1、哲學的產生及知識的來源
As man progressed through the various stages of evolution, it is assumed that at a certain point he began to ponder the world around him. Of course, these first attempts fell short of being scholarly, probably consisting of a few grunts and snorts at best. As time passed on, though, these ideas persisted and were eventually tackled by the more intellectual, so-called philosophers. Thus, excavation of the external world began.
As the authoritarianism of the ancients gave way to the more liberal views of the modernists, two main positions concerning epistemology and the nature of the world arose. The first view was exemplified by the empiricists, who stated that all knowledge comes from the senses. In opposition, the rationalists maintained that knowledge comes purely from deduction, and that this knowledge is processed by certain innate schema in the mind. Those that belonged to the empiricist school of thought developed quite separate and distinct ideas concerning the nature of the substratum of sensible objects. John Locke and David Hume upheld the belief that sensible things were composed of material substance, the basic framework for the materialist position. The main figure who believed that material substance did not exist is George Berkeley. In truth, it is the immaterialist position that seems the most logical when placed under close scrutiny. The initial groundwork for Berkeley’s position is the truism that the materialist is a skeptic.
2、亞裏士多德觀點：道德生活的目標及三大生活方式
What is the goal of the ethical life? What type of soul is capable of realizing the good life? How do we go about accomplishing this goal? What are the possible lifestyle choices we may lead? Are any of these conducive to leading the good life? The goal of the ethical life, according to Aristotle, is good. All human activity is directed toward this good, the highest of which is Eudemonia.
There are two kinds of good, intrinsic and instrumental. Intrinsic goods are those which are good in and of themselves. The only thing that is completely intrinsic is happiness, or Eudemonia. Instrumental goods are those which are good only because they are used for some other thing or purpose. Money is the most obvious instrumental good, as it is used to obtain other goods.
Any individual with a virtuous soul is capable of realizing the good life. One must live with moral and intellectual virtues, excellences, and high standards to accomplish this goal. There are three lifestyles one may lead: the vulgar, the political, or the contemplative. The vulgar lifestyle is based on instant gratification. Goods are simply pleasures one enjoys immediately and temporarily. This lifestyle is guaranteed to fail in the quest for Eudemonia. The political lifestyle is one in which happiness is determined by honor achieved. There are two types of honors one can obtain in the political life, the real and the bogus. Bogus honors are simply to gain status in society and could be bought, but real honors are awards for doing good and helping others. While politics itself is the study of the good, one could easily disgrace oneself and become ostracized from the community. The contemplative lifestyle is one based upon speculation and reflection into one’s own life. This lifestyle is ethical and is the best way to guide one towards the good life and true happiness.
3、亞裏士多德觀點：快樂、功能、美德、道德I
Aristotle argues that happiness, function and morality are closely connected and that virtue is dependent upon all of them. To fully comprehend Aristotle’s theory, we must first examine each of these qualities and then determine how they are related to one another. The deliberation process will show that all of these qualities can be strongly connected, but not exclusively. Happiness, function, morality and virtue can exist independent of one another.
The first deliberation is to define happiness. Happiness is the highest of all practical goods identified with “living well of doing well”. According to Aristotle, every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, are thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends. An example of this reflection would be the final product created by an architect. This individual completed building a structure from start to finish and has reached the end of the project. The architect was pleased by the results of what she created. The architect achieved the desired outcome and was therefore happy. A difference between the actual end and the desired outcome is what makes happiness different for each individual. Not all ends lead to happiness. For example, finishing a painting makes the artist happy but not the autoworker whose preferred end is making vehicles. The fact that not all human beings share the same ends proves that happiness is found at different ends. Aristotle illustrates happiness as being the “chief good”. In the following quote he explains that rational human beings take happiness for itself and never for any other reasons:Since there is evidently more than one end, and we choose some of these for the sake of something else, clearly not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something final. By this definition, happiness must be only the final end, which is the “chief good”. This means that happiness is the pursuit of all that which is desired, and the desire is to reach the final end. If the end is final it becomes the “chief good”. In Aristotle’s own words, he says, “Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action.”
4、亞裏士多德觀點：快樂、功能、美德、道德II
To say that happiness is the only chief good is not completely true. If happiness is the only chief good, then what is our function as human beings? Aristotle associates functioning well with happiness; happiness is the final result. He says that the function of human being is, “...an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle...” Human beings must have the ability to exercise their capacity to reason in order to function well. Reasoning is the key factor in making decisions. Human beings use reasoning to decide what choices to make in life. The outcome of the choices humans make is what creates desire. As a result, desires are what determine the “chief good”. If the chief good is happiness, then the function of human beings and reasoning must also be happiness. One will stay on the path towards happiness if reasoning is used as a function of life.
5、亞裏士多德觀點：快樂、功能、美德、道德III
Having virtue is an essential part of the equation that sustains happiness and the ability to function well. Rather than taking detours down paths of deficiency and excessiveness, one may use reasoning to become a virtuous person. By staying committed to the path toward happiness, one is considered virtuous. Aristotle claims that the virtue of man also will be the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well. If the above statement is true, then only virtuous human beings are happy and if they are happy, then they must also be functioning well.
Aristotle then divides virtue into two separate areas: intellectual virtue and moral virtue. He says that moral virtue is the result of habit. If moral virtue is habit, it cannot be nature. Let us bring this to a deeper level. Gravity by nature pulls everything to the earth’s surface at a fixed rate. This rate can never be changed by the habit of something else. For example, no matter how many times running water is diverted from its original path to the lowest point, the laws of physics will always prevail. The running water will once again find its path to the lowest point. This proves that any sort of habit cannot change nature. However, intellectual virtue comes from what is taught and learned throughout life by habit. Aristotle’s example of intellectual virtue is made clear when he says, “...legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one.”
If virtue is the state of character, then the state of character defined by Aristotle is, “what makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well”. If it is true that virtue gives people a choice, then Aristotle is correct when he states without doubt that we as human beings could, “...take more, less, or an equal amount”. If a person chooses to stay within the means, then they are intermediate or equal. If they choose to take more, then they are excessive. Finally, if they choose to take less, then they are deficient. Therefore, happiness and virtue are in-between excess and deficiency.
For example, if one is excessive in the characteristic of courage, then others might view them as being afraid of nothing. If an individual is afraid of nothing, then they cannot be happy. People do not always admire absolute courage. There is a time and place for courage. The same can be said for those people who are deficient or lacking courage. In other words, happiness is being intermediate.
6、亞裏士多德觀點：快樂、功能、美德、道德IV
Aristotle has some good points when he speaks about the concepts of happiness, but his thoughts also imply that happiness, function, morality and virtue are all tied together as if they are inseparable. He states that happiness is the aim of the “chief good”. Function is the ability to reason, morality is knowledge gained through habit of what is right or wrong and virtue is a state of mind which is intermediate. The way Aristotle ties these separate elements together is remarkable and, in a perfect world, his theory would probably be true.
The only down fall to his hypothesis is that this world in which we live is not a perfect one. Even Aristotle says that the “chief good” is the “final end”. If this is so, then life cannot be considered happy until it ceases to exist. The ability to reason is not the only purpose of human existence. The main function of human beings is instead the ability to survive with the advantage of being able to reason.
Morality is the distinction between what is right and wrong and this distinction is dependent on the individual and the situation. Virtue includes all characteristics that have merit and that are held in high regard.
This deliberation with Aristotle’s theory has proven that happiness, function, morality and virtue are tied to one another in a perfect world. These four elements are also inter-mingled in our non-perfect world, but only under certain circumstances. This is because every human being has his/her own perception of what represents happiness, function, morality and virtue.
Finally, Aristotle says that virtue is being intermediate, but how realistic is it to believe that virtue can only exist for those who always stay within the means? Just as we don’t have a perfect world, there is no perfect human being either.
7、康德觀點：道德價值
There are people so sympathetically constituted that without any motive of selfishness they find an inner satisfaction in spreading joy and helping others. Many of us look at these people as having moral virtue. To Kant, having a natural inclination to do what coincides with duty is not the same thing as acting from duty. Only if someone acts without any inclination, from the sake of duty alone, does his or her actions, has genuine moral worth.
Kant’s moral theory states that actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive from duty, not inclination. The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual’s determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes his or her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise. In such a case, Kant argues, the moral value of the action can only reside in a formal principle or maxim, the general commitment to act in this way because it is one’s duty. Thus, he concludes, Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.
This brings about an interesting question. What should we do today, if tomorrow is the end of the world? Should we execute all the criminals who are on death row, or would this be a selfish, inappropriate action? Kant would say that if tomorrow is the end of the world, it is our duty to execute all criminals sentenced to death. If we do not, we will not have performed our duty to do so.
This view “to do your duty” is commonly used in the military today. According to Kant, then, the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances. So the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality, the fact that it has the formal property of universalizability, by virtue of which it can be applied at all times to every moral agent. For this chain of reasoning about our ordinary moral concepts, Kant derived as a preliminary statement of moral obligation the notion that right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law.