Morality as Good in Itself Ethics & Contemporary Issues Phil 115 Professor Douglas Olena Three Types of Goods ³Some which we welcome for their own sakes, and independently of their consequences, as, for example, harmless pleasures and enjoyments, which delight us at the time, although nothing follows from them.² art, good food, music, etc. Three Types of Goods ³Ša second class of goods, such as knowledge, sight, health, which are desirable not only in themselves, but also for their results.² Three Types of Goods ³Ša third class, such as gymnastics, and the care of the sick, and the physician¹s art; also the various ways of money-making‹these do us good but we regard them as disagreeableŠ² and choose them for the ³result that flows from them.² Three Types of Goods Socrates places morality in the second class of goods. Glaucon places morality in the third class of goods. What is Morality? Glaucon will argue these points, though he doesn¹t necessarily believe them: What is the nature and origin of morality according to the common view? Everyone who practices morality does so by constraint, against their will. ³The life of the immoral is better than the life of the moral.² What is Morality? Glaucon has never heard a satisfactory argument for morality as over against injustice. So, he will argue as if being immoral is recommended and see how Socrates responds. The Common ViewŠ 1. 16 ³They say that to do wrong is, by nature good; to have wrong done to you, evil;² Morality is a compromise between the best result, to do wrong and not be punished and to have wrong done to you and not be able to retaliate. The middle ground is justice. Justice is tolerated as the lesser of two evils. The Common ViewŠ 2. 16 If given the choice in freedom, how would moral and immoral people act when faced with problematic choices? The ring of GygesŠ 17 Glaucon concludes that one is moral only by ³necessity, for wherever anyone thinks that he can safely be immoral, there he is immoral.² The Common ViewŠ 3. 17 Juxtapose two men: one immoral and seeming to be moral, the other moral without seeming to be anything at all. Glaucon poses the question, ³When both have reached the uttermost extreme, the one of morality and the other of immorality, let judgment be given which of them is the happier of the two.² Glaucon ContinuesŠ 23 The moral man suffers persecution and torment, finally an ignominious death. The immoral man lives a productive and honored, self centered life, doing what he does without conscience, ³because he has no misgivings about immorality.² ThoughtŠ Neither man offers pretense for what he does. One lives with no thought to right and wrong, while the other concerns himself never to do what is wrong. The immoral man may do good things but always with a self centered motive, ³How does this advantage me?² AdeimantusŠ 24 Greek culture and literature claim that ³The universal voice of mankind is always declaring that morality and virtue are honorable, but grievous and toilsome; and that the pleasures of viceŠ are easy of attainment, and are only censured by law and opinion.² AdeimantusŠ Why shouldn¹t we choose immorality when it brings all the rewards and none of the punishments? ³I would ask you [Socrates] to show not only the superiority which morality has over immorality, but what effect they have on the possessor of them which makes the one to be a good and the other an evil to him.² Conclusion Adeimantus wants an answer without respect to reputations. In other words, what good is morality in and of itself? Socrates¹ view is that morality is the highest good. Those things which are good in themselves. How do you answer Adeimantus?