1109a1-3). So for example, the virtue of bravery is the mean between cowardice and rashness. Aristotle also states that virtue is dependent on our character if we have the right character we will be predisposed to commit actions of the right sort. ‘Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit states arise out of like activities. This is why the activities we exhibit must be of a certain kind (Aristotle: 1103b20-22). Therefore, if we habitually perform the right sort of action, then we will generate the right sort of character, thus enabling us to almost automatically choose the correct action, which sits in the middle of this scale between virtue and vice. Our eudaimonia is more and m ore fulfilled by each instance in which our character â€Å"automatically† chooses the virtuous action. Does this idea of virtue as the mean between two vices imply that pleasure is then a vice, being the vice at one end of the scale of the virtue of moderation, whilst the other end is despair? A virtue can be best described as the course of action that allows us to achieve our eudaimonia. So is pleasure more suited to this task than despair (if we take despair to be the other end of the scale)? Would the mean on the scale in actuality lie closer to the end of pleasure than the other? Is this a purely arithmetical mean, the exact midpoint between two extremes, or is it something more flexible? Just as everyone requires different amounts of food in their everyday life (such that everyones â€Å"mean† between scarcity and gluttony differs), would it not make sense that the mean of enjoyment is different for everyone as well? Such that enjoyment of life, whilst it does not mean a slavish commitment to complete hedonistic pleasure, could mean that pleasure does play an important rol e in our lives. I believe that Aristotle would agree with me here, since he states that ‘no one nature or state is or is thought the best for all, neither do all pursue the same pleasure (Aristotle: 1153b29-30). In other words, we do not all desire the same pleasures to the same degree, instead we pursue only those pleasures which are best suited to helping each of us, as an individual, to achieve our eudaimonia. We can therefore agree with Shermans reading of Aristotle, that ‘moral habituation is the cultivation of fine (or noble) pleasures and pains (Sherman 1989: 190). In this way, virtuousness does not mean a complete abandonment of all pleasure, but instead tells us that we should be interested in only those pleasures which are â€Å"worthy† of the rational mind. In some ways this bears similarity with Mills recalculation of Benthams utilitarianism that some pleasures (of the intellect) are worth more in the hedonic calculus than mere physical pleasures (Mill 2001). However, appreciation of the right pleasures is a taught skill also. By that I mean one of habit, such as virtue is according to Aristotle, and as such ‘we ought to have been brought up in a particular way from our very youth, as Plato says, so as both to delight in and to be pained in the things that we ought (Aristotle: 1104b11-13). What is slightly problematic is that Aristotle gives two seemingly wholly different accounts of what pleasure is. In Book II he states that ‘it is on account of pleasure that we do bad things (Aristotle: 1104b10), by this meaning that a love of pleasure for itself will lead us to ignore the virtuous path and live a life of pure hedonism, thus failing to achieve our telos of eudaimonia. In Book VII he states that ‘the view that pleasures are bad because some pleasant things are unhealthy is like saying that healthy things are bad because some healthy things are bad for the pocket (Aristotle: 1153a17-18). This view is nonsensical, and would lead us to having to avoiding almost every type of activity. Some pleasures are bad, but this does not necessarily make all pleasures bad. However, whilst these two accounts do differ, there is a common theme between them, which is that pleasure is not necessarily bad, and can exist in harmony with virtue. However, we need to qualify exactly what pleasures we mean here, as not all pleasure can be called good. Annas (1980) interprets Aristotle as believing that pleasure is only good when done by the virtuousness man, because the habit of his character will lead him to only choose to act on those pleasures which are virtuous ‘it is right for the good man to seek pleasure; pleasure will point him in the right direction. (Annas 1980: 286). Whereas the man who is immoral in habit will only persue those pleasures which ‘confirm the deplorable tendencies of [him], since it will strengthen his habits of wickedness and weakness (Annas 1980: 286-7). Here, the important point is not that we need to avoid pleasure, but that we need to be sure that we are pursuing the right kind of pleasure before we act upon it the pl easure of the virtuous man, not the deplorable man. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that Annas at first glance seems to be claiming that only a good person can access pleasure in a good way. Where does this leave the immoral man who wishes to reform his character? Is there no possibility that he will be able to choose those pleasures that are good for his character? Is this what Aristotle is really saying when he claims that virtue is a matter of habit, of character? ‘If the things [the good man] finds tiresome seem pleasant to someone, that is nothing surprising; for men may be ruined and spoilt in many ways; but the things are not pleasant, but only pleasant to these people and to people in this condition. (Aristotle: 1176a19-22). This quote for one certainly seems to be suggesting that the virtuous man will be able to steer clear of immoral pleasures, whilst the immoral man will not. Aristotle emphasizes several times the fact that his ethics is based upon repeated behaviour, on habit, and ‘a short time [or virtuousness], does not make a man blessed or happy (Aristotle: 1098a18-19). What this means is that a period of immorality in a mans life does not necessarily preclude him from ever achieving his eudaimonia, and similarly, a brief period of virtuousness does not make a man wholly virtuous. Aristotles ethics is a system of right and wrong that demonstrates itself through habit, and habits can change, although it may be hard to dispose of bad habits, of immoral habits, because ‘it has grown up with us all from our infancy; this is why it is difficult to rub off this passion [for immoral pleasures] (Aristotle:1105a2-3). This does not mean that it is impossible, indeed it must be possible to change our character, otherwise what we are taught in our youth would be how we remain for life, meaning that whether we become a good or a bad person depends mor e on our teachers, rather than any attempt at morality by ourselves. We cannot be deprived of a chance at our eudaimonia just because we fail to receive the right training of character in our youth. It must be possible to reform and for the immoral man to pursue good pleasure or how else can he become a man who chooses only good pleasures out of habit? Some might claim that this seems unfair. If moral virtue is merely an act brought about by habit, then it is far easier for the good man to be virtuous that it is for the bad man to be so so where is the incentive for the bad man to change his ways and attempt to cultivate the right sort of character in order to be good by habit? But ‘even the good is better when it is harder (Aristotle: 1105a10), and the bad man will be rewarded if he perseveres. If a bad man successfully changes his character to that of the virtuous man, then he is satisfying the human function, the human ergon, and he will be able to achieve the ultimate telos for human beings eudaimonia his human flourishing. The incentive for the bad man to change his ways, no matter how difficult it may be, is that he will achieve the ultimate goal of complete happiness. In this way does the right sort of pleasure, lead first to the cultivation of a habit of character of complete excellence or virtue, which in turn then leads to ultimate happiness. However, as Hutchinson (1986) points out, there is a problem with this idea that, ultimately, restraint over which pleasures we decide to pursue is how we describe virtue. If ‘discipline produces virtue and, when misguided, defect of character, by means of pleasure and pain, the virtues (and vices) are dispositions for enjoying and disliking things (Hutchinson 1986: 79). Hutchinson goes on to state that this cannot be so, because children are rewarded in the study of arithmetic through pleasure and pain. So then ‘arithmetical skill is a disposition to enjoy or dislike certain mathematical operations. And that is not true; it is simply a disposition to come to the right answer (Hutchinson 1986: 79). For Hutchinson Aristotles argument is unsuccessful merely because it is too vague, a vagueness which allows for the arithmetical comparison to be made, and this would not be a fault suffered if the argument was constructed with more care. Ultimately, this means that although th e argument is open to criticism, it leaves Aristotle quite confident in his claim that virtue is a form of character, created by the repeated habit of choosing the correct moral path that of the virtue at the mean point between two vices. And it is this mean point which will ultimately lead to eudaimonia. As long as pleasure is taken in moderation, it can still be synonymous with virtue, and allows for pleasure to be a part of our eudaimonia, the ultimate goal of human flourishing. Virtue and Pleasure in Kant For Kant being virtuous means acting in accordance with duty, for dutys sake, and not due to some other motivation in the place of duty (even if the same action would result).There are some philosophers (I will go into detail further on) who have claimed that Kants notion of duty eliminates the possibility of pleasure that is, if you take pleasure in any said action, it eliminates any dutiful intent that was previously present. However, I do not believe this is actually what Kant meant, and in this chapter I will explain why I believe this and attempt to elucidate exactly what Kant meant when he talked about duty, and the implications this has for our conception of pleasure. For Kant, an action can only have moral worth (i.e. be virtuous) if and only if it is done from duty, for dutys sake. So, in order to understand exactly when we can claim under Kants theory that we are being virtuous, we need to understand exactly how we are meant to do our duty, and to do this, we need to examine the categorical imperative. Although Kant does state that there is only one categorical imperative, ‘he offers three different formulas of that law (Sullivan 1989: 149) so sometimes in philosophy the term is used more generally to describe these three formulas (and their associated examples) as a whole, rather than just the first formula by itself. Kant states that ‘there is, therefore, only a single categorical imperative (Kant 1987: 4:421), but what is it, and how does he come to this conclusion? As I mentioned before, any categorical imperative must be synthetic because defining our morality depends on being able to formulate a synthetic a priori principle. A synthetic principle adds something new to our knowledge, and if it is also a priori, it means that this new knowledge does not depend on experience we are able to deduce this synthetic principle independently of any particular experience; we are able to deduce it by examining what we already know to be true about the world. This is because, for Kant, moral judgements are based on how the world ought to be, not how it is, so we cannot depend on our experiences of the world as it is to show us how the world should instead be. Morality cannot be based on experience, because we need an ethical theory that is capable of telling us what we should do, even in entirely n ew circumstances. The categorical imperative is essentially a law, because while everything in the world is subject to the laws of nature, only rational beings possess autonomy, possess a â€Å"(free) will†, so are capable of choosing to act according to any given law. ‘The idea of an objective principle in so far as it is compelling to the will, is called a command of reason, and the formula of the command is called an imperative. (Russell 2007: 644) Therefore, a theory of practical morality would be a theory of commands about how to act according to certain laws. A theory of morality would be a theory consisting of imperatives. Kant refers to his categorical imperative as the only one, because ‘logically there can be only one ultimate moral law [although] each of the three formulas emphasizes a different aspect of the same moral law (Sullivan 1989: 49). The aim of the Groundwork is to prove that such a principle (what Kant calls the categorical imperative) does exist. Such a principle would be the supreme principle of morality (Kant 1997: 4:392), in other words, the categorical imperative is synonymous with morality. Kant describes the categorical imperative, through three different formulas. The first is the formula of the universal law ‘act only in accordance with the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Kant 1997: 4:421). This law is Kants ‘single categorical imperative (Kant 1997: 4:421); however this is not exactly what our duty is, since the ‘universality of law in accordance with which effects take place constitutes what is properly called nature. (Kant 1997: 4:421). This means that in order for something to be our duty, it must be determined in accordance with universal laws, because duty is not subjective to each individual, but is something that is the same fo r all rational beings, in so far as we are rational. This means that our duty can and should be phrased as: ‘act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature. (Kant 1997: 4:421). Kant uses four examples