Three considerations before beginning the course.

Philosophy course doesnt necessarily deal with practical considerations. We

call this metaethics. Its the step before the practical.
The prerequisite for understanding this class is to be a human being,
experience being a human being and have had contact with other human
beings.
All cultures over time courses are taught with a historical spin. Well be
studying with an emphasis on the historical development of certain ideas.

Stanford Online encyclopedia is a good resource.

Reviewing is important.
What is ethics all about? Maybe its just being a good person. Maybe its about
being good to society. The latter is closer to social engineering. Theres significant
disagreement between the two. A third approach is about people doing the right
thing.
Eudaemonism- Greek term for a good spirit within you. This view is about becoming
a good person. Popular in Greece.
Consequentialism- Morality is about the consequences of actions. If the
consequences are good, then the actions are good. The most popular form is called
utilitarianism. Utilitarians say that moral consequences are the greatest happiness
for the greatest number. You measure out how you can do the most good.
Utilitarianism was created by Jeremy Bentham. His closest student was James Mill
and Mills son was John Stewart Mill.
Question against utilitarianism- What if 50 people get pleasure out of someone
being tortured? Then the torture would be justified. Common sense would say that
torture is wrong. Common sense morality claims that certain things are objectively
wrong. Utilitarianism is only concerned with quantitative good and bad.
Another question is, would we justify framing a person for doing a certain crime to
make the rest of society at ease for getting a criminal off the streets?
Another objection to torturing someone, is that its possible that the pleasure gained
by torturing someone is a tainted pleasure. There are records of Nazis that felt
wrong torturing someone but eventually started to enjoy it. But then the question
isnt about moral absolutes- it would just be that certain types of pleasure are bad.
Lets say that someone made a video of child pornography. After its made, you
could make the argument that youre not doing anything wrong. But an ethical
theory should state that certain pleasures are objectively wrong.

A hard core utilitarian would not make that distinction. Jeremy Bentham
said that all pleasure is the same. The famous quotation is, push pin is as good
as poetry. (Pushpin is bowling). There are no inherently bad types of pleasure. Most
people would disagree with this approach. Hes equating pleasure with happiness
which is an interesting point that well come back to.
Thomas Carlyle was not a utilitarian. He referred to utilitarianism as pig-morality. If
somebody sits and eats all day, is that truly ethical?!

Derech AgavHow does death factor in to utilitarianism? Is living in pain better than not
living? If each person contains a small measure of pleasure, then the ultimate
utilitarian should have as many children as possible. This question has major
implications for abortions. Harav Carmy doesnt think utilitarianists thought
through this issue.
Joe finder raised the following question. Smoking is bad because it causes
health problems. But if people smoke and die young, then look at how much
money were saving on their healthcare for the rest of their lives.
People need to use up natural resources to live so maybe if we kill a person
painlessly were causing the world to have less of a burden and that person
doesnt feel any pain.

In order to make a proper judgement in a utilitarian view, you need to have a

tremendous amount of information about the future. Many times you wont know if
a particular decision was good until hundreds of years later when all the
consequences of that decision have panned out.
To sum up, the main question is, Is morality simply about maximizing
pleasure? This is the pig-morality issue.
[Harav read a very moving passage from Dickens Hard Times. Gradgrind is a
version of Bentham according the Masorah. Utilitarian mentality doesnt want to
move in to the subjective realm. He was only concerned with objective facts that
can be measured.]
Bentham referred to the idea of having rights as nonsense on stilts.
Utilitarianism tries to calculate everything- there should be no
subjectivity. It presupposes a world where everything can be calculated
and broken down into units of pleasure and pain. Its more scientific.
The desire for utilitarian ethics stems from a desire to be able to calculate
everything. It gives a way of quantifying things that otherwise would be very
confusing. This doesnt lend us to believe that Bentham tortured people in his spare
time- he just wanted a system that quantifies everything. It avoids religious
imperatives.

Another imperative may have come from the revolutions happening around the late
18th century. It provides an easy way of structuring democracy. One of Benthams
notions is that a utilitarianist society is ultimately more productive and happier.
1/28/14
Pig-morality- Lets think about this issue for a minute. If someone really seeks to
bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, does he really live like a pig?
NO! Hell dedicate his life to helping the greatest number of people. [Utilitarians are
ok with lying for someone elses good so you cant really trust them.] Perhaps were
worried that if people hear that were just chasing after happiness, they might start
to chase after hedonistic pleasures. But thats already presupposing the truth of
utilitarianism and then its just a question of whether or not we should preach it to
the masses.
Probably what Carlyle was worried about stems from the fact that its a valueless
life style. People will essentially become pleasure seeking machines whether theyre
chasing after their own pleasure or other peoples pleasure. It trains people to
believe that life is all about pleasure.
In summary, there are three points on pig morality:

Theres a tension between what were aiming for and what the result will be.
People who arent looking for happiness are eventually the people who might
find it, and the people chasing after happiness will end up living like pigs.
Its a fear of diminishing what a human being is all about. This is similar to
Dickens portrayal.
If you take Utilitarainism to an extreme, you should really get rid of all of your
possessions until you have the average wealth of the world. You should never
spend money if it could do more for a poor person. This is a very demanding
doctrine. Where do you draw the line? Peter Singer believes that people
should give away all of their disposable income other than their most basic
needs. It turns out that he was paying for his mother to live in an expensive
nursing home. He justified it by saying that it provides a salary to a lot of low
income people who work in the home.

Lets move on to other features of Mills thought. Mill distinguishes different types of
pleasure. He says that poetry is better than pushpin. He would say to look at the
types of people who are involved in both types of pleasure and ask them which they
enjoy more.
How to calculate these utilitarian pleasure values is a sticky point.
How do you stop pollution? One solution is to make people pay the entire market
however much they would be willing to pay in order to not have pollution.
Moving on from Utilitartianism.

Mill wrote an essay called On Liberty that many people believe contradicts
Utilitarianism. Mill takes the position that every individual should do what they
please as long as it doesnt interfere with anyone else. Liberty shouldnt be an
individual value if the end goal is Utilitarianism.
You could say that for Mill either Liberty is its own value, or its a way of making
people the most happy. People in power dont always know whats best for the
individual; let the individual decide what is best for him. Some held, however, that it
contradicts Utilitarianism. Its a concession to common sense morality.
2/4/14
Mill worked for about 4 hours a day. In his type of university job, its important to
leave that extra time. He also found time for a private life with a woman who was
married to another man. In Anglicanism, if you divorce, you cant get married within
your partners lifetime. His mother and sisters did not take kindly to the
arrangement of him living with this woman. Its been suggested that his view on
Liberty was reinforced by this experience. Were not sure if this woman was a super
intellectual or if Mill aggrandized her intellectual abilities. There are scholars who
claim that the extreme language about liberty is attributed to Harriet Taylor.
Some scholars claim that Mill felt that Liberty trumped other values and in this way
he deviated from Bentham.
Method: If youre looking at things from a purely logical point of view, you dont
really care if it makes sense psychologically. From a psychological perspective,
were more concerned if a position is one that people would accept. Its possible
that a certain position could have both, but years later the psychological
acceptance wouldnt work. Or conversely, its possible that ideas come into being
because of the circumstances under which they were thought of.
Consequentialism is a doctrine that ethics is about the outcomes of our actions. You
can have a consequentialist philosophy without any mention of happiness. In Monty
Python you measure progress by how many things you put on top of other things.
[But we shouldnt think that they would claim that putting things on top of other
things has any moral value.]
From a purely logical point of view, some of the arguments for Utilitarianism would
not be arguments for putting things on top of other things. Conversesly, there are
arguments against Utilitarianism that would not be good argument against putting
things on top of other things (such as pig-morality).
If someone would believe that practicing religion brings the greatest happiness to
the greatest numbers, and decides to spread religious beliefs, is he doing a truly
religious act or is he utilitarian? Logically, then, religion would be no different than
pig-morality.

Kierkegaard- Well view him in the background and Rawls will develop the idea.
Deological Ethics is ethics founded on duty. Ethics is about doing the right thing. For
utilitarians, doing the right thing is just a way of getting the desirable
consequences.
Kants arguments about deontology take a peculiar form.
2/6/14
Kant was an academic. Hes the first major philosopher who was a university
teacher. He taught everything- extremely hard worker. Skipping the first 57 years of
his life, he sat down and did a piece of work. The book that emerged was called
Critique of Pure Reason. Pure reasons referred to math and Newtonian physics. Kant
believed in metaphysics. Human reason is limited and we cant understand
causality and infinity in space and time. Its impossible to get direct knowledge of
these things.
The English velt was very skeptical about the objectivity of science and Kant wanted
to restore its prestige. Kant argued that our understanding of things doesnt come
from the outside world; it comes from the nature of knowledge itself. We must have
certain concepts such as time, space, and causality in order to deal with the world.
However, the observation of causality itself, cannot be directly observed. He saved
the metaphysics of science and math through this derech. For Kant, this argument
deflected many of sciences claims against religion because he would say that
religion operates on a totally different plane than does science.
Kant wrote Critique of Judgement and Critique of Practical Reason- meaning,
morality. He wrote several other books on morality. Theres a book called the
Ground Rules of Ethics?? which explains all of the terms that are necessary in order
to discuss ethics. Good will is the only thing that is purely good. [Utilitarianism has
nothing to do with having the right intentions.] For Kant, good consequences are
only a happenstance of having the right intentions. For Kant, you can talk about
something being good without it being morally correct.
No one really made distinctions before Kant. He distinguishes between hypothetical
and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperative is a command that is only
valid if you want to achieve a certain end. If you want to eat a hot dinner it would be
good to cook it. But thats only valid if you want a hot dinner. Categorical imperative
is something that would be valid under all situations.
Kant has 3 interpretations of the CI. The first formula is called the Universalizabilityif there are laws of morality, they are universal. Therefore, such laws have to be
given to be universalized. And what matters in morality is motivation so the laws
must be able to apply to everybody. The principle underlying the maxim of my
action has to be one that I would be willing that everyone else should adopt. If my

maxim is eating meals and the underlying principle is maintaining my health, then I
might be willing to universalize that principle.
Universality starts without any moral imperatives whatsoever. Theres a blank slate
and I can fill that slate with any principles that are universal. [Utilitarianism doesnt
start with a blank slate.] The only thing thats truly good is good will which is
dictated by universality.
Four Examples: Perfect Duties and Imperfect duties. Perfect duties are duties
without exceptions, and imperfect duties do have exceptions (they develop your
own talents and they help other people).

Theres a perfect duty not to lie. What would happen if I made it my maxim to
lie when it was convenient? The very institution of speech would become
meaningless. That would be self-contradictory from a logical point of view.
The second perfect duty is not to commit suicide. If my maxim was to commit
suicide if things got rough, then if we universalize that, people
Imperfect: To develop your own talents
To help other people.

The kind of logic he uses is that something is not moral unless Im willing to
universalize it.
How effective is this construct in arriving at concrete duties? It can be very difficult
to use these abstract principles to arrive at concrete duties that are universalizable.
As a rule, Kant did not tolerate lying. Later in life he wrote an essay about the
supposed right to lie with good intentions. He maintained that there is an absolute
duty not to lie. What if a man is running away from a homicidal maniac and hes
hiding in your house? Kant would hold that its wrong to lie to the murderer.
Because you dont know with certainty that your lying will result positively you have
no right to forgo your duty not to lie. [Kant would only invite people for meals on
that day because they wouldnt have to lie to avoid going to him for a meal.]
What basis should reason have to legislate for itself?
The second formulation of categorical imperatives is as follows: Always treat other
rational beings as ends unto themselves- not merely as means. Kant would claim
that the principal of humanity is the same as universality. If I am the bearer of
reason, I cant possibly respect myself without respecting other people who bear
reason.
If we view human beings as theyre on a pedestal, then the difference between an
average person and an exceptional one is really not that significant.
Kierkegaard says that the reason Christianity insists so much on the value of human
beings is because lmaaseh theyre not equal.

Kant was against masturbation because it shows a lack of respect for yourself.
The humanity might be less vulnerable to the emptiness argument.
What is Kants notion of what a human being is all about? Utilitarianism doesnt
need to answer this question but Kant does.
The Emptiness Problem- Many times its difficult to get from the abstract to the
concrete. Occassionally Kant claimed to be able to come out with concrete priciples,
but it can still be difficult for us to do that. Max Scheler called it formalism in ethics.
Does the principle of humanity go beyond formalism?
Kant seems to talk about human beings in hedonistic terms. People just happen to
be bound by the principle of universality. Its a constrained pig-morality. Its weird
that this could work with the principle of humanity which views human beings as
some elevated beings.
Narcissism is a way of looking at yourself. From a psychological perspective its a
person who has deeply seated insecurities and needs attention. From a Kantian
point of view, for a person to display narcissism would defy the principle of
humanity. Even from universality one could object to narcissism as we wouldnt
want everyone to act that way.
Kant talks about respect in way that tells us that rationale has to mean something.
In Crtitque of Practical reason Kant says that there are two things that overwhelm
him with respect: The starry heavens above and the morality within. Kant
presupposes a moral outlook on what being human is all about. Sentiment doesnt
matter in the moral law, but respect (auchtung) is transcendent.
Our presupposition of human nature is very thin in that its not very detailed. A
moral human being has to have respect for other human beings.
Two terms to keep in mind:

A realist view of moral attitudes is the notion that there is a morality out
there and human beings have to discover that morality.
The way Kant has things set, we have moral law, or we follow our inclinations.
Inclinations and desires arent necessarily the same. (R Lichtenstein says that
Kant went too far in stressing duty over inclination. Theres no real simcha in
that lifestyle.)

In Kantian morality, theres no way to know that youre definitely acting morally
even when you do things that are ostensibly moral.
We read passages from Wordsworth who lauded the idea of duty and a response
from Nash who wasnt quite as fond of duty over inclination.

Based on conversations with Schiller, we know that Kant had a very negative view
of human nature. Why is that?
Its possible that people deserve it or that his concept of ethics was too demanding.
Kantian Autonomy
We saw in Kant that morality has to come in the form of law. Motivation is very
important. One form of the law is universality, the second is respect for humanity,
and the third is the notion of the kingdom of ends (political version of the first two
principles in that they can be laws of a community in which everyone is an end in
and of themselves). We spoke about the emptiness problem.
There are two reasons that would motivate someone to be moral. The first is by
looking at the starry heavens and being in total awe (achtun). The second is through
a calculation of universality that if I want people to respect me, I have to respect
them.
Schiller interprets Kant that hes burdening the enlightened people with the needs
of the rabim. The enlightened people should be able to follow their inclination
because their intentions are harmonious.
The fact that autonomy is attributed such high value is a relatively new idea.
Autonomy must be produced by practical reason. Hagels question is: why does
practical reason have to be so narrow?
Rawle would say that in a situation where I dont know what Im getting, any
rational person would divide something equally.
The question that complicates things is about adultery and homosexuality. Behind
the veil of ignorance, we dont know if were an adulterer or homosexual or straight.
The veil of ignorance is about everything including moral beliefs. You might legislate
against homosexuality, but then wake up the next day as a homosexual person.
Rawles takes away all of the restrictions that Kant imposes, but replaces it with the
one condition of the veil of ignorance. Youre behind the veil of ignorance with
regards to moral beliefs as well, like homosexuality.
Rawles wrote his book about political theory- not ethics. He assumed that we live in
a divided society where people have different ethical systems. Its impossible to
demonstrate to other people that there is an objective ethical system so we have to
make laws that account for different notions of ethics. The only type of inequality
that can be allowed for has to result from a gain that doesnt disadvantage anyone.
His economic outlook would also be that behind the veil of ignorance everyone
would want to be equal. Rawles seems to be questioning the idea of free will.

But its possible that someone would choose to take a risk and legislate that certain
people should be wealthier than others. Some people betzem just enjoy taking
risks.
Nozick proposed the Wilt Chamberlain example. You have a man whos a very good
basketball player. If a lot of people get together and decide to pay him to play
basketball, its anti-egalitarian. Rawles would only allow this to happen if it doesnt
harm anyone.
What about a bris milah? If you believe its commanded by god, then theres no
question. But if you recognize that some people dont believe in it then its either
neutral or negative. Given that some people are willing to be sent to jail to to this
mitzvah, its possible that behind the veil of ignorance one would be willing to
tolerate this action.
We mentioned that Rawles is writing from a political perspective. How does societal
life relate to individual choices? If you have limited resources for healthcare, I would
probably advocate for equality.
Rawles realized at a certain point in his life that he would become senile so he sat
down and wrote everything that was necessary in the time allotted. He didnt really
talk about himself. Somebody once asked why he never wrote about his life. His
answer was the holocaust. He felt that unless he lived behind the veil of ignorance it
could lead to a holocaust.
2/25/14
Despite the fact that Rawles is a political theorist, his writings have ethical
implications.

If he mandates that people should live life in a fair way, it stands to reason
that being fair takes precedence over other things and it is therefore ethical.
Although Harav Carmy doesnt think this is a logical argument. Most people
would agree that theres some overlap between this theory and ethics, but
they dont necessarily line up.
Another argument you could make is that if everyone agrees on something
then its the most important thing. Logically this doesnt really follow, but
psychologically it does. It makes for a more convenient world, although its
not necessarily true. If you say that morality is connected to politics, then its
easy to fall into the trap of thinking that whats most important is what
people agree on.
Based on Rawles perspective, we would have to educate children in a certain
way.

There are two perspectives that we can take- That of duties and rights. Some law
philosophers (namely Hohfeld) argue that duties and rights are one and the same. If

a baby has the right to not be aborted, you have the duty to not abort any fetuses.
Experientially, this is not true. People experience the world in terms of either duties
or rights and they have one of those that dominates their life. R Herzog was the first
one to make that point. He says that Judaism is a religion of duty and not one of
rights. Its a phenomological argument. A duty bound ethics sounds like Kant. For
Rawles, its more like a deontology of rights. So theyre both deontologists, but with
very different auras around them.
Supererogation is doing something that youre not obligated to do. What about
ethics? For Kant, it cant get off the ground. Either youre obligated to do it or youre
not. In Judaism this plays a big role. This idea is very important in Judaism.
3/4/14
For Kant, you would never find fault with someone for being a bad ball player
because we can only expect people to do their best. Good is defined in moral termsnot in attributable terms.
Telos- Greek for a purpose.
For Aristotle, there is an idea of functionality that helps us with ethics. If we lack
functionality, then we cant really understand what hes saying. If we have a planet
of genetically engineered people, then the definition of a good dog would be
different than what nature says it is.
Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean basically just says dont be too extreme in any
character trait. But for someone whos starting from scratch and wants to live a
moral life, this advice is meaningless. Goldy Locks wasnt really interested in finding
the middle road. She just wanted to find the food that she liked. But well call this
the Goldie Locks problem. Its useful advice, but you cant make a philosophy out of
it.
The middle of the road is meaningful assuming you already have an idea of what
the middle is. The Doctrine of the Mean only makes sense in a society that has
some sort of consensus. And if we lived in that kind of society we might have an
entirely different approach to philosophy and ethics. This is a radical statement.
If we look at Rawles, his philosophy reflects the fact that there was no consensus in
the society. For Aristotle, the society did have some sort of consensus and is thus
reflected in his philosophy. Its not that Aristotle simply copied what everyone was
doing. But he did start out with an idea of what human life is all about.
3/6/14
Missed the first 20 minutes of class.

Within Aristotle, we can ask ourselves if the system would change between cultures.
And maybe there would be a difference between the elite and the lower class. The
reason many courses dont teach Aristotle is because its a philosophy that doesnt
really lead to answers. (phronesis- good judgement/sechel).
3/11/14
RSG lived in the tenth century. His book, Emunot Vedeot has two shearim dealing
with how a person should live. The third deals with torah and mitzvos. There are
mitzvos sichlios and mitzvos shimiot. He distinguishes between rational and nonrational commandments. In part 10, he talks about how a person should live his life.
He makes a point that for any character trait, if you make it an absolute, you will
turn that virtue into a vice. Its interesting that theres a separation between the
part on torah and the part about how to live your life. Harav Carmy would suggest
that one is the realm of law and the other is a realm of character. Just like in
Aristotle, theres a distinction between character and law.
The Rambam pretty much does the same thing. The idea of including teshuva and
hilchos deos (character traits) in a law book is very interesting. But hes separating
between character and actions. As an illustration, the idea of imitating Gd
(vehalachta bidrachav) is very vague. For the Rambam you can group this into two
categories: character (discussed in hilchos deos) and actions (discussed in other
parts of the yad hachazakah). There are two dinim in this mitzvah!
The earliest work of the Rambam on ethics is Shemoneh Perakim. Its an intro to
maseches Avos. Chapter 6 raises the question: is it better for a person to be
harmonious or to struggle against bad impulses? Aristotle would side with the
former. The Rambam sides with the latter. (Kant is also a fan of struggling).
For example, theres nothing inherently bad about eating pig, but the Torah tells us
not to. In this instance its better to struggle and overcome your desires. As far as
mitzvos sichlios go, its better to do the right thing out of harmony. (There are many
maamarei chazal to the effect that its better to do things out of harmony). The
rambam says he doesnt like this distinction. Why would he do that? Some would
answer that he was split between philosophy and religion- is that a deep answer?
In Hilchos Deos, the Rambam describes different extremes of character traits.
There are middle grounds between each extreme. Dont act like the extremes. Go
with the derech yesharah which is exactly between the two extremes.
The derech yesharah is the middle ground. Derech chasidim is people who lean a
little too far one way to avoid the other extreme. However, in the second chapter he
says that humility and anger are two exceptions. Practice extreme humility and stay
away from anger at all costs.

One answer will explain all of our questions on the Rambam. Hes talking about two
things: the first is how to live an acceptable life. In that sense, he agrees with
Aristotle on most points. The second level is that in the life of a god fearing person
involves more than just balance. There are things that, from a social point of view
might be acceptable, but from a religious view might not. The ramabam doesnt like
the aforementioned distinction because he doesnt like the idea that we understand
certain mitzvos and not others. He holds (at the end of hilchos nazir) that we should
try to understand every mitzvah to the extent that we are able.
This changes the way we can look at the way secular philosophers can apply to
religion. Its more about a relationship with Gd.
3/20/14
How do we apply philosophy to religious values?
Many people will say that the Rambam and others just apply Aristotelian ethics and
add a few religious values towards the end of living a good life. Throughout the
modern period, Kantian ethics were very popular. A reform rabbi would mostly agree
with him while an orthodox thinker would disagree on certain points such as
autonomy.
There might be a totally different way of approaching the issue. Perhaps we can look
at different kinds of relationships. One such relationship would be love. A utilitarian
would want to give a lover the maximum amount of love. But in a deeper sense
youre just living together and we define the relationship in its own right. Its about
being with someone (or living up to their standards) rather than living for a
principle. Living that way in Judaism is called avodah zara.
This wouldnt go over with Kant because he would want to universalize things and
this is something that cant be transferred. A secular Aristotelian would say that
committing yourself to someone else might not allow you to be the best person that
you can be. A utilitarian would say that you shouldnt commit yourself to someone if
it will prevent you from contributing the greatest happiness to the greatest
numbers. So we see that these systems arent really geared towards the notion of a
central relationship.
If we define an overarching principle as the yearning to be with Gd, it certainly will
contain elements of secular philosophers, but it wouldnt fully encompass any of
them.
Its very important to find ways to make strangers feel like real people. If you accept
that ethics has a connection to relationships, then part of moral education includes
thinking of strangers as real people.
Based on what we said, we can explain how religion can take non-religious ethics
seriously.On e possibility is to say that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

They can just say that their definition of good is correct. But then theres no way to
establish meaningful dialogue.
If we are going to define ethics by whatever Gd commands, then atheists would
never be ethical. If theres too much of a gap between common sense ethics and
true ethics then the whole system becomes meaningless. Based on what we said
today, secular and religious thinkers can have meaningful dialogue.
3/25/14
Isaiah Berlin was a brilliant guy. His writings are on ethics and political theory. He
was probably the most influential intellectual in Great Britain at the time of his
death.
Two concepts of Liberty- he notices that people use the word freedom differently.
Most Americans view freedom as free from (negative freedom). Other people view
it as freedom to which involves a sense of purpose. They want an opportunity to
reach their potential. The latter type of freedom might actually involve some form of
coercion. There has to be a framework to accomplish what it is that they want to
accomplish. In chazal, positive freedom is termed as someone who involves himself
with Torah.
Berlin has an idea hiding behind this point in history in that these two points often
conflict with each other. Its nisht pashut to say that one is right to the exclusion of
the other. Hitler believed in positive freedom in that he wrote Arbeit Macht Frei.
Berlin terms this a conflict without a simple resolution.
Counter Enlightenment- Berlin wrote about people who fought against the
enlightenment. He was interested in human variety and the awareness that you
cant ignore these people.
Value Pluralism- He noticed that standard liberalism is not aware of the variety of
human values and the fact that these values are not compatible with each other.
Berlin doesnt believe that its possible to have a perfect moral system. You can
have to values in conflict with no simple solution. You cant solve the problem by
downplaying whatever youre not attracted to.
Incommensurability is the inability to measure things together. You can measure two
stacks of money on the same scale. But you cant measure a pound of bananas with
ten dollars. What about negative freedom vs. positive freedom? Someone might
want freedom and at the same time yearn for structure. Theres no clear answer.
Machiavelli is identified as a cynical political theorist. He saw that in order to be
successful in politics, you must be immoral. Berlin would agree.

You end up with a plural conception of a person with several different measures of
virtue and vice measured on different scales. Berlin would agree, however, that
there is an ideal type of person who gets it all together.
Aristotle gives a thicker (more concrete) version of ethics. Berlin values thickness.
Frost indicates that theres a certain maalah to being one unified person.
Utilitarians wouldnt hold of this. Its possible that a road less travelled is more
attractive than the other.
4/1/14
We distinguished between talents and morality. Some of them are borderline. For
example, intelligence could possibly be considered moral if were talking about
moral judgement. Hume avoids the word virtue so he doesnt have to worry about
the distinction between moral virtue and talents. He doesnt want to distinguish
between moral and amoral judgements, voluntary and involuntary actions, and
social virtues.
The insanity principle really only applies if a person cant distinguish between right
and wrong. You cant be punished unless your act is voluntary, but allowing for this
defense is a slippery slope.
What is morality about? Either consequences, doing the right thing (deontological
ethic), or some kind of virtue ethic. Hume would be willing to negotiate with two of
them and cant tolerate one of them. Deontological ethic is the one he doesnt
tolerate. Hume was criticized because he essentially argues on religious based
ethics.
For Hume, a lot of what were discussing is how to judge other people.
4/3/14
We concluded last time that guilt is a concept closely related to the judicial model.
We also contrasted guilt and shame. Guilt connotes crossing a line (breaking a rule,
owing something). You had a duty that you failed to do or a prohibition that you
transgressed. The comparable example for shame would be caring about what you
look like in the eyes of others. Theres nothing morally wrong with shame. An
individualistic society will have more of a focus on guilt while a collectivist society
will have an emphasis on shame.
Talked about a book called The Lonely Crowd. The argument is as follows. People
once acted how tradition thought they should act. Then they were inner directed.
They acted how they thought they should act. In a traditional society, shame plays
more of a role, whereas in an inner directed society is guilt oriented. However, the

lines are not that clear cut. After WWII theres a new thing called other directed.
This is a post-guilt culture.
The next question is about moral epistemology. How do we know if something is
morally right or wrong? Some people might say that they have a feeling deep inside
what is right and wrong. Assuming we take this seriously, is that feeling
(conscience) infallible?
We read a passage that seemed to say that guilt can actually be a terrible guiding
light as far as moral decisions go. At least thats what I gathered from the few
seconds that I spaced in.
4/10/14
Today were going to try to understand human beings. Nevermind. Were going to
talk about sainthood. Utilitarians mandate that you should be equally selfish for
everyone.
Now lets talk about Kirkeegard. We had a nice biography of his life while I looked
over my paper. Not a single word of feedback! In a way, I wished he had at least
criticized me so I would know that he read it. The biography continued so I read a
few articles online. I dont think we discussed a single word of content today.
He has the aesthetic outlook and the ethical outlook. The third outlook is the
religious outlook. If you live an aesthetic life without qualification, youll break down
and become ethical. After that, the next step is religious.
He tries to describe how each of these types of thinkers handles life from within.
Rav Soloveitchik conducted a similar type of analysis. For Kirkeegard, you might get
bored of a certain woman. But if you play mind games with her, then the
entertainment never gets old. This is discussed in a passage of Either Or.
4/24/14
Kierkegaard is a 19th century Danish thinker. The structure of his writing is
important. He wrote a bunch of books under pseudonyms. Theyre supposed to be
identified with different outlooks on life. Hes producing experiments of thought
based on different personalities. He talks concretely about what it means to be a
human being. This is his first literature. (Using pseudonyms was common at that
time in Denmark. But Kierkegaard took a step further and gave each of them
personalities.)
His second literature was explicitly religious. He didnt sign his name because he
didnt feel worthy of what he was saying.
He also has a diary. What to do with the diaries is a debate from a scholarly point of
view. He also has various sermons published under his own name.

Hans Christian Anderson- Danish writer. The first thing that Kierkegaard wrote was a
book review of Anderson. They said that the only two people who read the review
were Kierkegaard and Anderson.
He thinks that if someone lives the aesthetic life, they will eventually come to crisis
and come to be unethical.
Last time we spoke about Either/Or. This guy claims to have found it in a desk
somewhere. A=aesthete. Johannes the Seducer was somehow involved in the story.
But the idea is that A wrote it and he was ashamed.
The second volume is by B=Judge William. At the end of volume 2, we have a
sermon that transitions from the ethical to the religious. Judge William describes a
thicker type of moral universe.
A is a person who thinks all the time.
Graham Greene says people suffer from boredom. He travelled a lot and this is what
he saw. Boredom leads people to focus on something thats completely irrelevant to
their purpose in life.
McEntire claims that Kierkegaard just takes Kant and makes it more tangible.
The ethical makes sense only if you fit under the universal. It doesnt provide for
human failure.
Came 30 minutes late to class.
Aesthetic is less than ethical which is less than religious. Aesthetic gives in to the
desires of man. Ethical gives in to the desires of man. Religion gives in to the will of
God. Kierkegaard would say that if you live these issues through, then youll
eventually become religious.
Kierkegaard is giving an analysis of human decision making rather than one of
human existence. For moral people, you follow ethics with no other questions asked.
But then you have people like Nietzsche who question why ethics should outweigh
aesthetics. (Teleological Suspension of the Ethical?)
There is an intuition about the absoluteness of ethics. Something or other happens
when you introduce pluralism.
Now were giving a biography of Nietzsche. He was a professor early in his life. He
had terrible health, but he was very strong. He went through three or four periods.
Were looking at the middle towards the end. In late 1888 he becomes erratic
(maybe cyphilis attacking the brain) maybe because he was driven insane by the
logic of his ideas.

His sister helped publish his books and she cconsolidated the idea that he was a
German nationalist and an anti-Semite. He definitely wasnt a German nationalist.
He wrote that Human beings dont want happiness- only Englishmen do. (He was
talking about utilitarianism). Harav Carmy says that theres more to human beings
than pursuing happiness. Thats something we can learn from Nietzsche.
Artists and musicians are creative. Nietzsche composed music but he wasnt too
good and he was upset about that. Greatness was very important. It means youre
creating a morality in which creativity trumps everything else. Everyday morality is
useful, but thats not what life is all about.
Ubermentsch is a term that refers to a great person. They didnt act badly towards
people because they had better things to do.
5/1/14
WE set up Nietzsche as an immoralist. He doesnt care about a moral system.
The idea of an ubermentsch is very problematic in Judaism. Those people are kind of
above the law. It refers to someone with great endowments of creativity. Thats not
to say that theyre disgusting people, but they just dont have enough time to do
bad things.
Harav Carmy is regaling us with stories about people who thought that they were
above the law. Somehow homosexuality keeps appearing in some form in all of
these stories.
This is a very atheistic position. It goes further than the way we usually think of
atheism.
George Elliot (girl) supposedly wrote that our society is based on three things: God
is doubtful, , and morality is %100 true. Nietzsche had a lot of fun with that
statement of George Elliot. A nice image to illustrate Nietzsche is a cartoon
character who runs off of a cliff and then falls when he looks down. Each person has
to create his/her own moral system.
We need great political figures who make credible values for societies so that people
can function as communities. Nietzsche sees religious systems as highlighting the
weaknesses of man rather that allowing him to flourish. The issue of God is really if
there is any objective value system that we have to live our lives by. The answer is
no. The morality of power is what Nietzsche would espouse. Religions are all about
rachmanus.
We said something about character contributing to the idea of an ubermentsch. Its
not just about the actions he does. Greatness is defined by aesthetic grandeur.

One idea we can extract from Nietzsche is that happiness shouldnt be our main
focus.
We apparently talked about the history of morality, slave morality, and master
morality within Nietzsche. I have no idea what that means.
The weak person can make peace with his own weakness by looking forward to the
future. The powerful person (aka the master) looks back at his past
accomplishments. Slave morality is when people say that they dont live for
themselves- they live to see the people who are above them being punished. From a
Nietzchian point of view, religion as opium for the masses and Marxism as opium for
the intellectual both have in common that people are depressed and look forward to
a better future.
Theres a passage in Nietzsche that says anything thats happening in the present
will happen again. So maybe present has a strong emphasis
3 points in Nietzsche that have an effect on Scheiler

Compassion
o Pity is a problematic notion for Nietzsche. [Apparently we cant trust
the translations from German]. This is because if the person is a
master, he might get distracted with the situation of the weaker
people.
o A slave revolt convinced the people in charge that they were correct
morally and that led to a downfall of power.
o He has a contrast between pre-Christian and post-Christian morality
(compassion). Very often it seems that Nietzsche has more respect for
Judaism because its much more demanding and heroic than
Christianity. He associates this much more with Greek thought than
with Christianity.
o We see this dichotomy in the contrast between the characters in the
new and old testament.
o Another part of the problem is that youre looking down on the other
person. Theyre a cheftza shel mitzvah.
o Martha Nussbaum writes that Nietzsche is not really as loyal to the
Greek culture as he makes himself out to be. Quoting a passage from
the end of Iliad, Achilles has a machlokes and decides to go to sleep.
He ends up killing Hector, the Trojan Prince and hes mevazeh the
body. Some guy goes to Achilles to ask him for the body. He says to
have rachmanus. And Achilles relents. We see that Homer wasnt such
a fan of cruel masterfulness. In a sense, Nietzsche rejects humanity.
o The rebbe carmy gives an admirable analysis of Nietzsche which we
might not have expected. Philippa Foot wrote an article where she
says, if were talking about ethics are these really the most pressing

issues? But the rebbe says this mentality can actually have negative
effects.
Organized rachmanus can have terrible effects on society.
(Re-sentiment)=Resentment- The process by which the weak impose their
powers upon the strong. This is unlike resentment in that its not conscious.
This is a way of not admitting that theres a conflict between two people or
values. You create an entire framework around your position to validate it.
Envy
o If you have a culture that wants equality and doesnt recognize
excellence,
o Envy nowadays is probably a vice. Its the one great vice that nobody
wants to admit. Arrogance and lust are vices that come with a certain
self-satisfaction.
o If youre egalitarian you actually end up promoting envy.
o Rawles claimed that the only kind of inequality that should be tolerable
is one that helps everyone. If were talking about real people and one
person gets an extra one hundred dollars, then what about envy? Then
everyone loses out.
o Nietzsches solution is that envy should be out in the open.

Now well talk about Scheiller. Halachically he was Jewish.

The most important period was the Catholic period. He was nicknamed the catholic
Nietzsche. He wrote on a mixture of philosophy and sociology. Morality is about
what people aspire to and something is about what they dont like about their
neighbor.
We read a terribly long passage in a book of some sort that I couldnt bear to pay
attention to. Sorry guys.
Scheiller talks about a measured out utilitarianism and Kantianism.
The value of another person is not so much that theyre a human being, but that
theyre Other.
Review 5/13/14
Hume talks about sentiment. We looked at the appendix. He criticizes Kant even
though he came before. Doesnt like deontology and the roleof religion. Forensic
model.
Teleological suspension of the ethical is a phrase from Kierkegaard. Ethical is
suspended in the name of religious because they conflict. There are several ways of
resolving this stirah. Kierkegaard has some combination of Kantian and religious

ethics. This conflict only comes up when ethics claims absoluteness like Kant. Its
possible that Kierkegaard was just trying to make a point.
Kierkegaard makes an argument about the ethical stage being coherent. (Judge
William). This is a way of life only when you dont have a crisis. Its the idea that an
ethical person wakes up in the morning and strives to be ethical and has a coherent
life that revolves around that.
The aesthete doesnt have that problem because he doesnt strive to fulfill that
universal value.
Kierkegaard is a more meaty type of Kantianism in that there are certain things that
you cant do besides for things that you should do.
Utilitarians try to say nothing about human nature. The structures of ethics is very
thin and the sciences fill it with content. For Kant in order for ethics to make sense
there must be some sort of reverence before the law. Utilitarians do assume some
amount of selfishness.
Berlin=positive/negative liberty.
Judge William says that having children is important because it helps you realize the
universal. Judge William was a character of one of Kierkegaards works.
Stevens attacked Mill on utilitarian grounds that he didnt like his liberalism. We
have a government because of its utility.
Rawles essentially turned Kant into a political theory that could come to concrete
conclusions.
MacIntire criticized Kant because its not real enough. He might criticize Kierkegaard
as well but because he emphasizes marriage and a job its more concrete.