Respond to all discussions. At Least 50 words. You must end with the ethical question related to the discussions for each one.
Respond to all discussions. At Least 50 words. You must end with the ethical question related to the discussions for each ones
Give response 1:
Hedonism and Stoicism could be argued to exist at opposite ends of the same spectrum; where Hedonism pursues almost all sorts of pleasure, Hedonism tries to suppress this, or at least be indifferent. Between these two philosophies forms a unique conception of pleasure and pain as absolute values that we can affirm or negate; they serve as the complete ends of both. Aristotle seeks to complexify the relationship between pleasure and pain. Aristotle elaborates:
"...pleasure and pains make people base, from pursuing and avoiding the wrong ones, at the wrong time, in the wrong ways, or whatever other distinctions of that sort are needed in an account. These <bad effects of pleasure and pain> are the main reason why people actually define the virtues as ways of being unaffected / and undisturbed <by pleasures and pains>. They are wrong, however, because they speak of being unaffected without qualification, not of being unaffected in the right or wrong way, at the right or wrong time, and the added qualifications" (Aristotle 24)
One of the major problems with Hedonism and Stoicism is that the two disciplines set up a binary between pleasure and right or wrong, only allowing people to pick between two extremes. Aristotle claims that pleasure and pain are qualified by the virtues and vices by the interconnected relationship between the two concepts. Within Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, one does not have to choose between the absence of either pleasure or pain and instead recognizes them as goods that can drive humanity forward. Rather than focusing on a binary, Virtue Ethics focuses on human character, which is multi-faceted.
The only issue within this criticism of this methodology is that the role of pain and pleasure in Virtue Ethics is unclear. Do good actions cause pleasure, do bad actions always cause pain? We cannot simply assign roles to pleasure or pain, we must acknowledge that they are multi-faced and cannot be grouped into one category. It is intentionally complex, and many people may not be able to understand the nature of pleasure or pain. It is easier to resort to stoicism or hedonism because the roles of pleasure and pain are clear-cut. Dr. Deaton elaborates on this Virtue Ethic's ambiguity:
"When pressed to act, what’s a thoughtful virtue ethicist to do? These sorts of conflicts have led some to charge that Virtue Ethics is often imprecise—that it’s more about the sort of person we ought to be, and less about what we morally ought to do" (Deaton 68).
Give respond 2:
I believe some of y'all have heard the saying "pleasure is pain" whether it be in sports or helping your family lifting things or doing random chores. In book II, Aristotle brings up three criteria to distinguish virtuous people from people who behave in the right way by accident. The first being virtuous people know they are behaving in the right way. The second states they choose to behave in the right way for the sake of being virtuous. The third says their behavior manifests itself as part of a fixed, virtuous disposition. Looking at these you can understand Aristotle's view as people are constantly trying to do the "good" thing or follow their own virtues. A simple explanation for Hedonism is that pleasure is completely and totally a positive thing while on the opposite side of the spectrum, pain is completely and total a negative thing. This is how we are taught to differentiate between pleasure and pain when we are young. A simple explanation for Stoicism is based on your passion, you should interpret pleasure in your own way, and also endure pain without displaying your emotions on it. I personally resonate with Stoicism and I assume most of y'all in this class tend to keep your pain or hardships to yourself until you over come them and find pleasure, or happiness, in how you overcame it. I believe neither Stoicism or hedonism is a correct way to evaluate our virtues or morals. I believe pain could be a relief for those who were stuck in a limbo of emotions and have a break through via pain. Along with that, I believe if you overshare how much happiness, or pleasure, you feel it could make others feel pain that they can not be as happy as you. In terms of attractiveness, most would pick hedonism because it is simple to understand, even though these emotions are extremely complex. While Stoicism is attractive in the way of being able to suppress negative emotions, sadly once you suppress one emotion you start to do it for all emotions, consciously or unconsciously.
Give Respond 3:
In book two Aristotle talks about pleasures and pain and how that plays a part in our virtues. In the second paragraph of book two Aristotle writes "Again, if he stands firm against terrifying situations and enjoys it, or at least does not find it painful, he is brave; but if he finds it painful, he is cowardly." (Aristotle, Book 2 Chapter 3) By Aristotle saying this we have to beleive that Aristotle believes that your virtues are found primarily by how something makes someone feel. If someone finds something they are doing to be pleasurable, they are creating virtues, but if they find whatever they are doing to be displeasurable, they are creating vices.
This theory that Aristotle is proposing could show to differ from those given in Hedonism and in Stoicism. In Hedonism, it is believed that our actions are more non-instrumental. In the simple explanation given in our prompt, the example of Hedonism quotes "...if our relationships, achievements, knowledge, character states, and so on, have any non-instrumental importance, this is just a matter of any pleasure or displeasure that is in their natures. Otherwise, they have only instrumental importance through the pleasure they cause or displeasure they diminish." This theory provides a big divide in that of which Aristotle proposes. Aristotle says that our pleasures and pain is primarily what makes something a virtue or vice, while Hedonism believes for our feeling / actions to not matter in this case.
Aristotle's theory in this book also differs from that claimed in Stoicism. Stoicism believes that ones virtues or vices are proven by the actions that we take on, rather than how we feel about them. In stoicism, if we are acting in a way that is cowardly, it doesn't matter how it makes you feel, you are a coward. Aristotle would disagree to this theory. In Aristotle's book he claims that if one feels like something is brave, that makes him brave.
Give respond 4:
Personally I do not believe that Aristotle really argues against Hedonism whenever he talks about pain and pleasure because I think they both agree on the fact that people do or do not do actions based upon pain or pleasure because there is a paragraph where Aristotle states from chapter 3 "Again, if the virtues are concerned with actions and passions, and every passions and every action is accompanied by pleasure and pain, for this reason also virtue will be concerned with pleasures and pains. This is indicated also by the fact that punishments is inflicted by those means; for it is a kind of cure, and it is the nature of cures to be effected by contraries." From this paragraph I take it as Aristotle saying that we take actions from either knowing the pleasures or the pain as the effect of the action as Hedonism says itself "they have only instrumental importance through the pleasure they cause or displeasure they diminish." saying almost the same as Aristotle however taking it into different paths but I think ending in the same place.
However I feel as Aristotle and Hedonism is different from Stoicism in this sense as it states more into the thought of going towards a path of not following the concerns of pain and pleasure and to be as he says "should not be psychologically subject to anything" meaning not be influenced by pleasure or pain but both Aristotle and Hedonism says that pleasure and pain is in our nature so personally I believe that it is truly impossible to ever really decline ones nature.
From these three different viewpoints thought I believe that Aristotle is of the better of the three because he goes more into depth on how these actions are made from bad and good men almost a way of saying that the pleasures and pains are different for everyone which always interests me about people on how different we are because for example look at zell he is giving away so many parts of his body to people that need them and to most people losing such things would only bring them pain and suffering in a sense however for him he only feels the pleasure of doing these actions for others out of his pure pleasure of doing so which most people would see as good however looking at someone who takes the pleasure of murder would be seen as bad though both are doing actions based upon either their pleasure or pain one is good while the other is bad as seen by the majority of society. just as Aristotle states "For the man who uses these well will be good, he who uses these them badly bad."
Give respond 5:
In the book, Aristotle states, "To sum up: virtue is about pleasures and pains; the / actions that are its sources also increase it or, if they are done badly, ruin it; and its activity is about the same actions as those that are its sources" (Aristotle, 25). By this, Aristotle is saying that the actions you perform will either cause pleasure or pain. He also says that our virtue of character is based on what we find pleasurable or painful. Next, we have Hedonism, which claims that only pleasure brings positive importance, while only pain brings negative importance. Another way of putting it would be, Hedonism is when our actions and behaviors are determined by our wants to increase pleasure and decrease pain. Basically, everything we do in life is for pleasure. The idea from Aristotle and the idea of Hedonism are similar in that they both believe our actions are what allow our pleasure to increase. But, they differ in the fact that Hedonism believes the ultimate good is pleasure; while Aristotle believes only a virtuous person will get pleasure. Lastly is Stoicism, which is basically the idea that you should withhold your emotions to achieve happiness. The idea from Aristotle and the idea from the Stoics are similar in how they both believe that virtue is an important part in attaining happiness. But, these two ideas differ in that Stoics believe happiness is based purely on virtue, while Aristotle believes happiness comes from a variety of goods. I believe Aristotle's idea is the better way to understand pleasure and pain. His idea makes more sense and is more realistic. If you do something good, you will feel pleasure. If you do something bad, you will feel pain. Hedonism believes everything is done for pleasure, which is not necessarily true 100% of the time, while Stoicism believes you don't have to show emotions in order to achieve happiness. But for Aristotle, both pleasure and pain are important.
Give Response 6:
Aristotle compares two instances in which an individual stands and deals with the pain and is labeled as brave since he isn't reacting to the pain. Where as if an individual were to react to the pain or find it painful they would be labeled as a coward. From this Aristotle's view on virtues and vices stem from how an individual feels and the pleasure and pain that create those virtues and vices. This can go in hand with Hedonism where one prioritizes or only finds what brings them pleasure important. However, this does not line up with Aristotle's views perfectly where he takes in account pleasure and pain he also takes into account feelings when an individual creates virtues and vices. Hedonism however does not, so if an individual did not like or enjoy their job they would say it is "evil" or not good for them since it does not bring them pleasure. Of course we know that even if we do not like our job it is still important and we can try to find a job that we enjoy, but at the end of the day we can not ignore the responsibility that is our job. On the other hand is Stoicism which proposes that feelings do not dictate virtues or vices and it is our actions that do. Stoicism from the passage seems to be ignoring your own thoughts and feelings on matters and would explain why they are referred to as men of stone since a stone's surface does not change or move. Aristotle specifically goes off of what one feels and not how their actions define them. I would not agree or follow hedonism or stoicism since only finding what brings you pleasure important would lead to neglecting many aspects of life. As well as letting your actions define your virtues and vices and not how you feel would be a miserable way to live. Humans mess up so every time you mess up it would be considered vice and not a learning experience to grow and improve.
Give Response 7:
Aristotle's conception of pain and pleasure is different from the ideas of the Hedonist and of the Stoic because he believes in the mean of every virtue. My understanding of his view is that if we have the mean of every virtue we can find pleasure. The mean will be different for each person and too much or too little will differ for each person as well. The hedonist would scoff at the idea of not using all of our resources to find pleasure in everything we do. This is not a good way to understand pleasure and pain because it only focuses on the immediate pleasure and avoiding pain at all costs. Pain and discomfort are not always bad but rather might be necessary in some situations and trying to steer clear from that would just be more trouble for the Hedonist. In the gym I look forward to the pain, studying is discomfort, getting a vaccine is painful but the rewards from these are worthwhile. It requires knowledge to determine whether the pain is outweighed by end goal. I would argue that Zell Kravinski was a Hedonist because he found pleasure in generosity so he gave away so many things. On another note Stoicism is something that I believe will only lead to intemperance. Aristotle asserts that "virtue is about feelings and actions, in which excess is in error and deficiency is blamed" (Aristotle 28). If we ignore our feelings about virtue and the outside world then we will be never be in the mean, always under or over it. People should not ignore their bodies and overwork themselves but also should not ignore the need to do work at all. The most attractive way to understand pleasure and pain of these three would be through virtue ethics as Aristotle understands it because this life has no excess or deficiency which would lead to an unethical lifestyle that is immoral.
Give Response 8:
Aristotle believes that a persons character can be determined by what pains or pleases them. A person who complains about doing something that is not particularly pleasurable to them, is considered moderate in pleasure. Moral virtues and pleasure and pain are very much related to each other. If we are aware that an action will bring us pain, we are less likely to act out of fear. On the other hand, if we know an act will bring us pleasure, we are almost guaranteed to perform that act, whether that specific act is moral or not. Aristotle also talks about how our upbringing helps us distinguish between what should pain us and what should please us. As children, we are punished through suffering and in this way we learn what kinds of actions bring about pleasure and what actions cause us pain. Through this suffering we are able to reason and become better individuals because our experiences help us determine what actions are acceptable and what actions are not. Aristotle also believes that pleasure and pain are very strong motivators and doing things that are difficult for us often times produces a pleasurable outcome. Considering all of this, Aristotle’s perspective is that good people are able to deal with pleasurable and painful experiences in a positive way and will find pleasure in being virtuous. The goal of a Hedonist is to only pursue and maximize pleasure and to avoid any and all pain. Stoicism is the idea of pleasure being neither bad nor good. I think our sensibilities would be very different for each ethical theory. On one end we have Hedonism which is only seeking pleasure, in the middle theres Aristotle’s perspective and at the other end we have Stoicism. For example, some people would say exercise is not pleasurable, but no pain, no gain. A Hedonist would avoid exercise all together because its not necessarily a pleasurable act. With Aristotle’s perspective, if we exercise/endure pain, there will most likely be a pleasurable outcome. For a Stoic, they would hold a very indifferent attitude towards the matter, meaning they wouldn’t really care either way. In my honest opinion, I think Aristotle hits the nail on the head. We shouldn’t overindulge, but we should indulge enough to keep ourselves happy, which helps balance pleasure and pain.
Give Response 9:
The premise of hedonism is that the objective of life is to be happy, by obtaining pleasure. Stoicism holds that our reactions to hardship should have no bearing on our future. While virtues constitute our character, Aristotle says that they are concerned with pains and pleasures, because if you accomplish pleasure, you can achieve happiness: the ultimate good.
Aristotle's views on pain and pleasure demonstrate that humans could perform good or bad actions. Each action we intend to take is contingent on our virtues, which determine whether something is painful or pleasurable. Pain and pleasure are significant in our lives; we are raised with them and make our decisions on them, which can lead to positive (happiness) or negative outcomes. Aristotle states that “If he stands firm against terrifying situations and enjoys it, or doesn’t find it painful, he is brave, but if he finds it painful, he is cowardly” (Aristotle, 24). This quote shows how Aristotle believes our character can be illustrated through pain and pleasure. The contrast between Aristotle's beliefs and Hedonism is that Hedonism believes it is best to aim for pleasure while minimizing suffering, whereas Aristotle argues that both pleasure and pain are ways to direct people's moral development. Stoicism teaches us to be conscious of our pain and the feelings it causes, but not to express it, while Aristotle believes we “must consider pleasure and pains; for if we use these well, we shall be good, and if badly, bad” (Aristotle, 25).
Hedonism, Stoicism, and Aristotle all have different perspectives on pain and pleasure, but they all have the same concept. Everyone wishes to experience pleasure rather than suffering. We can all agree that we want the same things in life, but we go about achieving them in different ways and with different morals.
I find that Aristotle’s views on pleasure and pain appeal to me the most. His representation on pleasure and pain is more reasonable than Hedonism and Stoicism. In the article over Zell Kravinsky, we see that he found pleasure and happiness with heavily donating to others in need, while that works for him, it could bring pain to others to donate so much money. It can also bring pain to others to donate organs if they have health problems already. We can look at what Zell did and see that what he gets pleasure from others get pain, the difference in virtues that Aristotle said before, pleasure from donating money/organs is bravery while pain from donating money/organs is cowardly. As a result, I feel Aristotle's views on pleasure and pain are the most relatable.
Give Response 10:
Aristotle's view on pleasure and pain is that pleasure and pain influence our actions. If we feel pleasure while doing something virtuous, then we have that virtue, where as if we feel displeasure while doing something virtuous, then we do not have that virtue. The pleasure or pain we feel dictates influences how we will respond in a situation, "for virtue of character is about pleasure and pain."(Aristotle, 24). While Aristotle claims that pleasure and pain influence our actions, Hedonism states that we should act based on what gives us the most pleasure. The only important thing is pleasure and anything that may be caused or prevented by the pleasure or displeasure is irrelevant. Stoicism states that the only good is virtue and being virtuous is all it takes to be happy. The passions, to Stoics, are different from normal desires because "What differentiates these states of soul from normal impulses is that they are “excessive impulses which are disobedient to reason” (Arius Didymus, 65A)"(Baltzly, 2018). To the Stoics, passions can falsely value something and make people do things that they would not ordinarily do. But this does not mean they want to do away with emotion altogether. They do allow the the "good feeling", which is what presumably happens when people make the right judgment. Though each of these ethical theories is different, they each have have a correlation between doing something and pleasure coming from it,. Even if it is in a different manner or different reason they all have to do with pleasure coming from and/or influencing our action. I think the best way of understanding pleasure and pain is Aristotle's way of thinking. We do things based on what we think and feel. If we only act to chase our desires than we are no better than animals, but if we throw away our desires completely, then we are throwing away part of what makes us human. We should act based on what we feel and train ourselves to feel good about doing right and feel bad about doing wrong.
