DOCSLIB.ORG

The Virtues of Intimate Relationships

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Virtues of Intimate Relationships The Virtues of Intimate Relationships By Sungwoo Um Department of Philosophy Duke University Date:______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Owen Flanagan, Co-supervisor ___________________________ Gopal Sreenivasan, Co-supervisor ___________________________ David Wong ___________________________ Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 ABSTRACT The Virtues of Intimate Relationships by Sungwoo Um Department of Philosophy Duke University Date:______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Owen Flanagan, Co-supervisor ___________________________ Gopal Sreenivasan, Co-supervisor ___________________________ David Wong ___________________________ Walter Sinnott-Armstrong An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 Copyright by Sungwoo Um 2019 Abstract My dissertation aims to shed light on the importance and distinctive nature of intimate relationships such as parent-child relationship and friendship by developing my own version of a virtue-ethical approach. In Chapter 1, I critically examine important contemporary Western theories of filial piety and argue that they do not adequately capture the nature of a desirable parent-child relationship and filial piety. In Chapter 2, I show why the duty-centered approach to filial piety is inadequate focusing on why it fails to make sense of filial love and argue that filial piety is better understood as a virtue by showing how it can do justice to the normative significance of filial love. In Chapter 3, I introduce what I call ‘gratitude for being’ to capture the distinctive type of gratitude we owe to people who have consistent and particularized care for us, especially our parents. I argue that the idea of gratitude for being can best make sense of deep gratitude typically found among intimates who care for each other. In Chapter 4, I introduce what I call ‘relational virtues,’ which are virtues required for the participants of a given type of personal relationship and argue that it offers a valuable resource for answering questions concerning the value of intimate personal relationships. Next, I propose my own relational virtue theory of filial piety. iv In Chapter 5, I discuss several aspects of the Confucian conception of filial piety—early filial piety, the close connection between self-cultivation and filial piety, and postmortem filial piety—and show how my relational virtue theory can defend and make sense of them. Lastly, I show how my view of filial piety is different from the Confucian view, or at least a version of it. In Chapter 6, I discuss the virtue of friendship as a relational virtue and show how it can make sense of the nature and value of friendship. In particular, I show why the virtue of friendship is distinct from general virtues such as benevolence or generosity and why it is morally important to have this virtue. Finally, in Chapter 7, I propose what I call ‘relational activity view’ on partiality. After critically examining existing views on partiality, I suggest a picture of how special values are transformed, delivered, and created within intimate relationships. v Dedicated to Sandri with love vi Table of Contents Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv Acknowledgements ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Chapter 1. Theories of Filial Piety ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1.1. Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1.2. Theories of Filial Piety ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 1.2.1. The Debt Theory ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 1.2.2. The Gratitude Theory ------------------------------------------------------------------ 13 1.2.3. The Friendship Theory ----------------------------------------------------------------- 18 1.2.4. The Special Goods Theory ------------------------------------------------------------ 22 1.3. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 Chapter 2. Duty, Virtue, and Filial Love ------------------------------------------------------ 29 2.1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29 2.2. The Value of Filial Love --------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 2.3. Filial Love and Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 2.4. Filial Love and the Virtue of Filial Piety ------------------------------------------------ 50 2.5. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63 Chapter 3. Gratitude for Being------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 3.1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 3.2. Personal Gratitude and Impersonal Gratitude ---------------------------------------- 65 3.3. What is Gratitude for Being? -------------------------------------------------------------- 68 3.4. Possible Objections -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80 3.4.1. Gratitude for Being vs. Impersonal Gratitude ------------------------------------ 80 3.4.2. Gratitude for Being vs. Gratitude for Doing -------------------------------------- 82 3.5. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85 Chapter 4. Relational Virtue and Filial Piety ------------------------------------------------ 87 4.1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 vii 4.2. What is a Relational Virtue? --------------------------------------------------------------- 87 4.2.1. Is it a Virtue? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89 4.2.2. Is it a Distinctive Kind of Virtue? ---------------------------------------------------- 92 4.2.3. Characteristic Features of Relational Virtue -------------------------------------- 95 4.2.4. Possible Objections Against the Idea of Relational Virtue -------------------- 100 4.3. Filial Piety as a Relational Virtue -------------------------------------------------------- 103 4.3.1. Parental Virtue and Filial Piety ----------------------------------------------------- 103 4.3.2. Avoiding Difficulties ------------------------------------------------------------------ 107 4.4. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 111 Chapter 5. Confucian Filial Piety and Relational Virtue -------------------------------- 113 5.1. Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 5.2. Confucian Filial Piety ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 5.2.1. Early Filial Piety ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 115 5.2.2. Self-Cultivation and Filial Piety ----------------------------------------------------- 119 5.2.3. Postmortem Filial Piety --------------------------------------------------------------- 124 5.3. Confucianism vs. The Relational Virtue Theory ------------------------------------- 129 5.4. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 132 Chapter 6. Friendship and Relational Virtue ----------------------------------------------- 134 6.1. Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134 6.2. Friendship vs. Parent-Child Relationship --------------------------------------------- 135 6.3. Friendship and Virtue ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 139 6.3.1. Being Generally Virtuous is Not Necessary for Being Virtuous as a Friend ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141 6.3.2. Being Generally Virtuous is Not Sufficient for Being Virtuous as a Friend ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148 6.4. Friendship and Morality ------------------------------------------------------------------- 152 6.5. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 157 Chapter 7. Relational Activity View on Partiality ----------------------------------------- 158 7.1. Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 158 7.2. The Projects View --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 159 7.3. The Relationships View -------------------------------------------------------------------- 161 viii 7.4. The Individuals View ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 166 7.5. Response to Keller’s Individuals View ------------------------------------------------- 168 7.6. The Relational Activity View -------------------------------------------------------------
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Virtue Ethic for the Twenty-First Century Warrior: Teaching Natural Law Through the Declaration of Independence and the Gettsyburg Address
    Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary Doctor of Ministry Major Applied Project Concordia Seminary Scholarship 2-16-2012 A Virtue Ethic for the Twenty-First Century Warrior: Teaching Natural Law Through the Declaration of Independence and the Gettsyburg Address Ryan Rupe Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.csl.edu/dmin Part of the Practical Theology Commons Recommended Citation Rupe, Ryan, "A Virtue Ethic for the Twenty-First Century Warrior: Teaching Natural Law Through the Declaration of Independence and the Gettsyburg Address" (2012). Doctor of Ministry Major Applied Project. 139. https://scholar.csl.edu/dmin/139 This Major Applied Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia Seminary Scholarship at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctor of Ministry Major Applied Project by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONCORDIA SEMINARY SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI A VIRTUE ETHIC FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WARRIOR: TEACHING NATURAL LAW THROUGH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE GETTSYBURG ADDRESS A MAJOR APPLIED PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY STUDIES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY BY RYAN R. RUPE SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 15 DECEMBER 2011 A VIRTUE ETHIC FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WARRIOR: TEACHING NATURAL LAW THROUGH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE GETTSYBURG ADDRESS RYAN R. RUPE 16 FEBRUARY 2012 Concordia Seminary Saint Louis, Missouri ____________________________________ __________________ Advisor Dr. Arthur Bacon DATE ____________________________________ __________________ Reader DATE ____________________________________ __________________ Director, Doctor of Ministry Program DATE Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Virtue Ethics to Business: the Agent-Based Approach
    Applying virtue ethics to business: The agent-based approach By: John Dobson It ca be argued that the presence of what are in a slightly old-fashioned terminology called virtues in fact plays a significant role in the operation of the economic system. - Kenneth Arrow Introduction There are two basic approaches to integrating ethics in business: the action-based approach, and the agent-based approach. The traditional approach is action-based in that it focusses on developing rules or guidelines to constrain management's actions. These rules or guidelines generally manifest themselves in corporate codes-of-conduct, or codes-of-ethics. Contrarily, rather than the action-based focus on rules governing action, the agent-based approach concerns the fundamental character and motivations of the individual agent. Under the agent-based approach, moral behavior is not limited to adherence to a rule or guideline but rather involves the individual rationally pursuing moral excellence as a goal in and of itself. In essence, ethics becomes central to the rationality concept as an objective rather than a constraint: "something positively good, ..something to be sought after" (Ladd, 1991, p. 82). Agent-based approaches generally derive their philosophical foundation from virtue-ethics theory. This theory is attracting increasing interest from business ethicists. In essence, the 'virtue' in virtue-ethics is defined as some desirable character trait, such as courage, that lies between two extremes, such as rashness and cowardice. Thus the 'virtuous' agent is involved in a continual quest to find balance in decision-making. Such an agent does not apply any specific 'rules' in making decisions, but rather attempts to make decisions that are consistent with the pursuit of a particular kind of excellence that in turn entails exercising sound moral judgement guided by such 'virtues' as courage, wisdom, temperance, fairness, integrity, and consistency.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development from Wikipedia
    ECS 188 First Readings Winter 2017 There are two readings for Wednesday. Both are edited versions of Wikipedia articles. The first reading adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development, and the second reading is adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics. You can find the references for the footnotes there. As you read the article about moral development please think about you answered the Heinz Dilemma in class, and in which stage did your justification lie. I do not plan on discussing our answers to the Heinz Dilemma any further in class. As you read the ethic article, please think about which Normative ethic appeals to you, and why. This will be one of the questions we will discuss on Wednesday. My goal for both of these readings is to help you realize what values you bring to your life, and our course in particular. Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development from Wikipedia Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago[1] in 1958, and expanded upon the theory throughout his life. The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[2] Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget,[3] who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.[2] Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime,[4] a notion that spawned dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research.[5][6] The six stages of moral development are grouped into three levels: pre-conventional morality, conventional morality, and post-conventional morality.
    [Show full text]
  • I-Ii, Question 55, Article 4
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-16578-6 — Commentary on Thomas Aquinas's Virtue Ethics J. Budziszewski Excerpt More Information i-ii, question 55, article 4 Whether Virtue Is Suitably Dei ned? TEXT PARAPHRASE [1] Whether virtue is suitably dei ned? Is the traditional dei nition of virtue i tting? “Virtue is a good quality of the mind that enables us to live in an upright way and cannot be employed badly – one which God brings about in us, with- out us.” St. Thomas respectfully begins with this widely accepted dei nition because it would be arrogant to dismiss the result of generations of inquiry without examination. The ultimate source of the view which it encapsulates is St. Augustine of Hippo, but Augustine did not use precisely this wording. His more diffuse remarks had been condensed into a formula by Peter Lombard, 2 and the formula was then further sharpened by the Lombard’s disciples. Although St. Thomas begins with the tradition, he does not rest with it – he goes on to consider whether the received dei nition is actually correct. The i rst two Objections protest calling virtue a good quality. The third protests calling it a quality of the mind . The fourth objects to the phrase that it enables us to live rightly and the i fth to the phrase that it cannot be employed badly . Finally, the sixth protests the statement that God brings it about in us, without us . Although, in the end, St. Thomas accepts the dei nition, he does not accept it quite in the sense in which some of his predecessors did.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle on Love and Friendship
    ARISTOTLE ON LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP DAVID KONSTAN Philia is exceptional among ancient Greek value terms for the number of still unre- solved, or at least intensely debated, questions that go to the heart of its very nature.1 Does it mean “friendship”, as it is most commonly rendered in discussions of Aris- totle, or rather “love”, as seems more appropriate in some contexts? Whether it is love, friendship, or something else, is it an emotion, a virtue, or a disposition? The same penumbra of ambiguity surrounds the related term philos, often rendered as “friend” but held by some to include kin and other relations, and even to refer chiefly to them. Thus, Elizabeth Belfiore affirms that “the noun philos surely has the same range as philia, and both refer primarily, if not exclusively, to relationships among close blood kin” (2000: 20). In respect to the affective character of philia, Michael Peachin (2001: 135 n. 2) describes “the standard modern view of Roman friendship” as one “that tends to reduce significantly the emotional aspect of the relationship among the Ro- mans, and to make of it a rather pragmatic business”, and he holds the same to be true of Greek friendship or philia. Scholars at the other extreme maintain that ancient friendship was based essentially on affection. As Peachin remarks (ibid., p. 7), “D. Konstan [1997] has recently argued against the majority opinion and has tried to inject more (modern-style?) emotion into ancient amicitia”. Some critics, in turn, have sought a compromise between the two positions, according to which ancient friend- ship involved both an affective component and the expectation of practical services.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CARDINAL VIRTUE of JUSTICE in a TIME of PANDEMIC This Is the Second in a Series of Four Reflections on the Cardinal Virtues, Presented by Fr
    THE CARDINAL VIRTUE OF JUSTICE IN A TIME OF PANDEMIC This is the second in a series of four reflections on the Cardinal Virtues, presented by Fr. Anthony Barratt, STL, PHD, ChD, from the Upstate New York Area We continue our reflections on the four cardinal virtues; remembering that they are called “cardinal” virtues because everything hinges on them (the word cardinal originally means a hinge or foundation). This time, let us explore the virtue of justice. It may seem strange to think of justice as a virtue, since we often think of justice as more of a thing or entity, or as a system or process. Two things may help us here. The root of the word justice comes from the Latin “ius”; a word that means “right” or “making right”: That is right as in being correct or true (rather than making a right turn, or even our human rights). Furthermore, the Catechism (n. 1807) defines the virtue of justice as “the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor.” It is a much needed virtue, especially with all the stresses and strains of our uncertain times and the ongoing pandemic. For example, I think that many of us often find ourselves saying that there is no respect anymore; whether it be how people are treated, rudeness, a lack of respect for life, all the negativity and animus in politics, road rage, or whatever. What we are really talking about though is a lack of the virtue of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Or St. Augustine's City of God | Augustine of Hippo | Virtue
    City of God St. Augustine Book I Preface Augustine explains how he wants to tackle the “glorious city of God” in his work. By this he means he wants to defend his God is the only true God and to show others who believe in other deities that they need to change their views. He praises God and all his works. Chapter 1 He gives a very brief history of Roman times as it relates to worshipping God. Additionally, he goes on to discuss how many people take God and his works for granted. Chapter 16 Here we see some of the first shades of Augustine’s beliefs. He writes: “the only difficulty is so to treat the subject as to satisfy at once modesty and reason” showing his focus on the need for modest means. He goes on to say how the true virtuous life is in the soul and not worldly pleasures. The body and its desires and needs are secondary to those of the soul. Chapter 18 In this section he discusses the contradictions between the body and the soul when controlled by others. He writes that even though the body many be controlled by others (that is, even though you may be forced to do something by another person), no one can ever control your will. He focuses on “purity” of the soul and writes on that matter: “If, on the other hand, it belongs to the soul, then not even when the body is violated is it lost.” As long as the soul remains pure and virtuous then nothing that happens with the body matters.
    [Show full text]
  • What Do We Mean by Virtue?
    What Do We Mean by Virtue? Robert Watts Thornburg This university chaplain takes a pragmatic approach to the ques - tion, “Can virtue be taught in the university? ”, which may seem cynical at first glance. There are significant difficulties in answering the question, including the lack of an adequate definition of terms, the overwhelming influence of Christian and western approaches to the question, the “unvirtue” experienced by many learners and the innate resistance of stu - dents to hearing the word “virtue.” Constructive solutions include avoid - ing theoretical propositional approaches, fostering moral seriousness, making discussion immediate and relevant to learners and, finally, creat - ing communities in which to pursue the search. Not “Virtue” but “virtues” are possible to teach and are already evident in student populations. VIRTUE: what a sweet romantic word! The very notion of putting the words “virtue” and “university” in the same sentence strikes many folks I know as an oxymoron. When, as a University Chaplain, I mention the word “virtue” to students or staff, they give me the quiet benign smile that says: “That’s the kind of thing you people (translate: clergy) always want us to talk about.” Therein lies the problem, and my own difficulty in dis - cussing the question of teaching virtue in any university setting. The word itself carries much baggage, a great variety of meanings springing from Robert Watts Thornburg has just retired after 23 years as dean of Marsh Chapel and university chaplain at Boston University. Educated at DePaul University and Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, he also studied with Paul Tillich at Union Theological Seminary.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosalind Hursthouse, on Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999
    Rosalind Hursthouse, On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. x, 275. Reviewed by Gilbert Harman, Department of Philosophy, Princeton Univer- sity Virtue ethics is atype of ethicaltheory in which the notion of virtue or good character plays a central role. This splendid new book describes a “program” for the development of a particular (“Aristotelian”) form of virtue ethics. The book is intended to be used as a textbook, but should be read by anyone interested in moral philosophy. Hursthouse has been a major contributor to the development of virtue ethics and the program she describes, while making use of the many contributions of others, is very much her program, with numerous new ideas and insights. The book has three parts. The first dispels common misunderstandings and explains how virtue ethics applies to complex moral issues. The sec- ond discusses moral motivation, especially the motivation involved in doing something because it is right. The third explains how questions about the objectivity of ethics are to be approached within virtue ethics. Structure Hursthouse’s virtue ethics takes as central the conception of a human be- ing who possesses all ethical virtues of character and no vices or defects of character—”human being” rather than “person” because the relevant char- acter traits are “natural” to the species. To a first approximation, virtue ethics says that a right action is an action among those available that a perfectly virtuous human being would charac- teristically do under the circumstances. This is only a first approximation because of complications required in order accurately to describe certain moral dilemmas.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics Kanfan Ethics Uflitarian Ethics Communitarian/Virtue Ethics Computers And
    3/17/14 A Brief History of Western Philosophy “To know the good is to desire the good.” Socrates 400 BC Plato virtue “Weakness of the will” Ethics Aristotle 350 BC “the good life” (1200: Thomas Aquinas makes Aristotelian philosophy the core of Catholic theology.) “Categorical axiomatic imperative” Kant 1750 utilitarian Bentham 1800 “Veil of ignorance” Mill 1850 “Virtues come from Rawls 1970 MacIntyre 1980 social practices” “The greatest good for the greatest number” Social Implicaons of Computers Kan4an ethics U4litarian ethics • Categorical Imperave: • The greatest good for the greatest number. – Treat people as ends, not means. • Ac4ons are judged by (probable) results, not purposes. – Ac4ons must be universalizable. – A good act has good results, on balance, for everyone. • Everything else can be derived from these • U4litarian philosophers like to pose dilemmas: axioms. – “Your spouse and your child are thrown overboard and you only have 4me to save one of them. Which one?” – Example: Telling lies isn’t universalizable because if everyone did it, nobody would believe the lies. • People today who don’t think very hard tend to become u4litarians by accident. Don’t do that. • Rawls: the Veil of Ignorance – If you’re a u4litarian, it should be because you’ve chosen – Imagine you don’t know whether you’ll be rich or to. poor; black, white, or brown; male or female; etc. Communitarian/Virtue ethics • The goal of ethical philosophy isn’t to judge individual ac4ons, but to live “the good life” overall. • Ac4ng well comes from good habits–the virtues–not from deliberaon on the spot.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Ethics in A/IS
    The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems Classical Ethics in A/IS We applied classical ethics methodologies to considerations of algorithmic design in autonomous and intelligent systems (A/IS) where machine learning may or may not reflect ethical outcomes that mimic human decision-making. To meet this goal, we drew from classical ethics theories and the disciplines of machine ethics, information ethics, and technology ethics. As direct control over tools becomes further removed, creators of autonomous systems must ask themselves how cultural and ethical presumptions bias artificially intelligent creations. Such introspection is more necessary than ever because the precise and deliberate design of algorithms in self-sustained digital systems will result in responses based on such design. By drawing from over two thousand years’ worth of classical ethics traditions, we explore established ethics systems, including both philosophical traditions (utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and deontological ethics) and religious and culture-based ethical systems (Buddhism, Confucianism, African Ubuntu traditions, and Japanese Shinto) and their stance on human morality in the digital age.1 In doing so, we critique assumptions around concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, and we attempt to carry these inquiries into artificial systems’ decision-making processes. Through reviewing the philosophical foundations that define autonomy and ontology, we address the potential for autonomous capacity of artificially intelligent systems, posing questions of morality in amoral systems and asking whether decisions made by amoral systems can have moral consequences. Ultimately, we address notions of responsibility and accountability for the decisions made by autonomous systems and other artificially intelligent technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Augustine's Ethics
    15 BONNIE KENT Augustine’s ethics Augustine regards ethics as an enquiry into the Summum Bonum: the supreme good, which provides the happiness all human beings seek. In this respect his moral thought comes closer to the eudaimonistic virtue ethics of the classical Western tradition than to the ethics of duty and law associated with Christianity in the modern period. But even though Augustine addresses many of the same problems that pagan philosophers do, he often defends very different answers. For him, happiness consists in the enjoyment of God, a reward granted in the afterlife for virtue in this life. Virtue itself is a gift of God, and founded on love, not on the wisdom prized by philosophers. The art of living In Book 8 of De civitate Dei Augustine describes “moral philosophy” (a Latin expression), or “ethics” (the Greek equivalent), as an enquiry into the supreme good and how we can attain it. The supreme good is that which we seek for its own sake, not as a means to some other end, and which makes us happy. Augustine adds, as if this were an uncontroversial point, that happiness is the aim of philosophy in general.1 Book 19 opens with a similar discussion. In his summary of Varro’s treatise De philosophia, Augustine reports that no school of philosophy deserves to be considered a distinct school unless it differs from others on the supreme good. For the supreme good is that which makes us happy, and the only purpose of philosophizing is the attainment of happiness.2 Both of these discussions cast philosophy as a fundamentally practical discipline, so that ethics appears to overshadow logic, metaphysics, and other comparatively abstract areas as a philosopher’s chief concern.
    [Show full text]