TPQs (10/31) Group 3 Posts, Group 4 Responds

[Becko Copenhaver]

[sluh...@lclark.edu]

The human function is "some sort of life of action of the part [part of the soul] that has reason. Aristotle divides reason into two parts: 1) the ability to obey reason, 2) the other as human beings having reason and thinking. This distinction marks the necessary emphasis on the required relationship of virtue as being both our ability to know virtue through reasoning and our ability to perform activity that actualizes that knowledge. The final piece of Aristotle's argument I'd like to recall is that, negatively put, natural capacities are not acquired by habituation; and positively understood, virtue is not a natural capacity and therefore is acquired by habituation.

I'm curious what others think Aristotle implies here of the ability for the mentally handicapped to cultivate virtue, and in this sense her ability to be happy? Also, do we see any parallels in Kantian moral theory as regards the implication that mentally handicapped citizens are equally incapable of cultivating the Good Will? And finally, we must consider not only the ability for one to have virtue (or the Good Will) but also what this implies of our responsibilities towards these people (as in Kantian moral theory we are, by the formal logic of its description of treating all rational beings as ends in themselves).

[co...@lclark.edu]

For Aristotle, happiness is achieved by acting in accordance with the essential nature of what it is to be human. In other words, the ability to reason is a necessary condition for humans to be happy. So, this condition alone might rule out mentally handicapped people from achieving the unique human happiness.

To make matters worse, Aristotle also believes that you must have a good childhood in order to cultivate virtue and reach happiness. If you havent, Aristotle assumes that you will never really be able to understand virtue.

Finally, Aristotle thinks that virtue is the biggest part of happiness, thats why he focus the rest of his book on understanding it. But he does not think that virtue alone is sufficient for happiness. Aristotle thinks that every person is bound by external variables (such as attractiveness, family wealth, having good children, ect.) for happiness. Without these variables, Aristotle thinks that no amount of virtue will make a person happy.

[nse...@lclark.edu]

In a manner that could certainly be compared to Kant in its lack of consideration for humans who may not have the capacity of reason in the same way most humans do have it, Aristotle makes it clear that the cultivation of virtue and happiness is a difficult task and is not something that everyone can undertake. He admits that external factors such as appearance and wealth can aid someone in being happy, while possessing their opposite will impede one's ability to achieve happiness. It could, then, also be argued that being born with or developing a mental handicap would not allow one to cultivate virtue or happiness in the same way being born with a physical handicap or a poor economic standing might hinder one's happiness.
Because Aristotle advocates a sort of "middle path" in talking about virtue as a state of character. For example, individuals often have an excess or a deficiency in a particular trait of character, say, in giving money, the extreme would be benevolence, the mean liberality, and the deficiency greed. Aristotle also admits that there are some actions that do not have a mean because the acts themselves imply badness. Thus, in contrast to the implications of Kantianism, for Aristotle, it would not be permissible to abuse the mentally handicapped even if they are not capable of reasoning. Such an act is simply wrong.

[jswe...@lclark.edu]

I think that according to Aristotle, the mentally handicapped are incapable of a virtuous existence.  Ones chances for achieving virtue depends heavily on their situation.  Things like wealth, good parenting, a healthy environment and intelligence all give one the ability to achieve virtues of a higher level.  Intelligence and general cognitive capacity are key in that the ability to make moral decisions requires the ability to reason.  Therefore, as a persons cognitive capacity decreases, so does their chances of achieving virtue up until point of an inability to reason, at which point they lose their ability to make moral decisions entirely.  To conclude, I think Aristotle is trying to say that the mentally handicapped simply can not, without reason, achieve eudaimonia.  Kantianism seems to draw the same conclusion.  

[estanbro]

I think Aristotle is very similar to Kant in his views on handicapped people and their ability to be happy. Kant noted that we are only to care about the good will of rational autonomous beings. We do not have to respect those that are not rational and autonomous (whether they be a psychopath, or sadly, handicapped). Aristotle is much the same, believing that handicapped people do not have the ability to cultivate virtue. This ability to cultivate virtue is how Aristotle seems to define the good, or happiness. In order to have the ability to cultivate virtue, one must first have knowledge of virtue. As someone else pointed out, Aristotle also points to your childhood and its relation to having an effect on the ability to cultivate virtue.
I like the question about our responsibility towards those that do not have virtue. Are those without virtue on the same level as a rock (as Kant would say about those that are not rational autonomous)? If they are, what duties do we have to them? Do we have duties that are similar to perfect and imperfect duties? Or do we have no duty at all because these people do not have virtue? Are we allowed to kick puppies? Or handicapped people?

[gru...@lclark.edu]

Aristotle suggests the capacity for virtue is human nature while behaving by virtuous character relies on the individual and her interactions with an environment. Virtue is also said to not be easily achieved, for it requires internal compromising and evaluation of means, contrasting pleasures and pains. However, I am curious what kind of agency the structure of one's environment can play in one's achieving of virtue. That is, the available means of actions for an individual are often limited or manipulated by an external force. The mentally handicapped may struggle to adequately judge the mean within pleasures and pains, but I wonder if it is permissible or qualifies as virtuous on the ends of both parties if one were to guide the actions of another, in this case the mentally handicapped, by structuring, perhaps limiting, the actions available to pursue. Though as I write this idea, it also sounds like that may conflict with what Kantianism would reject as behaving against one's rational consent.

[epro...@lclark.edu]

 If we develop and obtain the virtues through practice, (these virtues that direct us toward happiness) do we achieve increasing happiness as we age, in the circumstance where our other forms of well-being (like health, prosperity, etc.) remain relatively consistent?