VI. Ethics: What is morality? The challenge of cultural relativism: Does morality depend on religion. Psychological and ethical egoism: Virtue Ethics (Aristotle), Moral Absolutism (Kant), Utilitarianism (Mill), Social Contract Theory.

VI. Ethics:
-the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

What is morality?
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Morality involves what we ought to do, right and wrong, good and bad, values, justice, and virtues. Morality is taken to be important, moral actions are often taken to merit praise and rewards, and immoral actions are often taken to merit blame and punishment.
What we ought to do
To do good, obligation, wellbeing
Not to hurt anybody

Right and wrong
Diff bet right & wrong
To do always right, to help others

Good and bad
“Good” and “bad” refer to positive and negative value. To eat food is positive to survive

Justice, Virtue, Law etc. Etiquette, Good Behaviour, Civilized, values etc.

Conclusion
It is hard to pinpoint what morality is about, but we often discuss morality with ease anyway. There are many related ideas concerning morality, such as what we ought to do, right and wrong, and justice; but these ideas often have a non-moral counterpart. This seems clear when we compare moral and nonmoral instrumental value. Moreover, etiquette and law are often confused with morality, but they are not identical to morality. What’s polite or legal is often moral, but not always. What’s bad etiquette or illegal can be moral as well.

The challenge of cultural relativism:
Different cultures have different values, Values, Taboos, Marriage, Death, Traditions etc

Does morality depend on religion?
morality means a system or set of beliefs that define what is good or bad.
Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right

Sources to know about religion & morality
-Philosophy (reason, logic, wisdom)
-Religion (divine books, faith)
-Science (senses)

Religions teach about morality
-religions teach about the morality
-reward for good deeds
-punishment for bad deeds

Is religion based upon morality?
-Though relation teaches about morality, but it is not based upon it.

Is morality based upon religion?
-Though morality teaches about good deeds, but it is not based upon religion. Example: Atheist,

Psychological and ethical egoism:
Egoism: the fact of thinking that you are better or more important than anyone else (self-intrested/centerd)

Ethical egoism is that we ought to act in a way such that we maximize our OWN self interest. (what we ought to do)
Psychological egoism is that whenever anyone acts, his or her ultimate motivation is self interest. (what we in fact to do)

Difference
Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest.

Virtue Ethics (Aristotle),
Virtue ethics is one of the main categories of normative ethics. It teaches that moral behavior is directly linked to a virtuous life. An act cannot be ethical if it is performed by a corrupt character, and a virtuous person will naturally perform virtuous acts.

The roots of the tradition of virtue ethics lie in the works of Plato and Aristotle, and so the tradition's key concepts derive from them. These concepts include aretê ("virtue"), eudaimonia ("happiness" or "human flourishing"), and phronêsis ("practical wisdom").

virtue was regarded as the character trait of the soul with respect to its inner harmony. In the ancient Greek and medieval periods, virtue ethics was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking.

Central concepts in virtue ethics
Virtue ethics started from Plato and Aristotle
Virtue ethics started from Plato and Aristotle. There are at least three central concepts in virtue ethics:
1-Virtue (aretê)
According to Plato and Aristotle, virtues are character states of the soul with respect to its own innerharmony. Plato maintained that the inner harmony of the soul is reached when the rational part of the soul regains its knowledge of eternal truth in the Forms to be able to regain control over the other parts of the soul. Given a variety of modes of the soul's inner harmony, Plato in his Republicsuggested four virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Aristotle, too, explained moral virtues in terms of the rational ability of the soul to control its appetitive portion. But, unlike Plato's thesis that virtues are only based on knowledge, he asserted that moral virtues should be learned also through practice to become habits. Aristotle considered many more moral virtues than Plato, and included virtues such as magnificence, liberality, friendship, sincerity, and self-respect. Aristotle also argued that each moral virtue is a mean between two corresponding vices. For example, the virtue of courage is a mean between the two vices of cowardice and foolhardiness. Where cowardice is the disposition to act more fearfully than the situation deserves, and foolhardiness is the disposition to show too little fear for the situation, courage is the mean between the two: The disposition to show the amount of fear appropriate to the situation. Other than the moral virtues, Aristotle categorized intellectual virtues, which consist in purely rational abilities of the soul unrelated to controlling the appetitive part, and the most important of which are "philosophical wisdom" of first principles (sophia) and "practical wisdom" of the good (phronêsis). While the moral virtues can lead us to happiness (eudaimonia), the intellectual virtues constitute even higher forms of happiness.
2-,"happiness" or "human flourishing" (eudaimonia)
The system of virtue ethics is only intelligible if it is teleological, that is, if it includes an account of the purpose (telos) of human life, or in popular language, the meaning of life. Plato and Aristotle took eudaimonia as the final end or purpose of life and made virtues as the necessary condition to achieve this goal. Eudaimonia is a state variously translated as "happiness" or "human flourishing." The latter translation is more accurate; it is not a subjective, but an objective, state. It characterizes the well-lived life, irrespective of the emotional state of the person experiencing it. According to Aristotle, the most prominent exponent of eudaimonia in the Western philosophical tradition, eudaimonia is the proper goal of human life. It is reached through the moral virtues, but it is achieved even in higher forms through the intellectual virtues. Aristotle, like Plato before him, argued that the pursuit of eudaimonia was an activity that could only properly be exercised in the characteristic human community—the polis or city-state. What is interesting is that according to Platoeudaimonia as the final purpose of virtuous human life is rooted in the Forms, especially the Form of the Good. According to Aristotle,eudaimonia is the highest good, which is something immanent in humans and not a transcendent Form, but it is perfectly enjoyed in the purely contemplative life of God: "The activity of God, which surpasses all others in blessedness, must be contemplative; and of human activities, therefore, that which is most akin to this must be most of the nature of happiness."[1]
Obviously, strong claims about the purpose of human life, or of what the good life for human beings is highly controversial. So, virtue ethics' necessary commitment to a teleological account of human life puts the tradition in sharp tension with other dominant approaches to normative ethics such as Kantianism and consequentialism (or utilitarianism, which, because they focus on actions, do not bear this burden.

3-practicalwisdom (phronêsis).
Various virtues are complementary to each other and work in an integral way. For example, a good intention of a person with the moral virtue of benevolence does not necessarily bear fruit, if he or she makes a misjudgment. According to Aristotle, therefore, one must have the intellectual virtue of "practical wisdom" (phronêsis) to make a proper judgment at the given situation, at the right moment with the proper method: "Again, the work of man is achieved only in accordance with practical wisdom as well as with moral virtue; for virtue makes us aim at the right mark, and practical wisdom makes us take the right means."[2] One cannot properly possess any of the virtues unless one has developed practical wisdom. Conversely, if one has practical wisdom, then one has all the virtues.

A social contract is the foundation of any government. All citizens must enter into a social contract for a government to work. They require that you give up certain, specifically enumerated rights so that the society can function as a whole.

Think about the Constitution - that's how it influenced the US government.

The obligations we have are basically the Bill of Rights (the amendments to the Constitution).

Check out Examville for more help... they have a lot of good stuff when it comes to history and political science.

Lock
Unlike the contracts of Hobbes and Rousseau, Locke said you have the right to take back your rights. Under Hobbes they were gone forever; under Rousseau you only got to choose certain things at certain times.

Locke's idea was translated into the US Constitution, which in fact says that a Constitutional Convention may be called, to determine whether or not the government needs to be changed. But on a personal level, you have the right to take back almost all of your rights the government now legislates upon; but you are then not allowed to use US money ( or any money); and you don't have most of the protections afforded to those who have not given them up. You still can't steal or murder, and the government will protect you if you are harmed.

VII. Contemporary Philosophical Movements:
Existentialism (Heidegger, Sartre); Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey); Neopragmatism (Rorty); Postmodernism (Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida)

VII. Contemporary Philosophical Movements:
1-Existentialism (Heidegger, Sartre);

1-Existentialism
An existential crisis is a moment at which an individual questions the very foundations of their life: whether their life has any meaning, purpose, or value.[1] This issue of the meaning and purpose of existence is the topic of the philosophical school of existentialism
Existentialism – A Definition
Existentialism in the broader sense is a 20th century philosophy that is centered upon the analysis of existence and of the way humans find themselves existing in the world. The notion is that humans exist first and then each individual spends a lifetime changing their essence or nature.

In simpler terms, existentialism is a philosophy concerned with finding self and the meaning of life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility. The belief is that people are searching to find out who and what they are throughout life as they make choices based on their experiences, beliefs, and outlook. And personal choices become unique without the necessity of an objective form of truth. An existentialist believes that a person should be forced to choose and be responsible without the help of laws, ethnic rules, or traditions.
Existentialism – What It Is and Isn’t
Existentialism takes into consideration the underlying concepts:
 Human free will
 Human nature is chosen through life choices
 A person is best when struggling against their individual nature, fighting for life
 Decisions are not without stress and consequences
 There are things that are not rational
 Personal responsibility and discipline is crucial
 Society is unnatural and its traditional religious and secular rules are arbitrary
 Worldly desire is futile
Existentialism is broadly defined in a variety of concepts and there can be no one answer as to what it is, yet it does not support any of the following:
 wealth, pleasure, or honor make the good life
 social values and structure control the individual
 accept what is and that is enough in life
 science can and will make everything better
 people are basically good but ruined by society or external forces
 “I want my way, now!” or “It is not my fault!” mentality
There is a wide variety of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies that make up existentialism so there is no universal agreement in an arbitrary set of ideals and beliefs. Politics vary, but each seeks the most individual freedom for people within a society.
Existentialism – Impact on Society
Existentialistic ideas came out of a time in society when there was a deep sense of despair following the Great Depression and World War II. There was a spirit of optimism in society that was destroyed by World War I and its mid-century calamities. This despair has been articulated by existentialist philosophers well into the 1970s and continues on to this day as a popular way of thinking and reasoning (with the freedom to choose one’s preferred moral belief system and lifestyle).

An existentialist could either be a religious moralist, agnostic relativist, or an amoral atheist. Kierkegaard, a religious philosopher, Nietzsche, an anti-Christian, Sartre, an atheist, and Camus an atheist, are credited for their works and writings about existentialism. Sartre is noted for bringing the most international attention to existentialism in the 20th century.

Each basically agrees that human life is in no way complete and fully satisfying because of suffering and losses that occur when considering the lack of perfection, power, and control one has over their life. Even though they do agree that life is not optimally satisfying, it nonetheless has meaning. Existentialism is the search and journey for true self and true personal meaning in life.

Most importantly, it is the arbitrary act that existentialism finds most objectionable-that is, when someone or society tries to impose or demand that their beliefs, values, or rules be faithfully accepted and obeyed. Existentialists believe this destroys individualism and makes a person become whatever the people in power desire thus they are dehumanized and reduced to being an object. Existentialism then stresses that a person's judgment is the determining factor for what is to be believed rather than by arbitrary religious or secular world values.

Heidegger
Martin Heidegger
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) studied under Husserl. Heidegger was interested in the "question of being".
He thought that western philosophy had been over obsessed with the problem of knowledge. For Heidegger the individual as being-in-the-world was characterised by action and anxiety: knowing the world is not our primary way of being in the world. In his later works, Heidegger became more interested in the history of concepts in language. He regarded his investigations as an attempt to disclose or uncover the concealed nature of being. His most fundamental question was: why should there be being at all, when there could be nothing? Although Heidegger claimed he was not an "existentialist", his influence on Sartre and the existentialist movement is undeniable

Jean Paul Sartre
Jean Paul Sartre (1905-80) is, perhaps, the best-known existentialist. He was a gifted playwright and novelist who was offered the Nobel Prize for literature in 1964, but refused it.
Sartre thought that there was no fixed human nature or essence and so the individual has to choose his/her being. This choice brings with it responsibility. Those who do not choose, but base their lives on pre-arranged moral and philosophical systems are said to be acting in bad faith.
Criticisms of Existentialism
 Herbert Marcuse (1898 - 1979) has criticized Existentialism, especially Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", for projecting some features of living in a modern oppressive society (features such as anxiety and meaninglessness) onto the nature of existence itself.
 Roger Scruton (1944 - ) has claimed that both Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept of bad faith are bothself-inconsistent, in that they deny any universal moral creed, yet speak of these concepts as if everyone is bound to abide by them.
 Logical Positivists, such as A. J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap (1891 - 1970), claim that existentialists frequently become confusedover the verb "to be" (which is meaningless if used without a predicate) and by the word "nothing" (which is the negation of existence and therefore cannot be assummed to refer to something).
 Marxists, especially in post-War France, found Existentialism to run counter to their emphasis on the solidarity of human beings and their theory of economic determinism. They further argued that Existentialism's emphasis on individual choice leads tocontemplation rather than to action, and that only the bourgeoisie has the luxury to make themselves what they are through their choices, so they considered Existentialism to be a bourgeois philosophy.
 Christian critics complain that Existentialism portrays humanity in the worst possible light, overlooking the dignity and gracethat comes from being made in the image of God. Also, according to Christian critics, Existentialists are unable to account for the moral dimension of human life, and have no basis for an ethical theory if they deny that humans are bound by thecommands of God. On the other hand, some commentators have objected to Kierkegaard's continued espousal of Christianity, despite his inability to effectively justify it.
 In more general terms, the common use of pseudonymous characters in existentialist writing can make it seem like the authors are unwilling to own their insights, and are confusing philosophy with literature

2-Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey);
Definition: 1. guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory or ideology; 2. relating to matters of fact and practicality

Synonyms: realistic, down-to-earth, practical, sensible, matter-of-fact, logical
Antonyms: ideological, unrealistic

Pragmatism is a late 19th Century and early 20th Century school of philosophy which considers practical consequences orreal effects to be vital components of both meaning and truth. At its simplest, something is true only insofar as it works. However, Pragmatism is not a single philosophy, and is more a style or way of doing philosophy.

Peirce
the school's founder, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, first stated the Pragmatic Maxim in the late 19th Century (and re-stated it in many different ways over the years) as a maxim of logic and as a reaction to metaphysical theories. The Pragmatic Maxim is actually a family of principles, not all equivalent (at least on the surface), and there are numerous subtle variations with implications which reach into almost every corner of philosophical thought.

James, Dewey
 The school of Pragmatism reached its peak in the early 20th Century philosophies of William James and John Dewey. The term"pragmatism" was first used in print by James, who credited Peirce with coining the term during the early 1870s.
 After the first wave of Pragmatism, the movement split and gave rise to three main sub-schools, in addition to other more independent, non-aligned thinkers:

 Neo-Classical Pragmatism inherits most of the tenets of the classical Pragmatists, and its adherents includes Sidney Hook (1902 - 1989) and Susan Haack (1945 - ).

 Neo-Pragmatism (sometimes called Linguistic Pragmatism) is a type of Pragmatism, although it differs in its philosophical methodology or conceptual formation from classical Pragmatism, and its adherents include C. I. Lewis(1883 - 1964), Richard Rorty (1931 - 2007), W. V. O. Quine, Donald Davidson (1917 - 2003)and Hilary Putnam (1926 –

 French Pragmatism is a specifically French off-shoot of the movement, and includes Bruno Latour (1947 - ), Michel Crozier (1922 - ), Luc Boltanski (1940 - ) and Laurent Thévenot (1948).

3-Neopragmatism (Rorty);
 Richard Rorty. He was an American philosopher that became famous in the late 70’s and 80’s for advocating a new form of pragmatism.
 Tow thoughts about knowing things: scientific & unscientific
 Quest for truth, postmodernism also thinks so.
 Quest for foundations:
 Neopragmatism, sometimes called linguistic pragmatism is a contemporary term for a philosophy which reintroduces many concepts from pragmatism.

 The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (2004) defines "Neo-pragmatism" as "A postmodern version of pragmatism developed by the American philosopher Richard Rorty and drawing inspiration from authors such as John Dewey, Martin Heidegger, Wilfrid Sellars, Quine, and Jacques Derrida

 It repudiates the notions of universal truth, epistemological foundationalism, representationalism, and epistemic objectivity. While traditional pragmatism focuses on experience, Rorty centers on language. It is a nominalist approach that denies that natural kinds and linguistic entities have substantive ontological implications. In Neopragmatism language is contingent on use, and meaning is produced by using words in familiar manners. The self is regarded as a "centerless web of beliefs and desires". Rorty denies that the subject-matter of the human sciences can be studied in the same ways as we study the natural sciences.[1] (Bunnin & Yu, 467)

 It has been associated with a variety of other thinkers including Hilary Putnam, W.V.O. Quine, Donald Davidson[2] and Stanley Fish[citation needed] though none of these figures have called themselves "neopragmatists".