Explain what you believe human beings need to be truly happy.

Your thesis should clearly answer the following question: Is it better to live a just life than an

unjust life, even if one can accumulate vast material benefits through the latter? The

simplest way to formulate and defend your position is to proceed in the following way:

a) Begin by specifying an ideal of human fulfillment. That is, explain what you believe

human beings need to be truly happy.

b) Explain whether or not the existence of a higher power is necessitated or at least

compatible with your position.

c) Explain your position’s implications for human nature, indicating,

i) Whether it necessitates the postulate of a transcendent or spiritual dimension of

humanity.

ii) Whether it necessitates the presupposition of freewill.

d) Give an account of justice. (i.e., Is it internal or external? Absolute or Relative?)

e) Explain the connection between your account of justice and your preferred lifestyle.

f) Explain why the achievement of your ideal of human fulfillment necessitates living your

preferred lifestyle.

g) Explain why a different or opposing lifestyle falls short of this ideal.

2) You should refer to the thought of each of the following thinkers in defense of your position:

Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche, citing specific passages from the course readings.

You may include others if you so choose, just be sure to cite your sources. (While you are

required to include references to these authors in your essays, you are neither required to

agree with any of them, nor are you required to agree with anything I say. I simply

want you to understand and seriously consider various historical and contemporary

contributions to moral thought.)

3) You should refer to at least three video clips from class in defense of your position. If none

of the clips from the course interest you, you may choose your own, but, of course, cite your

sources

It will benefit all of you to preface the essay with a consideration of the story of the Ring

of Gyges. This story occurs in the beginning of Book II of The Republic. In short, a

shepherd discovers a ring that can make him invisible. He uses this ring to seduce the

queen, kill the king, and usurp the throne. The challenge posed by this story suggests that

anyone who has possession of the ring of Gyges would use it unjustly to acquire some

benefit for themselves. While the challenge seems prima facie insurmountable, it

ultimately fails for at least two reasons. First, part of the fable suggests that the

individual who uses the ring is praised because he is thought to be just, indicating that

people must value justice for its inherent qualities. Otherwise, why would they admire

this person? The facts that people always desire what is best and value truth over falsity

seem to testify to this first point. Secondly, not only is the need to exploit the powers of

the ring for one’s own benefit a mark of weakness, but having to conceal one’s genuine

intentions from others can be incredibly burdensome. Thus, not only do people value

justice for its own sake, but the failure to live a just life is terribly harmful. From this

point forward, you can outline your own aims and how you intend to use the content of

the course.

2. I’m hoping that all of you will defend the thesis that it is better to live a just life than it is

to live an unjust life. That is, the aim of your essay should be to provide a defense of

morality in general. I will not stop you from defending the opposite view or the view that

one need not be moral, but the advice outlined in this document will be useful only for

the intended assignment.

3. Remember that you must make reference to at least the following four authors – Plato,

Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche. Since Nietzsche is the only author among these four who

denies that there are transcendent and eternal moral absolutes, you will probably do best

to use one or more of his arguments against traditional moral objectivism to frame the

defense of your thesis. For those of you who are religious, and intend to defend a

version of theism, you should refer to Nietzsche’s phenomenon of the death of God. You

could suggest that his fable of the madman coupled with his musings about God being

“man’s mistake” merely presuppose that the existence of God is irrelevant to human

concerns. And they certainly are no proof that God doesn’t exist. Moreover, Nietzsche’s

genealogical critique of what he refers to as the “herd morality” not only fails to

I’M ROOTING

FOR YOU!

demonstrate that the precepts it espouses are erroneous, but it is problematic to

characterize Christian morality as merely a morality of security and comfort, since God is

often depicted as burdening his followers with insecurity and risk, which is especially

evident in many of the teachings of Christ, as illustrated both in Matthew 4:1 – 11, when

he is tempted by Satan in the desert. As for Nietzsche’s claim that traditional moral

systems, such as those offered by the other three authors, abstract the individual from

nature, you could argue that perhaps Nietzsche has the wrong conception of human

nature. All three of the authors provide a teleological conception of the human, most

evident in Plato and Aristotle, which Nietzsche seems to deny.

4. In your use of the other three authors, it would probably be best if you focus on one, and

make references to the others when necessary. If you use the myth of the ring of Gyges,

that alone satisfies the requirement that you refer to Plato. It would probably be best to

focus either on Aristotle or Kant for the remainder of the essay, making references to

Plato when suitable. But, of course, you may focus the essay on Plato if you wish.

a. If you choose to focus on Plato, you should emphasize his conception of the soul

as consisting in appetite, spirit, and reason, and the fact that each of these parts

must achieve its corresponding cardinal virtue – moderation, courage, and

wisdom – in order for justice to emerge. You could begin by providing a version

of Plato’s “function argument” at the end of Republic Book I, and then providing

an account of how justice emerges in the soul. From that point, you could note

the ways in which Plato’s thought overlaps with Aristotle’s, drawing comparisons

with the latter’s version of the function argument in addition to his treatment of

the various candidates for the greatest good and why only the fourth,

contemplation, qualifies. With respect to Kant, you could mention both the idea

of the “noumenal realm” as corresponding to the realm of Plato’s forms in

addition to the notion of humanity as an end-in-itself calling for the same internal

unity and integrity demanded by Plato’s concept of justice.

b. If you choose to focus on Aristotle, you could begin by detailing his conception of

the human soul and its connection with the function argument. From there you

could list his catalogue of the goods, and explain why the first three fail and why

only the life of contemplation can produce total fulfillment. At this point, you

might refer to Kant’s conception of rationality as the defining faculty of

humanity, as he and Aristotle are both rationalists. You might also invoke Kant’s

moral arguments for freewill, immortality, and God in connection with Aristotle’s

comparison with the Gods in his articulation of the virtue of contemplation.

c. If you choose to focus on Kant, you could begin by discussing what he means by

“goodwill” and moral worth. You should then explain at least the formulas of the

universal law and the end-in-itself, from which at least two kinds of duties can be

derived, distinguishing between perfect and imperfect duties when doing so. You

should explain Kant’s phenomena/noumena distinction and its relation to both his

conception of humanity and his moral system. You could mention Aristotle in a

critical section, in which you discuss Kant’s distinction between categorical and

hypothetical imperatives, noting that while Kant maintains that we have a duty to

pursue happiness, happiness cannot define morality. You might also link Kant

and Aristotle in terms of Kant’s moral argument for God’s existence, which must

be presupposed for the possibility of fulfillment.

5. Don’t forget that you will need to make reference to at least three video clips in your

essay. I think that all of our Twilight Zone episodes will apply to your essays. They

were “The Masks,” “The Obsolete Man,” and “What You Need.” While we have yet to

watch Fargo, I think that the themes and the message it conveys applies universally as

well. If you’re having trouble deciding what to use, feel free to consult with me. You

may choose video clips that we did not watch in class, but you will have to explain them

fully if you do. It may even be fruitful to save your discussion of the videos for the end

of the essay, using them to tie everything together.

Last Completed Projects