endsthegame (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
endsthegame) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2024-05-28 02:55 pm
endsthegame) wrote in fandomhigh2024-05-28 02:55 pm
Entry tags:
Practical Philosophy, Tuesday
"And now we arrive at the point in this series of classes where I start dragging old philosophers into it," Ender said, wryly, as he sat down on the law with his sandwich.
"But I think this might be an interesting one with this group," he added. "Specifically, I'd like to talk about justice. When is it okay to judge something terrible or evil? The philosophers of yore developed extensive theories on what made something good and right. Take the old Greeks, such as Socrates and Aristotle, who believed in what's called 'virtue ethics' - the idea that the character of the person defines the morality of his actions. Socrates argued, for instance, that if a person knew what was right, then he would do right. It was only not knowing what 'good' was that might cause someone to do evil."
"Then there were the stoics, who believed virtue laid in contentment, in being happy with what you're given, whatever it was. Opposite them, the hedonists, who believed 'good' was anything that made you feel happy. Later philosophers came up with the theory of consequentialism, the idea that your morality depends on the consequences of what you does. Some philosophers felt that good deeds were only good if they worked to better the country, for instance."
He sipped his bottle of water. "On the other hand, deontologists such as Kant believed that goodness came from doing, and the reasons someone might have to do something. If you were doing something out of duty, for instance, then according to Kant, you were doing some good. 'Nothing in the world can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.' Your intentions are what make you good."
He sat back.
"As I said, we all make our judgments. Of ourselves, of the people around us, of their pasts - especially around here. On what do you base your judgments? I think most of us realize that there is no such thing as pure good and evil - but how we judge other people tends to depend a lot on what we were taught and where we come from."
Another faint smile.
"I personally believe that character is important," he said. "Once you try to understand what makes people do what they do, it becomes that much harder to see them as evil. After all, most of us do what we think is right, even if our ideas of what right is are different." He gave a little shrug. "But of course I feel that way. I'm a Speaker for the Dead. It is, in many ways, our raison d'etre to value human understanding of the self above all else."
"But I think this might be an interesting one with this group," he added. "Specifically, I'd like to talk about justice. When is it okay to judge something terrible or evil? The philosophers of yore developed extensive theories on what made something good and right. Take the old Greeks, such as Socrates and Aristotle, who believed in what's called 'virtue ethics' - the idea that the character of the person defines the morality of his actions. Socrates argued, for instance, that if a person knew what was right, then he would do right. It was only not knowing what 'good' was that might cause someone to do evil."
"Then there were the stoics, who believed virtue laid in contentment, in being happy with what you're given, whatever it was. Opposite them, the hedonists, who believed 'good' was anything that made you feel happy. Later philosophers came up with the theory of consequentialism, the idea that your morality depends on the consequences of what you does. Some philosophers felt that good deeds were only good if they worked to better the country, for instance."
He sipped his bottle of water. "On the other hand, deontologists such as Kant believed that goodness came from doing, and the reasons someone might have to do something. If you were doing something out of duty, for instance, then according to Kant, you were doing some good. 'Nothing in the world can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.' Your intentions are what make you good."
He sat back.
"As I said, we all make our judgments. Of ourselves, of the people around us, of their pasts - especially around here. On what do you base your judgments? I think most of us realize that there is no such thing as pure good and evil - but how we judge other people tends to depend a lot on what we were taught and where we come from."
Another faint smile.
"I personally believe that character is important," he said. "Once you try to understand what makes people do what they do, it becomes that much harder to see them as evil. After all, most of us do what we think is right, even if our ideas of what right is are different." He gave a little shrug. "But of course I feel that way. I'm a Speaker for the Dead. It is, in many ways, our raison d'etre to value human understanding of the self above all else."
Re: Talk.
She leaned back to consider Andrew's not-actually-questions. "There is a considerable calculus that would go into your first question," she said. "As for the latter, it's fairly easy - betrayal. Continued incompetence, which is separate from ignorance. Abusing my trust. I do not trust easily or well, so abuse of it is its own kind of betrayal, I suppose."