Question

Topics (choose one):
1. We have studied the moral philosophies of Aristotle and Epictetus (Stoics). Write a paper showing how one is a superior moral philosophy in relation to the other Use any ideas you have on any of the points they make where you can make a comparison/contrast. (Suggestions—Arist. Rational training of emotions vs. Stoic emotional uninvolvement; for Aristotle healthy emotions are necessary for moral reasoning, while Stoics seem to frown upon emotion as the enemy of serenity.)
2. Argue for why you would prefer the moral philosophy of Hume or Kant; and argue for one over the other. Think in terms of the standard for right and wrong each has.
3. Argue argue for or against Thomas Hobbes in relation to Hume, or Kant, or the Consequentialists. If you are arguing against Hobbes, use only one of your choosing; if you are arguing for Hobbes, you can use two (but relate the two together).

Your paper would briefly summarize the relevant issues for each philosopher in the course of arguing why one is preferable to the other. This would also involve thinking in terms of comparison and contrast between them. But the paper should be much more than a summary (see below).

Length: 3 double spaced typed pages with normal margins. Please number the pages and staple.

Regarding Philosophy papers:
A philosophy paper is supposed to argue for a thesis or position. A position is argued for by making several points which support it. Arguing for a position also means arguing against other positions which you are comparing and contrasting with. That is, by criticizing that position. Also, you might want to formulate a possible response made by the philosopher you are criticizing, and then come up with a good response by the one you are supporting
Feel free to us a good example, but make sure it relates well to the points you are making
A philosophy paper is not expository, in the sense of simply summarizing a philosopher’s position. This is not a research paper. Brief and accurate summarizing is of course needed (drawn from your readings and notes), but only to the extent it relates to the points you are trying to make. No Padding! You should only bring to bear the readings I have assigned from the text, and lecture notes/BB summaries..
Moreover, in arguing against a philosopher, you need to present his position accurately and fairly; you do not need to show that is completely wrong but only that your chosen philosopher’s position is superior to it.

Like any paper, a philosophy paper should be well organized. This means that there should be a reason why every paragraph is in the place it is and not in another place. More specifically, it means:
a) Having a good Introduction, which is a paragraph stating the general thesis of the paper and a brief statement of how you are going to argue for it. It should also indicate how what you are going to say is important. Introductions are supposed to orient and motivate the reader.
a) Having a good Conclusion, which wraps up the paper by giving a quick summary of the major arguments in the paper and comes back to the introduction (“wrap it up”). Also, the reader should be left with a desire to pursue the subject further (perhaps a question or qualification).
c) Last but not least, having a Main Body with a coherent logical order. Everything you say here should be (at least indirectly) relevant in some way to your overall thesis.

Answer 1

Thank you for he question. As instructed in the question, here is my response:

1) Aristotle vs Epictetus:

The Stoics themselves did not speak with one voice, and the extant writings that we have from ancient Stoic authors do not offer the same kind of substance and depth that we find in contributors such as Aristotle and Aquinas. Epictetus’s Handbook, for example, is a series of loosely connected aphorisms and short reflections. The same can be said of Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations. Still, a close reading of Stoic texts shows a set of themes that together display a distinct and unique approach to virtue ethics.

While the ultimate good for humans is happiness, the Stoics regard the social world in which we try to attain this good as opaque, unfair, and out of our control. Because of this belief, happiness must be achieved entirely in one's inner life, as it is the only realm that can be controlled. Emotions, insofar as they are responses to external events, must be regulated tightly or eliminated. The virtues themselves are inner, rational dispositions that contribute to control of the self. Service to others is valuable not for the attainment of external goods, but as an opportunity to practice our virtues. The Stoic approach is thought to resonate with the international nature of conflict between nations; the chaos of warfare; and the need for order, discipline, and bravery on the battlefield.

An approach to virtue ethics inspired by Aristotle can provide a superior theoretical and practical foundation for an organization compared to the approach offered by the Stoics.  Aristotle offers a more sophisticated account of human flourishing and the attendant virtues; his approach has the added value of speaking to organizations like the military on and off the battlefield in ways that are especially relevant to the nature of modern organizations and their activities.

In particular, the Aristotelian approach:

(1) is a better match for the institutional nature of modern organization that offer service to the masses like the military,

(2) incorporates a higher degree of flexibility, which allows the account to be adjusted appropriately to the variety of circumstances in which an organization operates, and

(3) is better able to contend with the kinds of tragedies that are at the heart of the an organizations experience in chaotic world.

Aristotle's focus on excellence of character contrasts with other prominent theoretical approaches to ethics, such as consequentialism, which focuses on the good that we bring about through our actions, and deontology, which focuses on the moral laws that we should obey. Aristotle believed that moral excellence is found in a happy human community. By happiness I mean a life of “doing well” or “being well". Many later philosophers propose that the happy life is understood best as the flourishing life, to distinguish it from the various trivializations of “happiness” that seem to have taken over contemporary Western culture.

Psychologically speaking, every human being is composed of rational and irrational faculties, where the irrational faculties include those that are capable of listening to reason (appetites and passions) and those that are not (involuntary bodily functions). According to Aristotle, moral excellence is found at the intersection of the rational faculties and the irrational faculties that are capable of listening to reason.  The morally excellent person uses her reason or, more specifically, her deliberative and decision-making powers, to regulate her appetites and passions so she can fulfill those functions specific to the appetites and passions themselves. Aristotle is not suggesting that we suppress or eliminate our appetites and passions; instead he argues that, in a flourishing person, appetites and passions will be expressed in ways that accord with right reason. Simply put, the morally excellent person is the well-regulated person.

2) Hume vs Kant:

I would consider the standards of Kant to be superior than that of Hume. Hume's method of moral philosophy could be called experimental and empirical, whereas, Kant emphasizes the necessity of grounding morality in a priori principles. Hume claims that reason is properly a “slave" to one's "passions”, while Kant bases morality in his conception of a reason that is practical in itself. Hume identifies such feelings as benevolence and generosity as proper moral motivations; Kant sees the motive of duty, a motive that Hume usually views as a second best or fall back motive, as uniquely expressing an agent's commitment to morality and thus as conveying a special moral worth to actions. Although there are many points at which Kant's and Hume's ethics stand in opposition to each other, there are also important points of connection between the two. Kant shared some important assumptions about morality and motivation with Hume, and had, early in his career, been attracted and influenced by the sentimentalism of Hume and other British moralists.

Hume's main ethical writings are to be found in A Treatise on Human Nature, especially books two and three, and in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Also relevant to Hume's ethics are various essays, such as “Of Suicide”, parts of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Kant's main works on ethics, narrowly considered, are the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, the Critique of Practical Reason, and the Metaphysics of Morals, which contains both “the Doctrine of Right” and “the Doctrine of Virtue.” Other works of importance to Kant's moral philosophy include the Critique of the Power of Judgment, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, and Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, in addition to student notes on lectures Kant gave on ethics and various essays on history and political philosophy, such as “Conjectures on the Beginning of Human History” and “Toward Perpetual Peace”.

After going through all these works it becomes quite complex to place one of them above the other. Kant has little to say about specific virtues to cultivate regarding the promotion of one's natural and moral perfection, perhaps because there are so many possibilities, with different ones more appropriate to different agents at different times of their lives. Promoting one's natural perfection requires developing whatever excellences pertain to the abilities of mind, body, and spirit which one thinks it makes most sense to develop, given one's particular interests, desires, and talents. Promoting one's moral perfection requires cultivating all the qualities one needs to purify one's moral motivation and to fulfill all of one's duties.

There are a number of general similarities between Kant and Hume on the virtues. Kant's account of the virtues shares with Hume a rejection of both Hobbes's psychological egoism and of Hutcheson's reduction of all virtues to the sentiment of benevolence. Both Hume's and Kant's accounts of the virtues reflect their acceptance of versions of Grotius's distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, though they do not incorporate the same versions into their theories, or do so in the same ways

The qualities we must cultivate as part of our promotion of the happiness of others include beneficence, sympathy, and gratitude. Beneficence does this most directly, for it s maxim is one of promoting others' morally permissible ends. Sympathy assists beneficence, as the maxim of sympathy is one both of sharing actively in others feelings and of cultivating one's naturally sympathetic feelings to assist oneself in understanding their feelings and needs. There are other traits that Kant praises but stops short of calling virtues, or that he calls virtues only inconsistently. These qualities generally include dispositions that do not presuppose maxims grounded in respect for rational nature, but that often indirectly promote morality. The “virtues of social intercourse,” “affability, sociability, courtesy, hospitality, and gentleness (in disagreeing without quarreling),” are among this group. Kant excludes from the “Doctrine of Virtue” duties and virtues particular to those of various ages, social positions, or sexes. When Kant ventures into practical anthropology, however, he discusses vices and virtues characteristic of men and women, as well as various races and nations.

Amongst the differences between Kant and Hume on the virtues is the fact that justice is an immensely significant artificial virtue for Hume, but is not treated by Kant as a virtue at all. For Kant, justice has primarily to do with one's external treatment of others. As long as one does not hinder their freedom in a way that violates universal law or legitimate positive law, one complies with the demands of justice. One's motive or attitude is irrelevant from the standpoint of justice. It is a matter not of justice itself, but of ethics, if one respects the rights of others not from fear of punishment but from respect for persons or law. The moral worth adhering to acting rightly out of respect for right is not part of justice, but of ethics; it is a matter of self-constraint or virtue. Another difference between Kant and Hume is that the traits, dispositions, and attitudes that Kant regards as genuine moral virtues reflect agents' maxims and moral commitment. Hume casts a much wider net with regard to the qualities that count as virtues. Notably, these traits can be things that seem to be a matter less of choice and moral commitment and more of temperament or nature such as wit or good memory. Wit and good memory are certainly things that Kant would think that agent's might well cultivate in the promotion of their natural perfection. But for these traits to be considered Kantian virtues would require at least an agent's morally grounded interest in and cultivation of them. Finally, there is a significant difference in how Kant and Hume regard sympathy. As we have seen, for Hume, sympathy is not (or at least not only) one among a number of morally useful traits; it is a fundamental piece in the mechanism of moral approval and disapproval. Kant shares Hume's views that sympathy involves the transmission of feelings among people, and that sympathy or a related sort of fellow feeling is present in other animals. Indeed, Kant even acknowledges the epistemic, communicative, and subordinate motivational roles that sympathy can play, and that justify an indirect duty to cultivate it. But Kant nevertheless regards sympathy as being of only conditional moral goodness, with its status as a virtue depending on its place in the motivational-deliberative framework of the agent. If sympathy is cultivated by an agent out of an interest in becoming more sensitive to the morally important needs of others, and employed in ascertaining how best to fulfill one's duties of beneficence, then it is a virtue. If it is simply a natural tendency to suffer when others suffer, or to feel happy when others are, or if an agent indulges these feelings by doing whatever is in her power to alleviate the suffering of others she feels, without taking other morally significant features of the situation into account, it is not a virtue.

3) Kant and Hobbes:

Kant's essay ‘On the common saying: “This may be true in theory, but it does not apply in practice”’ contains a chapter ‘On the relationship of theory to practice in political right’ to which he added, in brackets, ‘(Against Hobbes)’. The problem is that Kant leaves his Hobbes-criticism quite implicit. The main point seems to be the Hobbes's citizens are without any rights. I would like to highlight the differences and similarities between Kant's and Hobbes's political views and evaluate the effectiveness of Kant's criticism. We may pay attention to Nominalism and Platonism, the idea of happiness in social life, the use and role of the Golden Rule (Categorical Imperative) in political thought, the quest for freedom, and the principle of political non-resistance. Especially freedom of speech is important for Kant as an 'Enlightenment' thinker. This is the only right Kant's citizens may have, independently of the sovereign's will.

Kant’s political philosophy is a branch of practical philosophy, one-half of one of the broadest divisions in Kant’s thought between practical and theoretical philosophy. Political philosophy is also to be distinguished within practical philosophy from both empirical elements and from virtue proper. The separation from virtue is treated later in this section. Regarding the empirical elements, it is worth mentioning that practical philosophy, as a set of rules governing free behavior of rational beings, covers all human action in both its pure and applied (empirical, or “impure”) aspects. Pure practical philosophy, the rational elements of practical philosophy in abstraction from anything empirical, is called by Kant “metaphysics of morals”.

Kant so emphasized the priority of the pure aspect of political philosophy that he wrote part of his essay “On the Common Saying: That May be Correct in Theory, but it is of No Use in Practice” in opposition to the view he associates with Hobbes that the politician need not be concerned with abstract right but only with pragmatic governance. Yet Kant also included the more pragmatic, impure, empirical study of human behavior as part of practical philosophy. For ethics in general, Kant called the empirical study of human beings as agents within particular cultures and with particular natural capacities “anthropology”. Some of Kant’s social philosophy fits into this rubric

Conclusion: Both Kant and Hobbes emphasize peace and order under sovereign power although they do not agree on how such an ideal can be achieved.

**

I hope this helps you, please upvote the answer if you found it useful. Thanks,