In the beginning of class yesterday, we talked about the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 before moving onto Aristotle. We have all witnessed changes in the way our nation as a whole approaches things and the general feelings that have become ordinary and we no longer question as much. For example, heightened security in airports. In our discussion about the consequences since then, a few really stuck out to me. The heightened feelings of patriotism and nationalism and the questions raised about torture were popular topics.
When we were later talking about Aristotle, I was reminded of one passage in our book. “The good is the same for a city as for an individual, still the good of the city is apparently a greater and more complete good to acquire and preserve. For while it is satisfactory to acquire and preserve the good even for an individual, it is finer and more divine to acquire and preserve it for a people and for cities.” (pg. 24, The Good Life) Aristotle says that the good of the city and the individual are both important but he stresses the importance of the good of the city and seems to be implying that should it be necessary for an individual to sacrifice something for the good of city, the individual would be good in doing so. This idea goes hand in hand with his point of view that what makes people happy is their involvement with communities.
In class, we also touched a little bit on the idea of people being able to come to an understanding about what it means to be excellent even if the morals of different communities differ. Do you agree with these views? Can people from one community agree with what is excellent with a community from a completely different background? Can we get past our differences in morals if necessary to agree upon a common excellence? Aristotle also says that the study of human character has to focus on the world around us and how it really is. Do we apply this notion when we consider ones character?
The general consensus in class was that the feelings of patriotism and nationalism are more positive results while torture was a negative result and a violation of human rights. Do you think Aristotle’s views about the good of the city vs. the good of an individual are relevant in discussions about the actions that our country has taken post-9/11?
I think that Aristotle's views about the good of the city versus the good of an individual are completely relevant to discussions about the actions that our country has taken post 9/11. One could argue that the good of the city is necessarily more important than that of the individual due to social contract theory, and the idea that individuals have entered into this society for certain protections and benefits. Therefore, what is best for the society SHOULD then be best for the individual. Due to such, the actions that America has taken since 9/11 could be understood as actions that were/are being taken to protect the city and therefore the individual. I am not arguing that EVERY action the country has taken, or even most of them since 9/11, are necessarily the actions that are best in the search for protection of the city and individual, but the issue is certainly a completely relevant one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with HG's comment above. The idea that, as Aristotle said, "The good is the same for a city as for an individual, still the good of the city is apparently a greater and more complete good to acquire and preserve," is undeniably relevant to our post-9/11 world. This is a basic concept of social contract theory – that we as individuals give up some of our freedom in order to insure the greater freedom and safety of the society we are a part of. After 9/11, airport security increased dramatically, and even though people love to complain about TSA and the new body scanners, no one has really pushed, in Congress or other arenas, to lessen travel security. Why? Because we all understand that not having your plane bombed is more important than any potential awkwardness from a body scan. This is just one example, but societies wouldn’t work if people didn’t agree to these types of personal sacrifices for the state. The state is supposed to last beyond the years of its citizens, so the good of the city is necessary to provide an environment within which individuals can achieve their own good.
ReplyDeleteI don’t really have an answer to your question about excellence, but I do think that different communities/nations are capable of agreeing on important issues – the UN Declaration of Human Rights is an example of such. Maybe the naming and protection of human rights could be a type of agreed excellence?
Very interesting post Esha,
ReplyDeleteOn your question about excellence, I think that excellence is just as personal (to an individual or a community) as success is. I am sure you all have had conversations with friends in which you discussed what it would mean to you to be successful. To each one of us success is different. It coulbe be raising your children to be 'excellent' members of society, or making partner of the most powerful Law Office in New York, or even becoming the president of the United States!
Just Like success, the meaning of excellence varies between people. Given that most of our values, morals, and ideas of the world are shaped by the community we live, I think it is safe to say that excellence will also vary between communities. Because of this, I am not too comfortable with the idea of one excellence, or a common excellence.
I do believe that we all have the same, or at least 'similar' views on which acts are virtuous and which are vices. But as Aristotle suggest they differ in each person, in each community.
Esha, Great post! I hate to be another person agreeing with someone else, but Jane and HG have good points. “The good is the same for a city as for an individual, still the good of the city is apparently a greater and more complete good to acquire and preserve. For while it is satisfactory to acquire and preserve the good even for an individual, it is finer and more divine to acquire and preserve it for a people and for cities." This quote is crucial to our country after 9/11. As a group or society we have to look beyond the individual and look for the greater good. This idea seems to me to be very utilitarian. In other words, in this post 9/11 world we desire to serve the greatest good for the greatest number, thus we concentrate our efforts on the city. I also think Aristotle’s views about the good of the city vs. the good of an individual are relevant in discussions about the actions that our country has taken post-9/11. 9/11 caused our country great strife and in that our thoughts became united and (often) patriotic, however to provide for the good of the city (or country) we as individuals had to take hits for it. As Jane wrote earlier, the airport security is a great example of the individual sacrificing for the greater good of the city.
ReplyDeleteEsha,
ReplyDeleteThis was a wonderful quotation to apply to our recent discussion. To look at the quotation from a slightly different angle, It seems that torture has often been justified recently as sacrificing the good for an individual in order to preserve the good of the community. This moral dilemma is predictably set up as something like: "do we sacrifice the rights of a single person to possibly save our society, or do we risk the welfare of our society in order to preserve the rights of a single persons?".
This is a false dichotomy. Torturing an individual *may* uncover information that is vital to the safety of society, but it ethically corrupts this same society. The dilemma is really a choice between what we value more: the preservation of life, base and simple, or the preservation of our culture, dignity, and self-respect - the things that make life worth living.
In response to the original post about people of differing backgrounds getting along, I have wondered about this reconciliation myself. Though I am honestly unsure about the extent to which cultures can agree, it is my opinion that every culture does have an idea or what is “good” or “ideal.” While each culture might completely disagree with all others on what exactly is “good,” all cultures should be able to recognize that at least they are all aiming for something “good.” This idea, in and of itself, might be the starting block for building bridges between certain cultures, while it may be the only common idea found between two other cultures.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Colin’s comment above, I agree that the issue calls forth a certain ultimatum. Torture is a two-issue topic: the issue of having an innocent vs. guilty victim and the more basic issue of whether any sort of torture is moral regardless of the status of the victim. Because the issue is so loaded, it is my personal belief that the success rate of torture ought to be much higher before we start employing actions that take such a toll on the ethical standards American’s claim to uphold.