Graduate Seminar I
Theory and Philosophy

Fall 2001

School of the Art Institute of Chicago

Department of Art Education and Art Therapy

Instructor: Craig A. Cunningham, Ph.D.

Further notes on Meno and notes on Aristotle

Meno's view of virtue

Virtue is a category or set of traits or dispositions (tendencies to behave in certain morally acceptable ways):

Example: "I trust Jane; she is an honest person."
Example: "If trouble comes, I hope Jim is around; he is very brave."
Example: "Pericles's character is an inspiration to the moral development of young men and women."

All people have some capacity for virtue
An agent can have some traits and not others
There is no ultimate "good"; all goods are relative to situation, goals, ends
An act is "good" (and therefore virtuous) if it furthers other goals
"Morality" is mainly a matter of social convention; people make the rules
Political success is the ultimate "sign" of Athenian virtue; includes:

reputation
rhetorical skill
organizational skill

Virtue is taught through:

punishment
admonition
the laws
fables, stories, myths
narratives

Vice is result of lower capacity to learn virtue or insufficient attention to moral education

Advantages to this view:

does not depend upon acceptance of a rational argument
accounts for different moral rules in different societies
compatible with evolutionary view of human nature
appeals to our common-sense understanding of virtue
validates our common attempts to teach virtue to the young
provides justification for democratic forms of decision-making

Problems with this view:

The only way to resolve moral disagreement is moral suasion: "Let me tell you a story that will convince you that adultery is wrong"; makes rhetoric more important than logic.
No acknowledgement that morality has spiritual dimension; makes religious beliefs arbitrary or facetious
Seems to reward ability to manipulate and deceive
Leads to "power politics", "moral relativism," and crass individualism
Claims that our most heartfelt moral commitments are just "opinions"
Specificity thesis (The Character Education Inquiry, 1928-1930, by Hartshorne and May):

the behavioral manifestations of character are situationally specific
an agent's behavior correlates more highly with situational variables than with personal attributes conceptualized in terms of traits
specificity thesis is supported by the (Edward) Thorndike's notion of learning as the acquisition of specific "connections," each of which develops as a specific response to a specific stimulus (NOTE: connectionism is still a popular psychological view, but it has been enhanced; new theories do not require the same level of specificity)
character as a "bag of virtues" seems to take certain moral IDEALS (such as honesty, compassion, justice, temperance), and "psychologize them" into traits or dispositions, when evidence shows that people's traits and dispositions are not as "general" as these ideals

Also, studies of character education have shown that:

widely practiced educational activities such as reciting inspirational passages, singing patriotic and prayerful songs, and even democratic discussions about the school's moral aims have little effect on students' "character" behaviors, especially when compared to personal and social factors outside of the classroom teacher's control

Socrates's/Plato's view of virtue

Virtue is knowledge (that is, courage is knowledge; honesty is knowledge; a sense of justice is knowledge)
The capacity for knowledge is universal, but most people never attain true knowledge
People vary in their willingness to question received knowledge; only the philosophers (lovers of wisdom) suspend judgment in seeking the Truth
Vice is ignorance (and because true knowledge is rare, vice is widespread)
EVERYONE has some virtue (knowledge) and some vice (ignorance)
Pleasure is The Good
Pain is Evil
No one does evil willingly: all people THINK they are acting to maximize pleasure
Knowledge that pain will result from an action is sufficient to dissuade agents from doing wrong
Assumes that the agent's SOUL will suffer consequences of evil actions
A virtuous person uses knowledge to choose actions which maximize pleasure and minimize pain
The "hedonic calculus" is the rational evaluation of the probable consequences of actions
A virtuous person is one who exercises major restraint in accepting anything as true, and who reflects long and hard (on probable consequences to one's being and soul) before making decisions.
Virtue is taught through the elenchus (leading student to humility) and through shared philosophical inquiry into questions such as:

what is the good?
what is true?
what is beautiful?
what does it mean to be virtuous?
what does it mean to be vicious?
how can we increase our own virtue?

Advantages to Socrates'sPlato's view:

Results in "scientific" approach to moral issues; recognizes the importance of FORESIGHT
Results in same morality in all situations or societies
Easy to convince people that pleasure is "good"
Acknowledges spiritual ideas such as "soul," and "absolute good"
Accounts for revulsion we feel when we perceive evil (it's not just opinion)

Problems with Socrates's view:

Some people seem to get pleasure from doing pain
Some people seem to do evil knowingly
Suggests that democracy is a bad idea; better to invest certain "experts" with moral authority
Very smart or well-educated people do not seem more moral than the dim-witted or uneducated
"Pleasure" seems too crass to serve as basis of morality
Some widely accepted moral rules are not supported; examples:

strictures against incest, sodomy, pornography, adultery, homosexuality
manners and other social conventions

Children do not seem capable of considering consequences of their actions, yet do not seem "evil"

Needed: a better theory, which:

distinguishes the moral education of children from the moral education of adolescents and adults
understands "virtue" as consisting of something that CAN be taught
recognizes the specificity of learned behaviors
sets up an ultimate good more inspiring than "pleasure"
accepts that the road toward virtue is never-ending, and
acknowledges the importance of:

diverse cultures
moral ideals
parenting and upbringing
moral practice
knowledge
intuition
common-sense, and
moral reasoning

Aristotle

Lived from 384-322 B.C.; studied with Plato 367-347 B.C.; tutored Alexander 343-336 B.C.
Accepted Plato's notion that Forms controlled material existences
But saw material existences not as mere "appearances" to be overcome, but as "potentiality" and Forms as "actuality"; thus BOTH are required to produce true reality
Every thing has a final purpose, or place; these purposes account for movement, change, and evolution
Believed in careful observation and classification of material things to come to better understanding of Rational Principles operating in universe
Known as "Great Systematizer": invented taxonomy as attempt to categorize all things according to kind (genera) and type (species); See Aristotle, The List-Maker
Saw humans as the highest form of being, because they are capable of rationality (direct appreciation of rational principles)

Aristotle's View of Virtue

Virtue is "right actions for the right reasons"
The psychological basis of virtue is a collection of specific HABITS
Habits are acquired through repeated actions
Young people need to be trained (like animals) to have the right habits (moral virtues)
Habits are "good" if they lead to eudaimonia ("true happiness")
Without the right habits, knowledge is useless (even dangerous)
Knowledge and moral reasoning(intellectual virtues) provide secondary support for the right habits
As people get older, they can self-regulate their habits using knowledge, practical reasoning, and the Golden Mean

Eudaimonia

Eudaimonia literally means: a feeling (-ia) of living in harmony (eu-) with one's own set of unique potentials (daimon)
For each person, there may be multiple pathways to eudaimonia, depending upon person's social context
Eudaimonia is person-specific, but certain generalizations can be made (based upon our understanding of the Form of humanity, which is universal):

actualization of a potential is good if it fulfills the values of the agent and her social group
fulfillment is better than unfulfillment
long-term pleasures are better than short-term pleasures
fulfillment is the result of life-long habits
habits which are unfulfilling need to be changed
reason is the surest pathway to virtue and ultimately to eudaimonia

The Golden Mean

In determining the most fulfilling pathway in any situation, rational human agents can identify two extremes which define a "middle" or "moderate" pathway which is usually the correct one.
For example, in deciding how much to eat, we have two extremes: (1) over-indulgence, and (2) starving oneself. The "correct" choice for most people is to eat just the right amount, which is at a "midpoint" between the two extremes.
In deciding how much truth to tell, we have two extremes: (1) tactlessness, and (2) deceitfulness. The "correct" choice for most people is to tell just the right amount, which is at a "midpoint" between the two extremes.
NOTE: This "system" is a simple form of "cybernetics," or "systems control thinking," which enables the individual to stay "on-track" toward eudaimonia.

For more information: