Determinism and Free Will

What are the biggest problems with believing in determinism or free will? Well, my big problem with determinism is that it does away with ethics, which I believe are absolutely essential. (If everything is determined, then no one can be held responsible for their actions and thereby punished for them. On the other hand, no one could be praised for doing the "right thing" either.) So, even if determinism turned out to be correct, I don't think we could accept it without falling into complete anarchy. My big problem with free will is that it seems obvious that certain things are determined, like the law of gravity, for example. If I drop a piece of chalk ten times, I would expect it to fall to the ground ten times. This appears to be absolutely determined and inevitable. I don't honestly believe that full determinism or full free will exist, so I'm a compatiblist. That seems to be the only rational choice to me. However, there are apparently issues with compatibilism too, especially concerning individuals and their behavior. Is there any right answer here? Probably not. 

Altruism Part 2

What is the difference between being altruistic and being virtuous? Can one be altruistic without being virtuous, or virtuous without being altruistic? I found the diagram in class to be very helpful. I now understand altruism as a kind of sub-category to virtuosity. One can be virtuous without being altruistic, however, one cannot be altruistic without being virtuous. After our discussions in class, I feel a little better about understand altruism as a whole. What still eludes me, however, is the exact definition of 'virtue'. The nature of virtue, and what is truly virtuous, still confuses me. Is it that altruism is supposed to have an air of disinterestedness, and virtue is not? Is it that virtuosity is more about morality and goodness of the self, rather than almost carelessly looking out for others? I understand that their are many important differences between altruism and virtue, but I still don't understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. Is there one, over-arching, all-encompassing definition of 'virtue'? And how does a virtuous person get away without showing any kind of altruism? 

Altruism Part 1

Is it technically possible to do good acts without feeling good about them? Or will every good act consequently and inevitably make you on some level feel some good? I keep hearing about altruism "for its own sake", and how that means that you aren't supposed to do it for yourself. But can you help if you get something good out of it? If feeling good is just naturally what happens after you commit an act of altruism, and you know that you are going to feel good before you do that act, does that no longer mean that the act is altruistic? I don't think so. You may do something good for somebody knowing that it will inevitably make you feel good, but that doesn't mean that you are selfish or simply not altruistic. It seems to me that the act in and of itself is either altruistic or not, I don't think intention plays a very prominent role. Even if you do something primarily for your own sake, if that something helps another person, then I   just don't think it can be called selfish. Or, at the very least, not entirely selfish. Even if you don't mean to help anyone, you may not be able to call yourself an altruist, but one can still say that you did an altruistic act. 

Aristotle Part 2

Why is one way of life considered to be so much better than the others? Why can’t there be a one life with all of these different attributes in it? Couldn’t that life be just as good as one purely devoted to reflection? Could that life be even better? I think that a life that could contain practical politics, pleasure, and reflection could easily be called the ultimate life, because you wouldn't  have to give up any one thing for anything else. I don't see why limiting yourself to just one thing, be it politics, pleasure or reflection, could lead you to fulfillment. I understand that perhaps it might be for the best to have reason, rationality, and reflection as top priorities, but I do not think that that means you need to exclude all other forms of enjoyment in life. Aristotle noted that lives devoted to pleasure or practical politics could be happy and fulfilled, just not as much as a live devoted purely to reason and reflection. That doesn't make sense to me.   I would assume that the lives that would be the happiest and most fulfilled would have balance, and elements from all walks of live without being so exclusive. 

Aristotle Part 1

On what basis does Aristotle reject the life devoted to honor and political success? Hardly anything is said about this, which I think is a big mistake. Why is this life still better than the pleasure-seeking one, anyways? We already noted that Aristotle immediately dismisses the hedonistic life, and then claims "practical" political activity the second best kind of life a person can lead. What makes political activity "practical" in the first place, when it is well known that so much corruption surrounds politics? And, knowing this, why is it still better than going about the hedonistic life? Is a life devoted to impractical political activity worse than one devoted to pleasure? And what does he mean when he talks about a life devoted to pleasure? Must pleasure always be a bad thing? What if someone felt great pleasure by helping other people, and that person devoted his/her life to that? Would that person's life be more unfulfilled than a politician? I think Aristotle make a great mistake when he only identifies three different types of lives, because there are many other ways to live your lives which might be just as good. Furthermore, I don't think most people only live in one way. That is, that they would devote their lives solely to one thing, such as reflection, politics, or pleasure. I think most people can live very fulfilled lives with any combination of those three things, or with others. I think that Aristotle cut himself off prematurely. 

5 Platonic Societies

Plato has outlined five different types of societies, or governments, in his Republic. These include aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny/anarchy. Of these, Plato choses to glorify aristocracy, finding the other four societies to be imperfect. He goes on to explain that in a timarchic society honor and fame are valued above all else. It is perfectly understandable to find flaw in such a society, I think. Then he explains oligarchy is a society based primarily on making money, and those with the money rule. Again, it would prove easy to find fault with this society. In an anarchy, chaos and disorder ensue until a tyrant arises. This, too, would easily be considered an imperfect society. All of this makes perfect sense to me. What confuses me is Plato's obvious disdain for democracy. Democracy, if only a limited one, seems like such a great choice to me. How could ancient Athenian democracy be so bad, so different from today, to cause Plato's distaste for it? I understand that no legal system can be truly perfect, but democracy seems to be pretty close, if not in practice then at least in theory. What really struck me was how Plato thought it was, as the authors put it, "absurd to give every person an equal say, when most people-in his views-do not know what is best." (83) At first the idea doesn't seem that strange, after all, a lot of people are 'in the dark' about an awful lot of things. Perhaps it isn't wise to let people who are exceptionally ignorant to carry the same amount of weight in their opinions as a well-educated person. And this is what really confuses me; Plato founded the very first Academy of Athens, surely he knew how important education was! And if he knew this, why wouldn't he simply declare that all persons, or at least all voting persons, should be enrolled in school? If all voting persons were well-educated, then wouldn't it make sense that they all have an equal vote?