Ethics is means to end, logic btwn ends and means--it's NOT end in itself....

Below-copied essays by ap first published at http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/exotic-pets/#comment-37253 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ethics For Aristotle Is Practical–Towards Necessary End Of “Eudamonia”

(Apollonian, 19 Apr 14)

I ck’d my Aristotle, by John Herman Randall, and he seems to agree w. my expo, above. Note Aristotle himself says Ethics is “practical” philosophy, science of correct conduct, working towards “eudemonia,” roughly understood as happiness, further to be understood within political circumstances, ethics as part of and serving politics, politics then providing for best eudamonia. Of course, stoics and later scholastics would re-work the great Aristotelian system regarding ethics.


So u seek ur interest, Prof.–this is axiomatic, given ur nature as creature of will, seeking ur will, ur interest, ethics then is means towards this end, (a) understanding, and then (b) considering specific means to be chosen and put to use at particular times and places.


Ethics is means, the logic btwn means and ends, ultimate ends being mere matter of choice–esp. in accord w. the Aristotelian logic and system.


------------above by ap was follow-up to below-------------------

WHAT Is Ethics?--The Question

(Apollonian, 18 Apr 14)

Very good, Mike (see below-copied): u finally admit this extremely important and fundamental error, amounting then to a kind of psychologic compulsion--I don't know where u get ethics as end fm Aristotle, perhaps u could give a citation.  Now we almost begin to somewhat getting to somewhere, eh?

Ethics is means and understanding thereof towards the ONLY and necessary end which is METAPHYSICAL, one's self-interest, humans being creatures of will, though not perfectly "free"--which then Kant wants, anti-rationally, anti-humanly, to deny, as matter of ethics which he seems then to combine w. metaphysics.

ONLY Ethical question/issue then is WHAT is most rational grasp of one's interest and then what's best means towards that interest.  Ethics could only be means.

HOW could there be any possible (rational) question that u seek ur interest?--ethics then the means (and understanding thereof)?--are u or are u not a sinner (self-interested) in eyes of God?  Note Hobbes and Locke agree we necessarily are self-interested, seeking our interest.  Kant is just a mystic/subjectivist.

-------------------------------------------above by ap in response to below-copied-------------

Michael LaBossiere said, on April 18, 2014 at 11:01 am

 

0

 

0

 

i

 

Rate This

I’ve been corrupted by Kant and Aristotle, so I see ethics as an end.