1. PHIL 340: ANCIENT ETHICAL THEORY Ben Hole, Winter 2016 Office hours after class.

2. AGENDA Where we are and what we’re doing / Admin Stuff  Weeks 8 and 9 assignments posted  Start writing your papers; rough drafts will be publicly accessible and serve as the basis of our conference Stoics, finish by 2:20 Paper Outline Workshop, 2:20-3:20 Week, DateRequired Reading 1, 1/5Syllabus for Phil 340 1, 1/7Apology (all) 2, 1/12Meno (70-86); Phaedo (all) 2, 1/14Republic Book 1 (all); Book 2 (357-376) 3, 1/19Republic Book 2 (357-376); Book 4 (all) 3, 1/21Republic Book 4 (all); Book 8 (all) 4, 1/26Nicomachean Ethics Book 1 4, 1/28Nicomachean Ethics Book 1-2 5, 2/2Nicomachean Ethics Book 2-3; Book 6.13 5, 2/5Nicomachean Ethics Book 3-4 6, 2/9Nicomachean Ethics Book 4 6, 2/11Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Nussbaum, “Non- Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach” 7, 2/16Euthydemus (278-281); Stoics (Primary texts, PDF form) 7, 2/18 Finish Stoics; Paper Outline Workshop 8, 2/23Hursthouse, OVE Chapter 9; Annas, “Virtue Ethics: Which kind of naturalism?” 8, 2/25Driver, “Virtue Theory”; Hursthouse, “Are the Virtues the Proper Starting Place for Morality?" 9 & 10In-Class Paper Conference

3. THE STOICS Diogenes Laertius 7.84-131

4. STOICS Naturalism & Intellectualism Virtue is Sufficient for Happiness External goods are not Necessary for Happiness Preferred Indifferents What is Happiness?  Zeno describes it as “a good flow of life” (AD, 63A) or “living in agreement”  Cleanthes as “living in agreement with nature” (AD, 63B)  The Stoic goal of life involves consistency (homologia), a “smooth flowing” life

5. READ §85-87, PAGE 191 “… an animal’s first [or primary] impulse is to preserve itself, because nature made it congenial to itself from the beginning … … as Chrysippus says in book one of his On Goals” What does it mean to be first “congenial with oneself” by nature? Explain. Describe the role of reason on impulse. Describe the goal (telos) of life for the Stoics.

6. READ §85-87, PAGE 191 Intellectualism & Naturalism By nature, we are first “congenial to ourselves” Not pleasure-seeking Rational activity is like a skill for living one’s life, where “reason supervenes on impulse as a craftsman” (DL.VII.86). Telos is to live in harmony with nature

7. READ §88-90, PAGE 191-2 “For our natures are parts of the nature of the universe … … as strength supervenes on the building of an arch.” Describe the goal of life in term of living in harmony with nature. Describe how virtue and happiness are related. Describe the role of knowledge and intellect in the virtues.

8. READ §88-87, PAGE 191-2  The goal is “to live consistently with nature”  “Happiness lies in virtue insofar as it is the agreement of one’s whole life”  Naturalism and Intellectualism  [vice’s] “supervenient byproducts are low spirts and depression” (§95, pg. 193)

9. AUTONOMY VS. HETERONOMY Stoic virtue ethics is kind of like a naturalist version of Kantian ethics (which is non-naturalist) Only things within one’s power of choice (prohairesis) are relevant to virtue and happiness The virtuous Stoic learns to live by a set of autonomous norms (or reasons), because they make her life consistent Living by heteronomous norms, based on contingent factors outside of her control, will cause her to be unhappy

10. READ §102-107, PAGES 195-6 “The virtues – prudence, justice, courage, temperance and the others… … are observable in these too” Describe the categories of Good vs. Bad vs. Indifferent Describe the categories of Preferred Indifferents vs. Rejected Indifferents Describe how these categories relate to virtue and happiness

11. READ §102-107, PAGES 195-6 4 Cardinal Virtues Good vs. Bad vs. Indifferent Indifferent Preferred vs. Rejected On the one hand, virtue is rationally “chosen” (haireton), based on considerations of the fine (ton kalon), On the other, preferred indifferents are naturally “selected” or “preferred” (proegmena), on the basis of their natural advantage.

12. ANNAS, “ARISTOTLE, KANT AND THE STOICS” 1.Aristotle is committed to “the claim that there are three kinds of good – goods of the soul, goods of the body, and external goods – and happiness requires the agent to have all three” (248). 2.“Aristotle takes morality to be a part of the world that is not essentially problematic in its relation to the rest of the world. He holds a view of the world in which there are no deep problems of principle as to how morality fits into the world and is explained as part of the world” (247) Aristotelian: morality exists in the actual world, it is not mysterious.  Is naturalism enough? The Stoic and Kantian objectors claim Aristotle lacks “a special kind of motivational authority” (252).

13. PAPER WORKSHOP

14. STRUCTURE OF WORKSHOP 1.Get into groups of 3 (with people you rarely talk to in this course) 2.Spend about 5-10 minutes reviewing each outline of the other members in your group (about 10-20 minutes total)  Do this individually and silently  Use peer review questions (next slide)  Take notes to share with the group when you discuss those questions 3.Spend the rest of the class discussing each outline  Do this as a group, spending about 10 minutes discussing each outline  Discuss your feedback for each of the peer review questions  When you identify room for improvement, strategize how to improve!  Raise you hand if you would like to ask me a question

15. REVIEW QUESTIONS For each argument 1.Is each argument valid in form? The truth of the premises should guarantee the truth of the conclusion. 2.Does each argument include all the premises necessary for conclusion? 3.Are the premises sufficient for the conclusion? 4.Are there any premises that might be difficult to explain? (Try to identify the difficulty and ways to explain it.) 5.Could the argument be structured be improved? For the overall paper: 1.Is the thesis a strong statement of the core argument’s conclusion? 2.Is the exegetical argument charitable? Is there a stronger way to structure it? Is there a more accurate way to structure it? 3.Does the core argument engage with a premise in the argument from the exegesis? 4.Does the objection engage with a premise from the core argument? 5.Is the objection strong (or a straw-person)? Does the objection avoid foot-stomping the exegetical argument? Are there any stronger objections you might consider? 6.Does the response to the objection engage with a specific premise? 7.Does the response treat the objection charitably? Does it avoid foot- stomping the core argument? Are there any stronger ways to respond to the objection? 8.Does the paper have broader implications in ancient ethical theory? What are the stakes of the argument? Why should anybody care about the paper?

16. PLAN TO WRITE & REVISE Follow-up questions are questions that allow you to “check in” and makes plans for revision. 1.What feedback has been most useful? 2.How will you use this feedback when writing your paper? 3.Which element(s) of your paper need the most work? 4.What questions can you ask during office hours to get the feedback that you need?

17. NEXT TIME Naturalism & Virtue Ethics Week, DateRequired Reading 1, 1/5Syllabus for Phil 340 1, 1/7Apology (all) 2, 1/12Meno (70-86); Phaedo (all) 2, 1/14Republic Book 1 (all); Book 2 (357-376) 3, 1/19Republic Book 2 (357-376); Book 4 (all) 3, 1/21Republic Book 4 (all); Book 8 (all) 4, 1/26Nicomachean Ethics Book 1 4, 1/28Nicomachean Ethics Book 1-2 5, 2/2Nicomachean Ethics Book 2-3; Book 6.13 5, 2/5Nicomachean Ethics Book 3-4 6, 2/9Nicomachean Ethics Book 4 6, 2/11Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Nussbaum, “Non- Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach” 7, 2/16Euthydemus (278-281); Stoics (Primary texts, PDF form) 7, 2/18 Finish Stoics; Paper Outline Workshop 8, 2/23Hursthouse, OVE Chapter 9; Annas, “Virtue Ethics: Which kind of naturalism?” 8, 2/25Driver, “Virtue Theory”; Hursthouse, “Are the Virtues the Proper Starting Place for Morality?" 9 & 10In-Class Paper Conference