Mahela Maurice

1. Callicles claims that we only have to look at nature to find evidence that it is right for better
people to have a greater share than worse people. How does Socrates respond to this argument?
Who makes the stronger case? Why?
Socrates firstly exposes Callicles’ use of equivocation, a rhetorical ploy that avoids acknowledgement
of an undermining truth while not being literally false, itself. He then accuses Callicles of equating
strength with superiority, highlighting an absence of semantic specificity. He goes on to say that a
collective is naturally stronger than an individual and it follows that the legislation prescribed by the
general populace is a product of both nature and convention. Nature and convention therefore both
assert the reverse of Callicles’ arguments, that doing wrong is more contemptible than suffering
wrong. Socrates then implements a method of proving the falsehood of Callicles’ standpoint through
exposure of its absurdity. According to Callicles’ position, a dietician and coat maker should be in
possession of as much food and coats, respectively, as his conduct of character accounts for. Both
Callicles and Socrates are heavily dependent on the unvalidated notion that nature and legality
constitute objective morality, thus both are fallacious. However, Callicles’ is substantially more
fallacious. He, for instance asserts that viewpoints devised by the weak are inherently bad. Socrates,
despite failing to erect a particularly solid viewpoint in place of Callicles’, manages to expose the
rhetorical ploy and paradox in Callicles’ viewpoint. Socrates therefore makes the stronger case.

2. Explain the ‘leaky jar’ analogy and its implications for leading a good life.
The region of the mind that stores desire is “susceptib[le]” and “[un]stab[le]”. When not given
conscious “restrain[t]”, thus being characterized by “insatiability”, this part of the mind may be
compared to a “leaky”, thus unquenchable “jar”. Socrates describes this as the mind of the “self-
indulgent” man, conveying the baseness and vulgarity of hedonism in its purest form and that the
pursuit of fleeting pleasures as one’s prime end leads to an unquenchable thirst. This is synonymous
of an infinite succession of ends, never reaching a chief end. The self-disciplined man, conversely,
has firm boundaries on his ends, and so he may “rest easy” once he is done “channeling the liquids
into his [“intact”] jars”. Plato makes the comparison of the self-indulgent and self-disciplined man by
the analogy of “leaky” and “intact” jars, respectively, in order to assert that placing firm boundaries
on one’s ends, incidentally acknowledging a chief end, constitutes living well.

3. Explain how ‘every art’, ‘inquiry’, ‘action’ and ‘choice’ is ‘thought to aim at some good’.
Every means that humanity invests in, both moral and immoral, is in the pursuit of some moral end.
For instance, the stealing of medicine to ensure one’s or another’s good health is an immoral means
in pursuit of a moral end. Moral ends are those which all ends are in pursuit of. Hence, there is no
human action or means that escapes moral standpoint or pursuit. There are two types of goods
which all human action is founded on: those which are good in themselves or inherently good (ends)
and those which are in pursuit of and subordinate to other goods (means). A “greatest good” then
exists and it is vital that we uncover the nature of this greatest good. This is the ultimate objective,
dictating our behaviours. The chief good is necessarily: final (not preceding or subordinate to any
other good) and self-sufficient (a properly basic belief, a proposition that can be deduced from no
other proposition).
 Mahela Maurice

4. Explain Aristotle’s ‘Function Argument’ and put it in standard form.

Aristotle asserts that the chief good (happiness) must be: final, self-sufficient and the end of an
action. He then goes on to say that we could potentially acquire a clearer understanding of this
preceding action by “ascertain[ing] the function of man”. He argues that if every human body part,
such as the “eye, hand [or] foot” is in possession of a function, surely man, himself would then have
a separate, overarching function. No one can achieve true happiness unless they execute the very
function of a human being and execute it well. Means to the chief end of man should be sought.
Excellence is a means to the chief end of man, therefore excellence should be sought. Excellence
should be sought. Good execution of a function is a form of excellence, therefore humans should
execute their function well.

5. Explain the process of ascertaining the mean between ‘excess’ and ‘defect’, and how this is used
to pursue a virtuous character.
In dealing with moral virtue, Aristotle asserts that our behaviours are necessarily outward
expressions of our character. Thus, one cultivates virtuous character in the habituation of virtuous
activity. Virtues are inextricably tied to emotions, and emotions to two extremes: pleasure and pain.
Virtuous activity is achieved when such extremes are responded to with propriety in situations.
Virtue may be equated with dispositions, as they reveal inward character. A good disposition is one
that allows its subject to execute his human function well, thus pursuing virtuous character. Striving
for the mean between excess and deficiency in every situation is a means to this. For instance, when
confronted with danger, excessive bravery and deficient fear would amount to rashness, and
deficient bravery and excessive fear would amount to cowardice. Both cowardice and rashness are
vices. Dangerous situations therefore require an appropriate degree of both fear and bravery. The
use of the excess-deficiency model is dependent on the situation. However, things that are
analytically good or evil, such as benevolence or malice, respectively, are exempt from the excess-
deficiency scale, as their very definitions imply excess or deficiency.

6. Explain Nietzsche’s assertion that ressentiment ‘turns creative and gives birth to values’.
Ressentiment is a psychological state of resentment or hostility, arising out of the suppression of
envy. It is inherent in the psychology of slaves, by which their revolt against noble morality is born.
Noble morality is conceived from the free and responsible will of the thinker, whereas slaves are the
passive recipients of ethical codes born out of the nobles. A deontologist, for instance is a passive
recipient of the code of duty and obligation. A Christian is a passive recipient of the Christian faith.
Any moral system created by slaves is intrinsically reactive; it requires the noble morality as
“external stimuli” by which it instigates its “revolt in morality”. Nietzsche, as an advocate for human
flourishing, condemns the slaves and champions the nobles, the latter for fulfilling their role as free
and responsible agents and the former for their passive submission to ethical codes fabricated by
other agents; they do not behave as authentic selves. Their morals are stimulated by the desire to
undermine or oppose all the moral principles of their master, thus their revolt is not original activity.
 Mahela Maurice

7. Analyse and evaluate Nietzche’s ‘bird of prey’ argument. What does this argument tell us about
the ‘slave morality’?
The ‘bird of prey’ argument illustrates the slaves’ birth to the concept of “good” via the medium of
ressentiment. Lambs (slaves) undoubtedly bear hostility against birds of prey and declare them evil
for killing off their species. Antonymously, they declare everything unlike birds of prey to be good.
Although these are acceptable conclusions, killing is an expression of strength nonetheless, and so
to ask a bird of prey not to kill is absurd. Essentially, Nietzsche’s primary concern is with human
flourishing. Nietzsche’s position is compelling in its condemnation of a moral system that is born
out of suppressed envy. Such a system equates opinion with emotion and is thus unsatisfactory.
Being inherently reactive, it commits the ad personam fallacy in attempting to undermine a moral
system based on perceived injustices towards the subject. However, in affirming killing as a good
because of its expression of strength, he commits the naturalistic fallacy, implying that whatever is
natural is morally upright.

8. ‘A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have
obligations.’ Explain how Weil reaches this conclusion. Is her reasoning convincing?
Weil believes that “rights”, legal principles of entitlement, are a natural consequence or logical
following of “obligations”, courses of action to which one is legally bound. Thus, one’s rights are
inherently redundant, as one’s focus should solely be on obligations. Weil also says that to say men
have both rights and privileges is absurd, as “such words only express” shifts in “object and subject”.
An obligation is the subject’s obligation to the object and a right is the object’s obligation to the
subject. So, “a man” “in isolation” would have no rights, no principles of entitlement, as such rights
require the existence of the object. Conversely, the man “in isolation” would have obligations
“towards himself”. If the notion of possessing both rights and obligations is merely an expression of
“differences in point of view”, then the two concepts are interchangeable. Weil’s attempted
abolition of the notion of rights is therefore redundant. However, Weil’s intent is to prescribe to her
readers that they should be entirely focused on obligations and that rights are then met as a logical
following.

9. What is a ‘collective’ and how does Weil distinguish between collectivities and human beings?
A collectivity is a body of people considered as whole. It can also be a project or undertaking,
involving mutual assistance in working towards a common goal. Weil explains the distinction
between collectivities and human beings by what human individuals are in possession of that
collectivities are incapable of possessing, namely intelligence. The ability to form opinions belongs to
the individuals, and the idea that collectivities, such as political parties, are incapable of forming
opinions is a logical following of the fact that collectivities cannot have combined intelligence. The
idea that such a phenomenon is possible may be confused with the distortion of group dynamics.
Because collective consciousness is impossible, it necessarily follows that collectivities are incapable
of receiving and contemplating the idea of human obligations. Weil is therefore an advocate for
solitary thought and regime because it is logical (freed from the distortion of group dynamics).
 Mahela Maurice

10. Weil identifies ‘property-need’ as a need of the soul ‘common to all men’. Outline the two
kinds of property need and explain why Weil argues that they are equally important.
Weil equates the need for private property with that of appropriation. Every human being must be
in possession of something that exceeds the “articles of ordinary consumption”, because everyone
must exert the will to use and cultivate something outside of the demands of the legislation.
However, this sole proprietorship must be recognized by the law. Weil therefore declared that
private property, as a need of the soul, is subordinate to obedience and order. Every individual must
also feel that they have a component “personal ownership” of communal areas, as it fosters a
togetherness that predominates over the influence of social segregation. For both kinds of property
need, it is important that the psychological states that they evoke are recognized as goods. For both
there is also a propensity to settle at any of “a number of intermediate states”. Ultimately, all
property must be “some genuine form of property”. Nothing created should fall into obscurity.