Theodor W. Adorno: Problems of Moral Philosophy

1 Theodor W. Adorno (1903 – 1969): German philosopher, sociologist, and music theorist. Due to his Jewish background, he was in exile from 1934 until after World War II. He was the most influential German intellectual in the first two decades after WW II.

2 Preliminary remarks on Adorno’s philosophy
Shaped by the experience of war and the holocaust, his main question was why humanity fell back in barbarism, instead of entering a truly human state. After WW II, he dedicated much of his reflection to the holocaust and the importance of remembering what happened.
Philosophizing in the tradition of Hegel and Marx, he was looking for the logic that brought about the dictatorships in the first half of the 20th century, the war with over 50 millions dead and the holocaust. He found that in the logic of a one-sided, instrumental reason used only to control and dominate nature. Domination of outside nature, inner drives and fellow man go together as Adorno pointed out, right from the beginning of (Western) human history. (Story of Odysseus and his passage by the sirens.)
A further important background assumption is that within a capitalist society, human freedom cannot be achieved. The realm of human freedom exists only beyond the realm of material production, which has to be done for mere survival. Only if man has the possibility, to devote his time and energy to areas beyond the satisfaction of his essential needs, he will be truly free.

3 Cornerstones of his idea of moral philosophy:
3.1 “There can be no good life within the bad one” (p. 1):
There are two claims in this sentence to differentiate:
(a) The inseparability of the individual and universal: According to Adorno, the individual life is determined by the conditions governing society. The lives of human beings are interwoven with the (conditions of) life of the society.
(b) The badness of the (rules governing) society: Working within a Marxian framework, a society which is based on exploitation and divided in the “haves” and “have-nots” is negative and should be changed.
(See Emile Durkheim’s quote: „For individuals share too deeply in the life of society for it to be diseased without their suffering infection. What it suffers they necessarily suffer.“)
3.2 Strict separation of “lived”-world view and moral philosophy (p. 2): With Kant and Scheler, Adorno maintains that there is no direct connection between these two realms. He insists to his students, that he cannot give them “bread to eat” but only “throw stones at their heads”; i.e. that he cannot provide practical advice. (See point 3.7)
3.3 Definition of Moral philosophy (p. 5): Moral philosophy means trying “to achieve a true, conscious understanding of the categories of morality and of the questions that relate to the good life”. So moral philosophy is about establishing a consciousness about the contradictions we are confronted with while trying to act morally.
3.4 Morality goes beyond theory (p. 7 – 9): Morality has a moment of spontaneity that theory cannot accommodate. Adorno explains that with the reasons that were behind the assassination attempt on Hitler on the 20 July 1944; there is – he points out – “something shameful” about talking of morality “in the confort of a lecture room” (p. 8)
3.5 Explanation of the terms “morals” and “ethics” (p. 9 – 11): (a) Morals comes from the Latin “mores” meaning “custom”. However, it is problematic for Adorno to rely on customs, because “the possibility of the good life in the forms in which the community exists [...] has been radically eroded” (p. 10). (b) Ethics comes from the Greek word “ethos” meaning “nature” or “character”, somehow suggesting that it suffice to live according to my character. However, that is problematic for Adorno as the “self”; the character is determined already deformed by society.
3.6 Ibsen’s Wild Duck: The failure of the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility (p. 158 – 165)
(a) Ethics of conviction: The motive of the agent is only relevant. (Exponent: Kant)
(b) Ethics of responsibility: This “in an ethics in which at every step you [...] simultaneously reflect on the effect of your action, and whether the goal envisaged will be achieved.” (p. 162, exponent: Hegel)
(c) “There is no good life in the bad one, for a formal ethics cannot underwrite it, and the ethics of responsibility that surrenders to otherness cannot underwrite it either. The question that moral philosophy confronts today is how it should react to this dilemma.” (p. 166)
3.7 Adorno’s practical advice (lecture 17):
(a) Moral philosophy is about creating consciousness: Repeatedly, Adorno emphasizes the moral philosophy today is about producing consciousness: “that essentially it would consist in the attempt to make conscious the critique of moral philosophy, the critique of its options and an awareness of its antinomies.” (p. 167)
(b) Self-Reflection: Adorno speaks of self-reflection as “the true heir to what used to be called moral categories.” (p. 169) If there is a good life, then it consists in “reflecting on our own limitations” and see “that true injustice is always to be found [...] where you put yourself in the right and other people in the wrong.” (p. 169) Adorno suggests modesty as the only cardinal virtue.
(c) Resistance: According to Adorno, we have to resist “to heteronomy in its concrete forms.” (p. 170) Any repressive norms – e.g. in the field of sexual morality – have to be rejected. After the positive religion “lost their power over people’s minds” (p. 171), these are still subjected to “the objective spirit [and the] cultural consciousness” (p. 171) that rule our lives. (E.g.: Resistance against blindly accepting any cultural norms)
(d) Politics: “In short, anything that we can call morality today merges into the question of the organization of the world. We might even say that the quest for the good life is the quest for the right form of politics.” (p. 176)

Preparation Questions for Oral Exam

Questions on the Different Philosophers

i) How does Wittgenstein try to prove that ethical sentence are nonsense? (And what can we learn from Wittgenstein radical approach?)
ii) “A happy life is a virtuous life”. What are and how does Aristotle link happiness and virtue?
iii) What is Aristotle’s account of the good and of the human function?
iv) What is the Categorical Imperative and how does it arrive at a decision? (Where is it able to provide a solution and where is it not able to?)
v) How does Kant discuss the four examples (suicide, promise keeping, developping one’s talent and helping) in his GMM? How can the formula of the end in itself help understanding these cases?
vi) What are the key features of Mill’s principle of utility? (And what might be the problem with his theory?)
vii) How can the different form of utilitarianism (negative, rule, pluralistic, preference) be understood as reactions to criticism?
viii) What are the main aspects of Spinoza’s understanding of a good life?
ix) What is Adorno’s critizism of Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics and what does he suggest?

General Questions about the Course

i) What were the key questions discussed in this course? (Or: What is ethics?)
ii) How does the course title “Foundations of Moral Value” relate to our discussion of the different philosophers?
iii) Is there a commonality between the different philosophers discussed?
iv) How did the fundamental distinction between IS and OUGHT appear in the different texts discussed?
v) What is the understanding and function of the concept of happiness in the different philosophical texts discussed?
vi) Which of the discussed philosopher is the most convincing? Why?

Points on Spinoza

1. Mechanical understanding of mind and body
Understanding, for Spinoza, means to grasp the causal relations. Everything in nature (and there is no outside) follows from necessity (Determinism). Thus, human life can be examined in the same way: "I shall consider human actions and appetites just as if it were a question of lines, planes, and bodies.” (Preface, III)

2. Differentiation between Action and Passion
- "The human body can be affected in many ways in which its power of acting is increased or diminished." (IIIPost.1)
- "The human body can undergo many changes, and nevertheless retain impressions, or traces, of the objects, and consequently, the same images of things." (IIIPost.2)
Having established the human body as a physical object among others, following the same logic, Spinoza introduces the differentiation between action (where the cause lies within ourselves) and passions (where there is an external cause):
- "Therefore, if we can be the adequate cause of any of these affections, I understand by the affect an action; otherwise, a passion." (IIId3)
In the first case, the reason is in control of the passions, in the second case the emotions are in charge.

3. How is the transformation of a passion through reason possible?
An example is given in IVp46, where Spinoza recommends to repay hate with love, not out of charity, but rather because of the ability to increase the power. (See IVp46d/s)

4. Good and Perfect
Spinoza understands "by good what we know certainly is a means by which we may approach nearer and nearer to the model of human nature we set before ourselves." (IVpref)
- "Men are more perfect or imperfect, insofar as they approach more or less near to this model." (IVpref)
- "by perfection ... I shall ... understand reality, that is, the essence of each thing" (IVpref)
Having stated these quotes of Spinoza, we see the Aristotlian outlook of his theory. I suggests in the whole of his ethics, not just a metaphysics, but a anthropology (discussing God, mind, affects, power of affects, and power of mind).

5. Again: Descartes vs. Spinoza
Descartes: mind acts on -> animal spirit -> influences emotions -> control of entire human being
Spinoza: Against the ability to control without conditions. To increase our power is not a matter of "pure moral will" but rather "a feat in applied medicine or engineering" (Bennett, p. 330)*

6. Three kinds of knowledge
a) Accidental knowledge of singular facts
b) Scientific knowledge
c) True insight into the essence and causality of the universe/nature (sub specie aeternitatis, under a species of eternity)
This knowledge of nature is knowledge - even love - of God, and the highest virtue and form of joy.

Notes:
- A good summary of Spinoza's ethics can be found at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#2)

- For further information on the background of Spinoza and the other parts of the ethics please see my presentation "Introduction to Spinoza"

- *For good discussion and explanation of Spinoza's text I suggest: Bennett, Jonathan, A Study of Spinoza's Ethics, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1984

Spinoza

(For an introduction please refer to the Powerpoint Presentation given in class.)

Quotes from Book III

“The affects, therefore, of hate, anger, envy, and the like, considered in themselves, follow with the same necessity and force of Nature as the other singular things ... Therefore, I shall treat the nature and powers of the affects, and the power of the mind over them, by the same method by which, in the preceding parts, I treated God and the mind, and I shall consider human actions and appetites just as if it were a question of lines, planes, and bodies.” (Preface, III)

“Therefore, if we can be the adequate cause of any of these affections, I understand by the affect an action, otherwise, a passion.” (3d3)

“Our mind does certain things [acts] and undergoes other things, namely, insofar as it has adequate ideas, it necessarily does certain things, and insofar as it has inadequate ideas, it necessarily undergoes other things.” (3p1)

“The actions of the mind arise from adequate ideas alone; the passions depend on inadequate ideas alone.” (3p3)

“Each thing, as far as it can by its own power, strives to persevere in its being.” (3p6)

Suggested Readings

- Korsgaard, Christine: Creating the Kingdom of Ends
(Esp. Chs. 3&4. Korsgaard gives an interpretation of the different formulas of the Categorical Imperative, discussing - among others - how we should understand the notion of the "contradiction"; logical, teleological or practical)

- Smart, JJC/Williams, Bernard: Utilitarianism for and against
(Esp. Williams' critique of Utilitarianism. The small volume consists of Smart's defense and Williams critique of Utilitarianism and will help better to understand the pros and cons of this ethical theory)

Both readings can be found in the reserve section of the library.

Utilitarianism Beyond Bentham and Mill

1 Negative Utilitarianism...
... claims that instead of focussing on pleasure (or equally on pleasure and pain), Utilitarianism should concentrate on avoiding pain and suffering. Two arguments speak in favor of negative Utilitarianism: - “From the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one man’s pain by another man’s pleasure.” (Karl Popper: The open society and its enemys, London 1945)[1] - “It adds to clarity in the fields of ethics, if we formulate our demands negatively, i.e. if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness.” (ibid.)

2 Hedonistic vs. Pluralistic Utilitarianism:
1.1 Hedonistic Utilitarianism:
Utility is conceived entirely in terms of happiness or pleasure. Pleasure and the freedom from pain or the only things desirable as ends. (e.g. Bentham)
2.2 Pluralistic Utilitarianism:
There are different goods that should be maximized and that are desireable as ends, such as friendship, knowledge, courage, health, beauty, some states of consciousness. All these goods have intrisic value, ie. are desirable as ends. An action than has to be measured in terms of intrinsic values it produces. (e.g. Georg Edward Moore)[2]
(Mill might be seen as a philosopher, who is somehow between the two forms, as J.J.C. Smart points out.)

3 Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
3.1 Act Utilitarianism...
... considers the consequences of each particular act. In order to decide, what we should do, we have to apply the principle of utility to individual actions. Question to ask: “What good and evil consequences will result from this action in this circumstance?”[3]
3.2 Rule Utilitarianism:
According to rule utilitarianism, one has to act according to rules, which bring about the best consequences. “The conformity of an act to a valuable rule makes the act right.”[4]

4 Preference Utilitarianism
What should be maximized are the preferences or interests of persons. People (and other sentient beings) have interests various as not feeling pain, increasing one’s reputation and becoming more knowledgable. Intrinsically valuable is what people prefer to obtain. Preference Utilitarianism avoids the dispute between hedonistic and pluralistic utilitarianism and makes utilitarian calculations easier. (e.g. Peter Singer)

[1] See: http://www.socrethics.com/www.negutil/www.monuism/NU.htm
[2] For a short account of hedonistic and pluralistic Utilitarianism see: Beauchamp, Tom and Childress, James: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 23f.
[3] Beauchamp and Childress, p. 27
[4] Beauchamp and Childress, p. 30

Reflections about the Film "Can the End justify the Means?"

One would expect utilitarianism to come up with a clear answer on the question whether to build the dam or not. However, it gives raise to many different questions:

- Who should be part of the cost/benefits or maximization of happiness calculus? Human Beings? All sentient beings? Or do other values matter too like biodiversity?

- Do we have to take into consideration just happiness or do other things have intrinsic value as well (like art, love, friendship and wisdom) as ideal/pluralistic utilitarianism suggests?

- Jonathan Glover: We actually do make choices weighing costs and benefits, e.g. when parents decide whether to send one child to a better school or the other to a holiday. However, incertainties remain about the precision and the prognosis

- Utilitarianism gives an account of when a sacrifice of one group of people can be justified, which is one of its harsher aspects. What are the implications of that?

- Utilitarianism can be understood as research project: Long and thorough investigations only will provide an adequate answer (which is the result on the emphasis utilitarians put on the consequences).

Mill's Utilitarianism (II)

„Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.“ (p. 278)

Traditionally: mental pleasures higher than bodily ones, because the former have “greater permanency, safety, uncostliness” (p. 279)
Mill: “some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.” (p. 279)

How can we find out which pleasure is more valuable?
“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference ... that is the more desirable pleasure.” (p. 279)

Preference to the pleasures related to the higher faculties: “Few human creatures would consent to be changed into anyof the low animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool” (p. 280)

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” (p. 281)

Occasional choice for the lower pleasure: “Men often, from the infirmity of character, make their election to the nearer good.” (p. 281)
-> e.g. “sensual indulgences to the injury of health” (p. 281)
The “ultimate end ... is an existence exempt ... from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, ... being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.” (p. 283)
-> this should be the end of human action; to be “secured to all mankind” and “to the whole sentient creation”.

But: Is happiness unattainable?
a) Even if, utilitarianism would still be able to advocate the “prevention or mitigation of unhappiness” (p. 284)
b) But, by happiness is not meant “a life of rapture; but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a dediced predominance of the active over the passive.” (p. 284) -> such a life merits to be called “happy”

“The present wretched education, and wretched social arrangements, are the only real hindrance to its being attainable by almost all.” (p. 284)
“Poverty ... may be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society, combined with the good sense and providence of individuals.” (p. 284)

Mill's Utilitarianism (I)

1 John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873):
English philosopher and political economist, member of parliament,

2 Utilitarianism: General Remarks
2.1 Difference science and ethics: In science “particular thruths precede the general theory” (p. 273). The actions in ethics are done “for the sake of some end”; they take their character “from the end” (p. 273)
2.2 Against Intuitionism: If there is a moral instinct (of which we are not sure), then it cannot be the faculty that tells us what is right and wrong; for that, reason is required.
2.3 Morality to be deducted from principles: Whether morality is seen as something a priori, or something gained through experience. It is certain, that “morality must be deduced from principles.”(p.274) What is required is a first principle as the “root of all morality” (p. 274).

Bentham's Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham: From An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legisation

1 Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832):
British jurist, philosopher and social reformer; political radical in favor of equal rights for women, abolition of physical punishment and slavery, and for animal rights

2 Bentham’s Utilitarianism
2.1 Empirical claim as starting point: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” (p. 65) They govern our thinking and acting.
2.2 Principle of Utility: is “that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or dininish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” (p. 65) Three points have to be noted:a) the principle of utility is an ethical principle that judges actions (i.e. not intentions)b) what is at stake is the happiness, which is interchangeable with pleasure, c) relevant for judgement are the parties involved (or "the community", p. 66)
2.3 Acting according to the principle of utility: An action is conformable to utility “when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than it has to diminish it.” (p. 66)The pleasures of the community, perceived as the sum of the individuals, should be promoted.
2.4 Critical Remarks:
a) How is the transition made from the individual to the community? It might be that the priniple of utility is evident for oneself, but does it have to be for the community?
b) Is-ought-problem: Bentham uses the way the world is, in order to explain how the world should be. But making normative claims on the basis how the world is, undermines the essence of ethics. The question ethics asks is what we should do. – However, Utilitarianism can be founded without concluding from the is to the should. (e.g. Mill)

On Happiness

"If we have our own why of life,
we shall get along with almost any how.
Man does not strive for pleasure;
only the Englishman does."
(Friedrich Nietzsche: The Twilight of Idols, Maxims and Arrows §12)

Different accounts of happiness:

- see the entries on Aristotle and Kant on their concept of happiness

- John Rawls (1921-2002): happiness is explained by reference to the concept of life-plan. Being in the process of fulfilling a meaningful and reasonable life-plan accounts for happiness.

- Cicero's (106-43 BC) account of happiness is based on the four personae. The term persona originates from the theater, from the term "mask", and signifies "role". Life is thus explained by means of the metaphor of the game; life is understood in terms of the roles we are given and that we take on.
1) Our reasonable human nature that all human beings share in common
2) Our own nature-given individual character
3) The circumstances: parentage, culture, influence, upbringing, social-historical context etc.
4) The fourth persona is our genuine life form. It's the role we choose. It should be orientated at 2) and 3), with the emphasis on 2).

Reference: Ricken, Friedo: Allgemeine Ethik, 3. Auflage, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998

Questions on the Categorical Imperative

a) How can we make sense on the type of contradiction that arises?
Logical, teleological or practical contradiction
-> In the different examples, Kant operates with different formulas of the Categorical Imperative (universal law, law of nature) and there seems to be different types of contradictions (e.g. the suicide example and the borrowing money example)
b) Kant would not tolerate different outcomes when running the different formulas of the Categorical Imperative. How can we make sense of that?
c) How general should a maxim be? (e.g. the example of "Jim and the Indians")

Kant's Moral Philosophy (Part II)

1 The Categorical Imperative
The main point of Kant's Moral Philosophy is the Categorical Imperative, which is the supreme principle of Morality. All moral principles are derived from it.
- Imperative is a command, that is expressed by an ought. “Imperatives say that something would be good to do or to refrain from doing” (p. 24 [413]) An imperative takes the grammatical form of “should”/“ought”.
- Distinction hypothetical and categorical imperative: A hypothetical imperative is conditioned, i.e. says only “that an action is good for some purpose” (p. 25 [414]). A categorical imperative “holds as an apodeictic (practical) principle.”(p. 25 [415])
- The main form of the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (p. 30 [421])
Out of the main form, different formulas of the categorical imperatives can be derived:
- Categorical imperative of duty (or: formula of the law of nature): “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (p. 30 [421])
- Formula of the end in itself: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” (p. 36 [429], reformulation p. 37 [433])

2 Application of the Categorical Imperative
How to judge an action: a) Find the person’s subjective maxim (e.g. “I always lie, when I can take out profit.”), b) try to imagine a world, where everybody acts accordingly, c) find out whether contradictions or irrationalities result, d) if yes, the action is not allowed; if no, the action is allowed or even required.
Perfect duty: To not act according to maxims, which results in a logical contradiction, when we try to universalize them. The proposition “Lying is permissible”, if universalized, would lead to the destruction of the institution of language; similarly the universalized proposition “stealing is permissible”, would undermine the institution of having property.
Imperfect duty: To act according to maxims, which we would like to be universalized. The subjective maxim “Never help someone else, when in need” would, if universalized, not lead to a logical contradiction, but to a “contradiction of the will” as Kant calls it, i.e. we can not will a world where this propostion would be true.
Note: The perfect duty is stronger, then the imperfect one. The imperfect one is relative to preferences.

3 Kant’s anthropological claims with regard to moral philosophy
Man is an end in himself: Is there something which has absolute worth? Yes: man, i.e. all rational beings have to be regarded not only as a means but “at the same time as an end” (p. 35 [428]).
Explanation: Persons exist as ends in themselves; there is no substitution possible of one man through an other. This is because: “rational nature exists as an end in itself. In this way man necessarily thinks of his own existence; thus far is it a subjective principle of human actions.” (p. 36 [429]) And it is the objective principle, because we think of other humans as rational as well.
Kingdom of Ends: is a regulative idea that concretizes the formula of the end in itself. A kingdom of ends would be established if different rational beings live together by common and universal laws they have given to themselves. The kingdom of ends would then consist out of a) the rational beings as ends and b) the particular ends the people set for themselves (p. 39 [433])
Autonomy: At the center of a rational being is his autonomy: “Hence Autonomy is the ground of the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature.” (p. 41 [436])

Kant's Moral Philosophy (Part I)

1 General Remarks on the “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” (1785)
1.1 Function within Kant’s philosophy: provides a foundation for a concrete “Metaphysics of Morals” (1797), consisting out of a “Doctrine of Justice” and a “Doctrine of Virtue”
1.2 Aim: this foundation should be not empirical, because the answer to the question “what should I do?” has to be applied to all human beings (and rational beings beyond that, as Kant points out).

2 The “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” (GMM)
2.1 Organization of the GMM
"First Section: Transition form the Ordinary Rational Knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical
Second Section: Tranition from Popular Moral Philosophy to a Metaphysics of Morals" (p. 5[392])
2.2 Starting point„There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.” (p. 7 [393])
- All other abilities of man (like intelligence, courage etc.) can be used for negative purposes.
- “Good will” means more than good intention it is already closely related to the concept of duty.
- The good will stands “at a crossroads between its a priori principle, which is formal, and its a posteriori incentives, which is material.” (p. 13 [400])
2.3 Moral acting is acting out of duty
Duty understood as: ought to, should; opposed to the concept of inclination (= what I want to do). Kant defines it as “the objective necessity of an action from obligation.” (p. 44 [439]).
Four cases: 1) against duty; 2) according to duty, without immediate inclination, 3) according to duty, with inclination, 4) out of duty, against inclination. Case 4 is the only case of moral worth. (Although praise and encouragment might be attributed to 2) and 3); same action can have different moral worth;
2.4 Role of happiness and reason
- Happiness is “the natural end that all men have” (p. 37, [430] see also p. 8) The definition Kant puts forward is that happiness is “the sum of satisfaction of all inclinations” (p. 12, [399]) Our natural constitution strives towards happiness, which might be attained by instinct rather then by reason.
- Reason: “is not competent enough to guide the will safely as regards its objects and the satisfaction of all our needs” (p. 9 [396]). But reason is “absolutely essential” (p. 9 [396]) to produce a good will. Indeed: reason “recognizes as its highest practical function the establishment of a good will” (p. 9 [396])

Kant's Theoretical Philosophy

Kant's theoretical philosophy is mainly put forward in his “Critique of pure Reason” (CpR, 1781)

1 Initial question: Is metaphysics as a science possible?

2 Conceptual distinction to answer the question:
- necessary - contingent
- A priori (prior to experience) - a posteriori (from experience)
- analytical (predicate contained in subject) - synthetical (predicate not contained in subject)

Metaphysical knowledge has to be: unchangeable, everlasting, and therefore: necessary, a priori. And: it has to be synthetical, because it must tell us something about the way the world is. These a priori synthetical propositions are “mysterious” (although possible for logic, mathematics and physics).

3 The problem with metaphysics
Certain metaphysical questions lead to antinomies (= logical contradicting answers to questions from reason). Kant discusses four antinomies:
1. Thesis: “The world has a beginning in time and is also enclosed within bounds as regards space. Antithesis: “The world has no beginning and no bounds in space [...]” (CpR, A 426, B 454)[1]
2. Thesis: All things are either a) composite out of simple parts or b) not consisting out of simple parts
3. Thesis: “The causality according to laws of nature is not the only causality, from which the appearances of the world can thus one and all be derived. In order to explain these appearances, it is necessary to assume also causality through freedom.” (CpR, A 445, B 473) - Antithesis: “There is no freedom, but everything in the world occurs solely according to laws of nature.” (CpR, A 445, B 473)
4. Thesis: “There belongs to the world something that, either as its part or as its cause, is an absolutely necessary being.” (CpR, A 453, B 481) - Antithesis: “There exists no absolutely necessary being at all, neither in the world nor outside the world, as its cause.” (CpR, A 453, B 481)
Comment I: We necessarily run into these antinomies, when we try to answer a certain type of metaphysical questions. These questions are imposed on humans: “Human reason has a peculiar fate in one kind of its cognitions: it is troubled by questions that it cannot dismiss, because they are posed to it by the nature of reason itself, but that it also cannot answer, because they surpass human reason’s every ability.” (CpR, A vii) Both answers to the question (the thesis and antithesis) can be thought through without contradiction – but they are contradicting one another.
Comment II on the third antinomy: According to the theoretical philosophy of Kant, we cannot know whether there is human freedom. However, in the “Critique of practical reason” (1788) he postulates the existence of immortality, human freedom and God as requirements for practical philosophy.
Note: What cannot be proved by pure, theoretical reason is a presupposition for practical philosophy!

4 Kant’s “Copernican revolution”
Trying to answer metaphysical question, we run into antinomies, therefore we have to concentrate on epistemology (what and how we can know); the subject is primary, and what matters is how we perceive reality, which is structured through our perception. In other words: We can only know about the phenomenal appearances of things, and not know the things themselves; a philosophical theory called “transcendental idealism”.

[1] Kant, Immanuel: Critique of pure reason, trans. Werner S. Pluhar, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1996

"An Answer to the Question: 'What is Enlightenment?'" (By Immanuel Kant)

"Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude!1 “Have courage to use your own understanding!” — that is the motto of enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts."

First two paragraphes from Kant's text. The text is quoted from and the whole text can be found at: http://sap.ereau.de/kant/what_is_enlightenment/

Aristotle and virtue ethics in the context of the course

1 Differences between Aristotle and the Utilitarianism and Kantianism
Aristotle asks: What type of person should we be? Or: How should we develop our character? His ethics is focussed on the agent and his character (character-centered ethics). Kant and Mill try to provide – a bit simplified – a decision making procedure. The question there is: What should we do? These ethics approaches focus on action.

2 Relativism?
As virtues are based on the community, the question arises whether Aristotle’s ethics is relativistic.
In defense of Aristotle and virtue ethics, one might argue the following:
- An ethics discourse might be seen rather as persuasive then prescriptive.
- Part of virtue ethics is an inquiry into our human nature; we have to “know ourselves” as humans
- Going beyond Aristotle, one could come up with the standard that virtues should be universal applicable, as a sort of testing method, in order to determine whether a virtue is truly one.

Aristotle on Virtue

What are virtues?

Distinction intellectual and moral virtues:
Intellectual: sophia and phronesis, understanding
Moral: e.g. self-control, courage, generosity, etc.

- Moral Virtues exist not by nature - but are formed by habit:
“Hence it is no small matter whether one habit or another is inculcated in us from early childhood; on the contrary, it makes a considerable difference, or, rather all the difference.” (1103b 25)

- Aiming at the mean:
Excess and deficiency destroys virtue (analogy strength)
Mean = relative to us
Median cannot simply be put as an arithmetical relation

- Mark of virtue:
Doing the right thing, at a right time, towards the right person, for the right reason, in the right manner.
“bad men have many ways, good men but one.” (1106b 35)

Aristotle on Happiness

1 Starting point
„Every art or applied science and every systematic investigation, and similarly every action and choice, seem to aim at some good; the good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim.“ (1094a1)
Everything and everyone is directed towards a good, everything has an end (or purpose): a knife to cut, a car to drive etc. Also actions of people have an end: health of medicine, boat of boatbuilding, victory of generalship etc. A good boatbuilder is one making good boats etc.

2 Happiness
However, the different goods are not all equally important. There is a hierarchy of the goods. The highest good of them is eudaimonia: happiness, living well (doing well) or perhaps best translated as human flourishing. This is the central subject of the Nicomachean Ethics: happiness is pursued as an end in itself and everyone strives towards it. (Moral and intellectual virtues and pleasure are pursued as end in themselves as well as for happiness’ sake.)

3 Definition of Happiness
“Happiness is a certain activity of the soul in conformity with perfect virtue.” (1102a5)

“The soul of an animate organism ... is nothing other than its system of active abilities to perform the vital functions that organisms of its kind naturally perform, so that when an organism engages in the relevant activities (e.g., nutrition, movement of thought) it does so in virtue of the system of abilities that is its soul.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#4)

Necessity to understand our nature ("Know Thyself!")
Aristotle provides two definitions of the human being:
a)“zoon logon echein” and b) “zoon politicon”
a) Everything has a function, so do human beings. Human function is "logos", which is the characteristic that distinguishes him from other beings.
b) “man is by nature a social and political being” (1097b11 a)
Importance of man leaving the "oikos" an engage others in the "polis".

4 Further Key Sentences on the relation of happiness, virtue and rationality
- “The proper function of man, then, consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle.” (1098a6)
- “The good of man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue.” (1098a15)

5 Happiness and External Goods
Aristotle denies the view that prosperty equates with happiness. Although the possession of external goods is necessary for a happy and virtuos life.
- for a virtuos life: wealth and health is required to perform virtuos actions (e.g. generosity requires a certain amount of money, courage requires health to excercise it)
- for a happy life: “If we look utterly repulsive or are ill-born, solitary and childless” we can not be said to be happy. (1099b4)

Introduction Aristotle

1 Aristotle (384 – 322 BC)
- student of Plato (427 – 347 BC),
- teacher of Alexander the Great

2 Philosophy of Aristotle
- Universalist: studied and taught all subjects available at the time, on logic, on physics and science (physics, meteoroloy, on the heaven, on the soul, on the sleep, on memory, on animals etc.), on philosophy (Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Poetics and others)
- Philosophical Framework:
i) Shares with the early Wittgenstein the "empirical" starting point
ii) But he perceives (all) things as goal-directed (teleological) and draws further conclusion from this experience that leads to his conception of ethics (unlike the early Wittgenstein).

3 Nicomachean Ethics: Overview
3.1 Naming: Dedicated or edited by his son Nicomachus
3.2 Structure: The Nicomachean Ethics consists out of ten books. It can roughly be divided in three parts:
a) general ethics (book 1): the study of the good/highest good
b) virtues (book 2-4): the golden means, moral virtues
c) ethics in the context of society (book 5-10): justice, intellectual virtues, friendship, politics

Seven General Points about Philosophy

1 How does Philosophy get started?
With questions. Being astonished. Not taking things for granted.

2 Philosophy is a systematization of question

3 Interdependence of Philosophizing and History of Philosophy
Need for both aspects: The questioning, critizising, asking your own questions and the study of the history of philosophy, exact reading of philosophical texts.

4 Systematization of Philosophy with Immanuel Kant
Every philosopher will give another account of organizing the field of philosophy. Kant's systematization provides a short and clear account:
i) What can I know? - Epistemology
ii) What should I do? - Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy
iii) What may I hope for? - Philosophy of Religion
iv) What is man? - Anthropology
For Kant, answering the first three question will answer the fourth one. In the Ateneo syllabus question iv) is tackled before ii) and iii)
What might be the explanation for that?

5 Method of Philosophy - Analysis of Concepts

6 Philosophy arises from the "Lebenswelt"
Philosophy, as well as science in general, arises from concrete questions in a particular historical, cultural and social context. Although aiming at universal truth, the perspective of the question is embedded in a certain culture. This has to be kept in mind when reading philosophy.(E.g. the rise of bioethics in the Western World from the 70s onwards would be an example of the cultural relatedness of science )

7 "Sapere Aude!" (Kant) - Dare to know!
Kant writes in "Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?":
"Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding.”

Questioning Wittgenstein

1 Concept of Science
The problem of Wittgenstein is his concept of science. What can be said by means of the picture theory is very limited. Even sentences of logic cannot be accommodated. Should science (and especially philosophy) not try to explain the phenomenons of our life rather then say something about a limited area of our life?

2 Criticizing Wittgenstein from his later philosophy
Is perhaps the scientific language not the only language which has meaning? The later Wittgenstein argues that there is a plurality of languages (or language games, as he calls it), that are equally valid: “The speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life. [There is a] multiplicity of language games ...: Giving orders, and obeying them. Describing the appearance of an object ... Reporting an event. Speculating about an event. Forming and testing a hypothesis... Making up a story; and reading it. Play-acting... Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.
It is interesting to compare the multiplicity of the tools in language and of the ways they are used ... with what logicians have said about the structure of language. (Including the author of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.” (Philosophical Investigations, §23) All these language games follow their own logic and their own rules.

3 What is the task of philosophy?
We have to decide between a philosophical theory on logicist or empiricist premises and our every day understanding of moral language. Should we deconstruct and deny an important aspect of our life? Or should we try to explain the phenomenons that surround us and decide our life? (The question would also be what are we doing in the “philosophy of the human person”? We try to give an account of the phenomenons that surround us.)

For further discussion please consult also the Entry on Wittgenstein in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (See link list)

Wittgenstein’s “Lecture on Ethics”

1 Broad concept of Ethics:
Including “what is good”, “what is valuable”, “the meaning of life”, the area of aesthetics etc. (Note: this is not the common understanding of what ethics is.)
2 Distinction between the relative (trivial) and absolute (ethical) sense of a word:
Relative: “good”, “right” etc. for a certain purpose (good tennis player, right road)
Absolute: “good person” (e.g. “but you should behave better”)
a) Relative sense of a word is a description of a certain state of affairs, absolute sense of a word is something else: it is a normative judgment or a prescription. We try to say something that goes “beyond the world”: These propositions have therefore no meaning, according to Wittgenstein.
b) Another way of understanding: relative sense of the word is conditional (this is the right road if you want to go to Manila in the shortest time), absolute sense of the word is unconditional (you ought to behave better). The distinction can be compared to the Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperative.
3 The “World-Book”:
Another way suggested by Wittgenstein to get aware of the difference (between “relative” and “absolute”) is his thought experience of a world book: Imagine an omniscient person who knows all the movement of all bodies, all state of minds, all facts. He would write everything in a book; “this book would contain the whole description of the world [but] nothing that we would call an ethical judgment.” (p. 3) Even the description of a murder, with all its details, but we would still not find an ethical proposition.
4 Even though that there can be no ethical statement, we make such experiences:
Three examples: a) “I wonder at the existence of the world”, b) “I feel absolutely safe”, c) the concept of “miracle”. In all three examples, it is a misuse of language: a) “wonder” is always about something that might not be the case (an unusually big dog, a house that was there and now has been demolished etc.), b) safe is always relative (e.g. in my room, I’m safe, because no truck can run over me) and c) the word “miracle” does not belong to (scientific) language.
5 Ethical and religious expression just similes?
The use of good, right, valuable etc. in the absolute sense, seem just to be meant as similes. But then, it should be possible to drop the similes, and describe the state of affair on the basis of facts – but there are no such facts. (p. 6)
6 Ethics as a need of human beings
“My whole tendency and, I believe, the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language. This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless. (...) But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it.”

Wittgenstein's Tractatus

1 Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951), Austrian philosopher, student of Bertrand Russell, initiator of the philosophy of language. Underlying assumption of his philosophy: Philosophical problems arise through the misuse of language. Therefore, an account of the proper use of language is required in order to get rid of these problems.

2 Key ideas of his “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”
The aim of the Tractatus is to find out what can be said and what cannot be said. To draw a line between sense and nonsense. In order to show that, Wittgenstein develops a theory of meaning, which explains how propositions (=what is meant by a sentence) get their meaning (namely by virtue of being representations).
2.1 Wittgenstein’s conviction about the “Tractatus”:
“On the other hand the truth of the thoughts communicated here seems to me unassailable and definitive. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the problems have in essentials been finally solved. And if I am not mistaken in this, then the value of this work secondly consists in the fact that it shows how little has been done when these problems have been solved.” (Preface)
2.2 The starting point of the Tractatus:
“1 The world is all that is the case”. Wittgenstein’s main task is then to explain, what he intends to say with this statement. He emphasizes that world consists out of facts, rather than objects: “2 What is the case – a fact – is the existence of states of affairs.” A state of affair is a combination of objects.
2.3 Picture Theory of Propositions:
This theory tries to explain how language works. Sentences depict reality in the same way as an arrangement of toys might simulate reality (Paris court case): A proposition is a picture of reality. The picture theory can also explain, why sentences are either true or false: True, if the proposition is in correspondence with a state of affairs in reality; false, if there is no correspondence.
2.4 The limits of the world are the limits of language
The picture theory implies that we can only say something about empirical facts. There is a limit to what can be said: “The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather - not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).” (Preface) What is beyond the empirical world, cannot be articulated (“7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”)
2.5 Difference of “saying” and “showing”
With language, we can say something about the empirical world, about what is the case in the empirical world (“1 The world is everything that is the case”). What is beyond, cannot be said, it can only be shown (e.g. the area of religion, of ethics, of the meaning of life, of logic). We somehow are aware of the boundary of our world and our language and have a inkling that something is beyond. (Note: there is a difference between logic and ethics; whereas propositions of logic, which determines what is sense and nonsense, is “senseless” (4.0312 That the logic of the facts cannot be represented), propositions of ethics is “nonsense”, i.e. not depicting any fact.)
2.6 The limits of the Tractatus itself
Wittgenstein is aware of the fact that he tried to say something, which actually only can be shown:
”6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)”