Ethics — Part I
Notes by UPSCTREE on 1)Nature and Scope of Ethics, 2) Importance & challenges 3) Ethics in Indian Philosophy and 4) Ethics in Western Philosophy.
Nature and Scope of Ethics
This unit introduces the philosophical need for Ethics by examining Moral Law — how it differs from positive and natural law — and how the human person intuits ethical principles while growing in self-awareness. It closes by resolving the tension between the constant and the variable in morality.
1.1 What is Moral Law?
Law has two distinct senses that must not be confused with moral law:
| Type of Law | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Positive Law | A rule of action promulgated by whoever is in charge of a community, for the common good. Prescriptive. | Divine positive law (from God) / Human positive law (civil, criminal, commercial) |
| Natural Law | A formula expressing a constant of behaviour in things/persons. Descriptive (and prescriptive if seen as willed by God). | Physical, chemical, biological, psychological, sociological laws |
| Moral Law | Corresponds to neither exactly. The sense of the "absolute should" is an immediate datum of moral consciousness itself. | "Do good, avoid evil" + concrete precepts like "be truthful", "help the poor" |
Think of it this way — positive law is what a government or authority tells you to do ("pay your taxes"). Natural law is just how things behave on their own, like gravity pulling objects down. Moral law is different from both: it's that inner sense of "I absolutely should not do this" that you feel even when no one is watching and no rule book says so. It comes from within your own moral awareness, not from an outside order.
Moral law therefore includes two layers:
Central Question: How are the general data of moral consciousness particularized into specific precepts — and why do people disagree on whether a specific act is morally "good"?
1.2 Moral Intuitionism
Every deontological theory assumes some rule/law is natural to the human person and intuitively known. This element of "intuition" appears under different names:
Intuition is even present in teleological theories: implicitly in autarxia (Epicurus) and eudemonia (Aristotle); explicitly in "right reason" (Hobbes) and "conscientious feelings of mankind" (Mill). The philosophy that insists on the necessity of moral intuition is called Ethical Intuitionism.
"Moral intuition" simply means that human beings don't need to be taught, step by step, that murder is wrong — we just know it, immediately, the way we know a triangle has three sides. Different philosophers just gave this "built-in knowing" different names — conscience, moral sense, right reason — but they're all pointing at the same basic human capacity.
Thinkers disagree on the object of moral intuition:
- Rightness of specific acts — Carritt, Prichard
- A simple, indefinable moral property — G. E. Moore
- A general principle (Utility) — Sidgwick
- A set of prima facie duties — W. D. Ross: fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, non-maleficence
Kant vs Aquinas vs Suarez on First Principles
Kant
- Admits moral judgment has a-posteriori (experiential) elements too
- Denies concrete precepts can be derived from practical reason alone
- Study of human nature is necessary
Thomas Aquinas — Synderesis
- First principles: self-evident, intuitive, cannot be erased from the human heart
- Secondary principles: derived "as if by conclusion from premises" — require reflection
- Derives concrete principles from natural inclinations
Suarez
- Even secondary principles (self-evident in themselves) need thought & experience
- Tertiary principles need full study & discursive thought
- Derives concrete precepts like a legal system, immediate norm = "good" of human nature
1.3 Human Person in Search of Himself/Herself
The immediate ontological foundation of moral obligation is human inter-relatedness, and the norm for moral good is the human person as a social being. The only self-evident moral precept is that a person should realize himself/herself as human — all other precepts flow from this.
A child doesn't understand morality the same way an adult does — and humanity as a whole is like that child, slowly growing up. We're not born with a complete, finished moral rulebook; we discover it gradually, the more self-aware we become as individuals and as a society. That's why moral understanding today (e.g. human rights for everyone) looks different from moral understanding 2,000 years ago — not because morality changes, but because our grasp of it deepens.
This explains the historical development of morality — from the cave-man to the modern person, from ancient slavery to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNGA, 1948) — approved without a single dissenting voice. But this progress is not necessarily linear; it may suffer setbacks. The text cites abortion (is the foetus a human person?) and the women's liberation movement as evidence that humanity has not yet fully attained self-consciousness.
1.4 Love and the Moral Precepts
Human inter-relatedness, expressed positively, is Love.
Love is like a seed at the beginning of moral life that matures into full consciousness at its end. One cannot develop as a human person merely through study/reflection — love is achieved by doing, echoing the scholastic maxim:
1.5 The Dynamics of Morality
Central dilemma: Are moral precepts universally valid (risk: rigid absolutism) or only relatively valid (risk: untenable relativism)?
Herbert Spencer's Evolutionary Ethics
Spencer held that conduct evolves from a "struggle for existence" toward cooperation and mutual help. He distinguished:
Spencer was a Utilitarian: happiness is the ultimate end; moral intuitions are the "slowly organized results of experience" handed down through generations until they become instinctive.
1.6 The Constant and the Variable in Morality
Moral consciousness is a constant (essential to human consciousness as such), but the stages of its development are variable. Sources of this variability:
- Different human situations — geographic, climatic, economic conditions
- Changing religious consciousness — e.g., human sacrifice, burning of witches, saturnalia
- Civil law changes do not automatically mean a change in morality — "legal" merely means "allowed by the state"; the state should not impose one group's moral beliefs on a pluralistic society
| Concept | Definition |
|---|---|
| Moral Relativity | An undeniable empirical fact — different people/cultures have held different moral beliefs at different times. |
| Ethical Relativism | A philosophical theory: no universal moral norm exists; what's right is relative to the individual/group, and reasons are given (e.g. Sartre). |
| Ethical Skepticism | Admits no reasons can be given, and it is strictly impossible to say what is right or wrong. |
- Moral law is neither positive law (external command) nor natural law (descriptive constant) — it is the "absolute should" felt directly in moral consciousness.
- Moral intuitionism says every ethical theory, teleological or deontological, ultimately relies on some form of built-in moral "sensing."
- Aquinas: first principles are self-evident; secondary principles need reflection and can be derived from natural inclinations.
- The one truly self-evident precept: a person should realize himself/herself as human — every other rule flows from this.
- Love is the existential basis and the "form" of all moral precepts — not learned by study alone, but by doing.
- Morality has a constant (moral consciousness itself, present in every era) and a variable (how clearly/fully that consciousness is expressed at a given stage of history).
- Moral relativity (a fact) ≠ Ethical relativism (a theory) ≠ Ethical skepticism (a doubt) — keep these three distinct.
- Explain Absolute Ethics and Relative Ethics.
- How are love and moral precepts related?
- How do love and moral precepts help build an ethical society?
- What is the notable difference between Aquinas's and Suarez's idea of self-evident/moral principle?
Importance and Challenges of Ethics
This unit spells out why Ethics matters, then confronts two major modern challenges that try to make ethics itself relative: Situation Ethics (Joseph Fletcher) and Cultural/Ethical Subjectivism — closing with Morris Ginsberg's classic sociological rebuttal.
2.1 Why Ethics Matters
Ethics (Greek ethos) = Morals (Latin mores) — both mean "custom," "ways of behaviour," "human character." Philosophy doesn't just register the fact that humans distinguish right from wrong; it seeks the rational and meta-empirical ground of that distinction.
Three philosophical assumptions underlie the study of ethics:
Meta-empirical Knowledge
of Reality
& Free Being
Modern causes that question morality's meaningfulness: spread of education, advances in science & technology, urbanization, faster communication and travel bringing cultures into closer contact. At a deeper level, the human person is really questioning himself — the meaning of life, the direction of history, the limits of knowledge.
It's not just that people argue over specific issues like war or marriage anymore — that has always happened. What's new is that people are asking a much bigger question: "Is there really any fixed right and wrong at all, for everyone, everywhere?" This unit looks at two popular modern answers that say "no" (Situation Ethics and Cultural Relativism), and then examines whether those answers actually hold up under scrutiny.
2.2 The Challenge of Situation Ethics
Joseph Fletcher (former Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, Cincinnati; published Situation Ethics, 1961) proposed his approach as a "golden mean" between two extremes:
The situationist enters every decision "armed with the ethical maxims of his community" but is prepared to set them aside if love seems better served by doing so. Fletcher critiques Kant's "a lie is always wrong":
Fletcher's Three-Step Method
Fletcher goes further — attacking the maxim "the end does not justify the means":
Situation Ethics basically says: "Rules are useful guides, but if following the rule would be unloving in this particular situation, break the rule and do the loving thing instead." That sounds reasonable in small doses — but the danger is that "love" becomes so flexible a word that it can be stretched to excuse almost anything, including terrible acts, if the person believes they're acting out of love. That's why critics say situation ethics needs a much stricter definition of what love actually means.
2.3 Cultural and Ethical Subjectivism
Objection: cultural relativism is an undeniable fact — polygamy is right in one culture, condemned in another; some South Sea tribes considered painless killing of aged parents a filial duty. Anthropology/sociology conclude: no culture is superior to another; each is self-sufficient within its own presuppositions. Claiming a "neutral" common-human-nature standpoint can itself be a disguised form of cultural domination (as in globalization).
The Kantian Trap
Many critics confuse "common natural law" with Kant's rigid categorical imperative — strict, absolute, motivated by "duty for duty's sake" alone, excluding even love of God, country, or family. Kant needed an autonomous source for ethics because:
- Basing morality on God's will (Occam) or positive law (Durkheim) is unstable / open to corruption
- His own agnostic epistemology (following Hume) meant human nature — the noumenon — is unknowable, so it could not ground morality
- Solution: ground morality in a priori synthetic judgments built into the mind — as rigid as the Principle of Identity/Contradiction
Perceptual relativism — sense perception is part of human nature, and this alone opens room for cultural variation (e.g., "acquired tastes"). But not all cultural difference is mere perceptual relativism: where a custom implies certain people (by gender, ethnicity, religion) are non-persons or inferior, disqualifying them from rights — that culture can and should be challenged. Cultural difference cannot justify discrimination.
Yes, cultures differ — food, dress, customs, even some moral practices. But that doesn't mean anything goes. There's a difference between "different cultures season their food differently" (harmless variation) and "this culture denies certain people basic dignity" (a genuine moral wrong). The first is just cultural flavour; the second can, and should, be criticised — no matter which culture it comes from.
2.4 Morris Ginsberg — "On the Diversity of Morals"
Ginsberg (Professor of Sociology, University of London, 1929–1954) delivered the Huxley Memorial Lecture on apparent ethical relativism found in cross-cultural anthropology. His conclusion, after long scrutiny:
Moral codes everywhere show striking similarities in essentials: no society lacks rules of conduct; all value what contributes to group needs/survival; all condemn conduct that threatens social stability.
Ginsberg's Six Contexts of Moral Variation
| # | Source of Variation | Explanation / Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Range of persons moral rules apply to | "Neighbour" initially meant only one's family/tribe/males. True criterion = "human nature adequately considered," applicable to all irrespective of age, sex, status, nationality. |
| 2 | Growth of knowledge | Discovery of microbes → new hygiene duties; witch-burning ended once people understood there was no real occult threat. |
| 3 | Same act, different contexts | "Usury" depends on standard of living; a pre-emptive strike differs morally from aggression; self-redress is legitimate only where no judiciary system exists. |
| 4 | Differences of emphasis in moral responsibility | Some stress duty to God's will, others love of God/men, others prudential reward. Imbalance without self-criticism → fanaticism, neglect of justice, masochism. |
| 5 | Alternative ways of satisfying basic (first-order) needs | Monogamy is one route to companionship/tenderness (first-order values); Bantu society (Africa) channels desire, affection, companionship through separate relationships (second-order values) — yet the underlying values are shared. |
| 6 | Differences of mental/moral development | See five sub-criteria below. |
Sub-criteria for "Level of Mental Development" (context 6)
- (a) Degree of universalism — does the code stop at family/tribe, or extend to all nations/religions?
- (b) Range of experience embodied — a hunter-gatherer code may lack guidelines for business/inter-religious relations
- (c) Coherence & scrutiny — how well justified and internally consistent the code is
- (d) Separation of morality from law and religion — else the dominant religion's principles get imposed on all through law
- (e) Room for self-criticism and self-direction — vs. systems that forbid all dissent
- Situation Ethics (Fletcher): love overrides law when the situation demands it — powerful insight, but dangerously vague about what "love" actually permits.
- Fletcher's method: Agape → Sophia → Kairos (love, guided by wisdom/rules, applied at the moment of decision).
- Cultural relativism is a real, observable fact — but does not automatically prove ethical relativism (the theory that nothing is really, universally wrong).
- A minimal common human nature — embodied, social, self-transcending, related to the ultimate — is enough to ground morality without becoming rigid like Kant's categorical imperative.
- Ginsberg's conclusion: moral codes worldwide agree on essentials (no society lacks conduct rules); apparent diversity is explainable through six specific contexts, not proof of "anything goes."
- Pannikar's diatopical exchange: cultures should learn from each other as equals, not assume one is automatically superior.
- Define Ethics and its importance.
- Illustrate Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics.
- Mention the six contexts of Ginsberg's Diversity of Morals.
- What is the diatopical exchange of Pannikar?
Ethics in the History of Indian Philosophy
Indian ethics is inseparable from religion — its foundations lie in metaphysical/theological beliefs of worship, karma, and liberation. This unit covers Hindu ethics (Vedic, Upanishadic, Dharmasastric, Gita), and the ethical traditions of Buddhism and Jainism.
3.2 Sources of Moral Ideals in India
In the event of conflict between Vedas and Smrtis, the Vedas prevail. Both Buddhism and Jainism give reason a prestigious place: in Jainism, right faith comes first among the three jewels, but one is advised to test precepts through reason; the Buddha said, "wherever there is disagreement, questions can be asked for removing doubts."
3.3 Meaning of "Dharma" in Indian Tradition
The Indian term for morality is Dharma, from the root dhr — "to hold together." It has two connotations:
- Performance of ritual sacrifices & caste-based duties
- Practice of moral virtues & norms common to all — Sadharana Dharma (universal duty)
3.4 Ethics in the Vedic Period
The central ethical concept of the Rig Veda is Rta — a unifying moral order pervading all things. Rta gives rise to two derivative concepts:
Vedic ethics is fundamentally god-oriented — right performance of sacrifice leads to eternal happiness in heaven.
The Upanishadic Shift
The Upanishads shift the highest goal from happiness to Moksa (liberation) — declaring Vedic sacrifices "totally irrelevant" to it. Upanishadic ethics is atman-centric and intellectualistic.
The person of wisdom "does not sin" — good conduct is necessary for the metaphysical good of identifying self with Brahman.
3.5 Ethics in Dharmasastras and Itihasas
The Manusmrti subordinates individuality to social structures — duties are relative to time (Yuga), place (Desa), Varna (class) and Asrama (stage of life). Yet Manu also decrees ten universal virtues (Sadharana Dharma), applicable to everyone regardless of caste:
— Manusmrti VI: 91–92
3.6 The Way of Righteousness in the Gita
The central theme across all 18 chapters: realization of the Supreme Reality (Brahmajnana) through a life of righteous action, attained via devotion, renunciation, and self-surrender.
Golden Rule of the Gita: actions should be performed with the spirit of non-attachment to their fruits (Nishkama Karma). Gita emphasizes both Karma Yoga (path of disinterested action) and Gnana Yoga (path of knowledge) — but Karma Yoga is considered superior, blessing one with Brahmayoga, leading to moral success and infinite spiritual peace.
3.7 Ethical Concepts of Hindu Tradition
Doctrine of Karma — Four Types
| Type | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Sanchita Karma | Accumulated past actions (across all previous lives) |
| Prarabdha Karma | Portion of Sanchita Karma that fructifies in the present birth ("pre-destination") |
| Kriyamana Karma | Present willful actions / free will |
| Agami Karma | Immediate results caused by present actions |
Think of Karma like a bank account of actions. Sanchita is your total lifetime "balance" built up across all your past lives. Prarabdha is the portion of that balance that has already been "withdrawn" to shape your circumstances in this current life — your birth, family, and basic life situation. Kriyamana is what you are freely choosing to do right now — this is where your free will operates. Agami is the immediate fallout of those present choices, which will itself join the Sanchita balance for the future. So while your starting circumstances may feel fixed, how you act today is still entirely up to you.
Karma and transmigration of the soul (Samsara) are bound together — the soul passes through innumerable births until it regains its original pure state.
Purusharthas — The Four Supreme Goals of Life
The first three Purusharthas are treated as instrumental values promoting the highest value — Moksa.
Hindu ethics doesn't ask you to reject worldly life to be moral. It says: earn wealth (Artha), enjoy life's pleasures (Kama) — but do both while staying within the boundaries of duty (Dharma), because the ultimate point of it all is inner freedom (Moksa). It's less "renounce everything" and more "enjoy responsibly, with the bigger goal always in view."
Svadharma & Varnadharma
Svadharma = the principle that each individual grows best according to their own dharma, based on varna and asrama, expressed through three gunas: Sattva (purity), Rajas (virility/passion), Tamas (darkness/inertia).
Ashrama Dharma — The Four Stages of Life
This orderly succession was considered vital for the development of the Jivatma and the proper ordering of society.
Samskaras — Hindu Purificatory Rites
Personal/family sacraments sanctifying body, mind and intellect: Garbhadhanam (conception), Pumsavanam, Simanthonnayanam, Jata-Karma (birth), Nama-karanam (naming), Nishkramanam, Annaprasnam (first solid food), Chudakaranam (tonsure), Karnavedham (ear-piercing), Vidhyarambam (start of learning), Upanayanam (initiation), Samavarthanam, Vivaha (marriage), and Antyesti (funeral rites).
3.8 Ethics in Buddhism
| 10 Meritorious Deeds | 10 Demeritorious Deeds (3 sets) |
|---|---|
| Charity, Morality, Mental Culture, Reverence, Service, Sharing merits, Rejoicing in others' merits, Teaching Dhamma, Listening to Dhamma, Straightening one's views | Body: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct Speech: lying, slander, harsh speech, meaningless talk Mind: covetousness, ill-will, wrong views |
Buddhist morality judges an action by its intention: greed, hatred, delusion → bad; love, charity, wisdom → the "Three Good Roots." A Buddhist should act out of understanding and wisdom, not fear of divine punishment.
Five Precepts (Pancasila) — Voluntary
Metta (Universal Love) — true charity (Dana) gives without expecting anything in return and without creating indebtedness. Love for animals is also emphasized — every living being has a right to exist; destruction of any creature disturbs the universal order.
3.9 Jaina Ethics
Jainism rejects Vedic ceremonialism and takes Ahimsa (non-violence) as the supreme ethical virtue — surpassing even Buddhism in its observance.
Triratnas — The Three Gems
Right conduct stops the influx of new karma and eradicates old karma, through the Panca-Maha-Vrata (5 Great Vows):
- Dharma = "that which holds together" — both ritual/caste duty and universal moral virtue (Sadharana Dharma).
- Vedic ethics is god-oriented (sacrifice → heaven); Upanishadic ethics shifts the goal to Moksa through self-knowledge.
- The Gita teaches Nishkama Karma — act without attachment to results; Karma Yoga is rated above Gnana Yoga.
- Purusharthas: Dharma, Artha, Kama are instrumental; Moksa is the ultimate goal.
- Varnadharma is theoretically guna-based but was historically rigid and birth-determined — a genuinely contested part of the tradition.
- Buddhism judges actions by intention (the "Three Good Roots": love, charity, wisdom) and offers five voluntary precepts (Pancasila).
- Jainism places Ahimsa above all virtues, structured around the Three Gems and the Five Great Vows (Panca-Maha-Vrata).
- What are the sources of ethics and their ideals in Indian tradition?
- Explain the ethics of the Gita.
- What are the Hindu ethical ideals in Indian tradition?
- What is unique about Buddhist morality?
- Explain the sources and foundation of Jaina Ethics.
Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy
Sir David Ross's classical distinction organizes all Western ethical theory into two broad camps — differing more in emphasis than being mutually exclusive.
4.1 Teleological vs Deontological Ethics
Teleological Ethics (telos = end)
- Morality judged by whether an act fulfils the overall end of human life
- Hedonistic: Epicurus, Hobbes
- Ethical Egoism
- Eudaimonia: Aristotle
- Personal Utilitarianism: Bentham
- Social Utilitarianism: Mill
Deontological Ethics (deon = binding)
- Morality judged in terms of duty / obligation — the "right," not the "good"
- Key question: what makes "duty" a duty?
- Prominent figures: Ockham, Durkheim, Kant, Aquinas
- Term coined by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)
Teleological thinkers ask: "What good outcome are we aiming for?" — and judge an action by whether it gets us there (usually happiness or pleasure). Deontological thinkers ask: "What is my duty here?" — and judge an action by whether it follows the right rule, regardless of the outcome. A simple test: if someone says "lying is wrong because it makes people unhappy in the long run," that's teleological thinking. If they say "lying is wrong because it's simply against the rule to lie, no matter the outcome," that's deontological thinking.
4.2–4.10 Ten Thinkers — A Timeline
Sought to eliminate fear/anxiety and promote pleasure — but not crude gratification. His true aim was ataraxia (absence of pain, serenity of mind), attained by removing false fears (death, the gods). Highest virtue: phronesis (discernment). "Philosophy of the Garden."
All beings seek perfection; human happiness = self-realization through moral virtues (the Golden Mean — e.g. courage between foolhardiness and cowardice) and intellectual virtues (techne, phronesis, episteme, nous, and the highest — sophia, wisdom). Moral badness = ignorance; no one seeks evil knowingly.
God = ultimate end / supreme good. Natural law = God's eternal law, inbuilt into nature, accessible via revelation and reason. Distinguished speculative vs practical reason, each having ratio (discursive) and intellectus (intuitive). Synderesis = self-evident first principles ("do good, avoid evil"). Secondary principles can flex in concrete cases (e.g., truth-telling toward an unjust aggressor). Prudence guards against legalism.
Franciscan; championed voluntarism — moral rightness stems wholly from God's free will and omnipotence, restricted only by logical contradiction. Critics note a tension: he also appeals to "right reason," which seems inconsistent with pure divine-command dependence.
Leviathan: in the state of nature, "man is a wolf to man" (homo homini lupus). The state was set up to curb this chaos through absolute power. A hedonist: actions are bad because forbidden, not forbidden because bad — the criterion of morality is what the law (divine or civil) says. Variously called Ethical Egoism, Social Utilitarianism, or Moral Positivism.
Individualistic utility: seeking pleasure/avoiding pain drives decisions. Proposed the Felicific Calculus — 7 measures for the greatest pleasure of the greatest number for the longest time: intensity, duration, certainty, nearness, fecundity, purity, extent (inclusiveness).
"The Sage of Königsberg." Rejects heteronomous (externally-sourced) morality in favour of autonomous, a priori principles. Only a Good Will — acting purely for duty's sake — is unconditionally good. Categorical Imperative: "I must act such that my way of acting could become a universal procedure"; "never treat a person merely as a means." Derives three postulates: human freedom, immortality of the soul, existence of God.
Kant's test for any action is simple to state, hard to apply: ask "what if everyone did this?" If the answer is chaos or contradiction (e.g., everyone lying makes trust, and therefore lying itself, impossible), then the action is wrong — no exceptions, no matter how good your reason for the exception feels.
Utilitarianism refined Bentham: pleasures differ qualitatively, not just quantitatively; individuals should seek the common happiness of all (even "of all sentient beings"), grounded in "the conscientious feelings of mankind."
French positivist, father of Sociology. In Elementary Forms of Religious Experience, argued religion (via Totemism) is really the tribal society "conceived symbolically." Extended this to morality: moral laws are simply positive laws enacted by society for its own stability — "sociological positivism." Critics note he cannot explain the common structure across cultures, or why radical reformers who reject society's mores emerge at all.
4.11 Let Us Sum Up — Defining Ethics & Human Acts
Human Acts vs Acts of Humans
Human Act (actus humanus)
- Done with full knowledge and freedom
- Person is accountable — can be praised or blamed
Act of Humans (actus hominis)
- Done unknowingly or unintentionally
- e.g., drinking poisoned tea without knowing — "objectively" a suicidal act but "subjectively" not blameworthy
Even an objectively-wrong act done without full knowledge/consent can still have real (psychological, physiological) effects on the agent — so we cannot ignore objective morality in favour of subjective morality alone.
- Teleological (end-focused): Epicurus & Hobbes (hedonism), Aristotle (eudaimonia/self-realization), Bentham & Mill (utilitarianism).
- Deontological (duty-focused): Ockham (divine will), Hobbes's law-based view, Kant (autonomous categorical imperative), Aquinas (natural law via reason), Durkheim (social/positive law).
- Epicurus sought ataraxia (tranquility), not crude pleasure; Aristotle sought the Golden Mean between excess and deficiency.
- Aquinas's natural law: first principles (self-evident) → secondary principles (reasoned, can flex in hard cases).
- Bentham's felicific calculus measures pleasure quantitatively; Mill adds that pleasures differ qualitatively too.
- Kant's Good Will and Categorical Imperative reject all outcome-based reasoning — duty for duty's sake alone.
- Human acts (done knowingly & freely) make us morally accountable; acts of humans (unknowing/unintentional) do not.
- What is the common principle in Epicurus's, Hobbes's and Bentham's philosophy?
- Briefly explain Aristotle's views on virtues.
- What are the seven norms proposed by Bentham for measuring pleasure?
- Briefly explain Durkheim's materialist explanation of religion.
- Explain Kant's views on moral obligation.
- Explain Thomas Aquinas's views of moral philosophy.