Pleasure and Pain as the Test of Virtue

In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines the pleasure and pain for acting in conformity with virtue. Aristotle can be referring to a politician acting in conformity with the virtue of generosity but feeling pain when doing so; this person cannot be considered virtuous. It is only the man who feels pleasure from acting in conformity with various virtues that is considered virtuous. A man, who performs these actions in conformity with virtue in pain, is not considered to be virtuous. However, throughout the text, this definition is secondary to that of performing the actions in conformity with the virtue is enough to be considered virtuous. In my opinion, the presence of pleasure or pain should be the most important baseline in deciding whether a person is virtuous or not.In order for an individual to be considered virtuous he must perform actions in conformity with said virtue at the right moment, at the right time, to the right people; he must first possess the virtue of prudence. Being generous is enough to be considered to have the virtue of generosity; it does not matter whether he gives in a jovial manner or in a sour manner. Essentially the baseline for have the virtue is exercising it – whether or not he feels pain or pleasure is an added bonus.            However, it is not enough to just exercise the action that exemplifies the virtue; it should be a necessity to feel pleasure when acting out the virtue. Only then, can a man be considered virtuous. A man acting courageously in pain should still be noted as a coward; a man acting pain with the virtue of self-control is self-indulgent. Frankly why should a cheerfully generous man and a meanly generous man both possess the virtue of generosity?            This is not to say that a man who feels pain when exercising a virtue will always feel pain. In the following chapter, Aristotle talks about “Habit is the virtue.” As a support of the previous chapter with pleasure and pain, the habit is the virtue allows one who starts with feeling pain in acting in conformity with the virtue eventually start to feel pleasure. For example, in the exercise of self-control, I can wake up on the first ring of my alarm clock. Waking up at six in the morning is not going to be a pleasant experience, but soon after being productive with the few extra hours I have, I will start to look forward to waking up and the act itself of waking up is pleasurable. At this stage, I finally possess the virtue of self-control; not as Aristotle says I possess it when I first wake up.          So all in all, there stands Aristotle’s conclusion that albeit the state of mind the individual was in while performing the action, he is considered to possess the virtue. In contrast, I believe the only ay that one can fully attain virtue in their actions is by feeling pleasure through the exercise of said virtue.

 

A Cursory Analysis of Immigration: It's Positives and Negatives in Modern and Historical Times

           Before undertaking the research, I completely backed open immigration policy as the only viable option to move America. Through my research however, it seems that neither side can prove efficacy. The pro-immigration side does not seem to take much of the illegal immigrants in to their economic indicators, whereas the conservative side almost solely focused on that one aspect. Of course with a topic like immigration, being polar is almost expected. It is because of this expected polarity that the need for a compromise is evident.
            The sides in favor of immigration are socially liberal and the sides against were economically conservative causing a friction that hurts the American worker as well. Two of the primary sources I used, DAPA/DACA and Texas vs. U.S. is a prime example of how the inability to reach a logical conclusion hurts all parties. Because of the injunction against the deference, 5 million immigrants do not know whether they will be deported or not, and the use of resources in solving these problems has cost the taxpayers, at the state level, about 30 million dollars.
            History also teaches us that the only solution in such an emotionally charged debate is compromise. When the Chinese and Irish first started emigrating, massive xenophobia arose from the right-wing party, also mostly from individual states, protesting this new trend. The federal government had the opposite idea through such actions as opening the port of Ellis Island for open immigration. Almost the exact same issue is present today with a different race of people; the same type of evidence is used to back up claims now as they were used to back up the claims in the turn of the 20^th century.
            From my analysis, maximizing social deference and economic sustainability is the way to ensure the maintenance of America as an ideal and as a reality. By allowing immigration of highly skilled workers, the progression of America is ensured while also increasing real output. Increasing real output increases wages which in turn stimulates the economy by increasing the GDP through individual consumption and investment. This effect can come about through the outward shift of the demand for more laborers caused by technological advancement or increased manufacturing. To do this, immigrants and citizens alike need to do more than sustain production, but increase it. The final solution after not coming to terms with either extreme would be the moderate stance. The moderate stance just comes down to maximizing potential. By adopting stricter, but not impossible, criteria for incoming members and allowing the already residing illegal immigrants to become citizens, we can normalize the influx of illegals and standardize immigration.  

  

An Examination of Humans and Our Nature

Claim

Human nature is essentially bad.

Explanation: The claim itself is simple enough to understand, but the important part is the word, “essentially”. Human nature is removed from our individual thoughts and is a universal definition for what we are. This word is meant to drive out any specific examples and only focus on the bigger picture.

Reasons for My Claim

(1) World Wars

World wars, the bane of each generation, are the ultimate reason for the claim of nature being bad. It is a species-wide decision to kill each other over ideological differences. Whether the “righteous” side is actually righteous or not is beside the point. On both sides, there are atrocities that are being committed for the sake of winning the war. Often we see war as a way to bind us together in the face of an unspeakable evil (US against Hitler). But our nature is such that we will stoop to the level of the evil demagogues we hope to fight (US dropping the atom bombs in Japan). We rationalize mass killing and try to attach a moral standard to it by way of the “end justifying the means.” This can never be any more correct. War, as evil as it is, is unavoidable because of our nature. Our need to retaliate and dominate is insatiable, especially when provoked.

(2) Poverty

The existence of, not individual, but systemic poverty is another purveyor of the claim that human nature is bad. The fact that entire cultures are born and bred in this constant state of denial speaks to the increasing disparity of those who have too much and those who have too little. Now, this is not to say that those who earn their money, or are rich, are inherently bad people; it is that we are all bad people. The inherent “badness” that we see in rich people is present in the poorest person; the reason that the rich person is seen and criticized is because they are rich. The fact of the matter is that when one is rich, it is because their ideas or talents coincided with the instincts of their nature to dominate the space they are aiming for. Every successful company has left a thousand unsuccessful ones in its wake and every rich person leaves a million poor people wishing that they were the ones on the throne. Why else would gangs be such a huge problem? The need to be on top and be in charge of their poverty is what drives these young and women in to high-risk lifestyles. Our competitive, and damaging, nature forces us to make these decisions (i.e. joining gangs, dealing drugs) that attempt to rationalize our shortcomings.

(3) Genocide

Possible the most heinous, and obvious, reason is the blatant denial that some humans have toward other human life. Because human nature is bad, does not mean that we forfeit the right to our lives. One of the most famous examples of genocide was the Holocaust. Despite targeting Jews, Hitler’s regime also targeted anyone who was perceived to be different and a threat to the established order of Nazi Germany. The genocide was rationalized that the removal of “these people” was a matter of purification; almost as if Germany was the spirit and the removal of these minorities was cathartic. Our nature is to paint ourselves in a better light than the people around us. We never want to believe that we are the bad guys in our story. The scary part of the Holocaust was not the killings, but the realization that the people of Germany were not some factory-bred freaks that were pre-determined killers, but rather family men and women that shared the view that Germany should be pure. We see this type of thinking even now with people that are against immigration, and when inevitably they lose their fight, their job losses and other financial dilemmas are blamed on the incoming foreigners. People fear what they see to be a threat to their own personal happiness – immigrant or native – and the actions that come out of this irrational fear is due to our innate nature.

(4) Evolution/Natural Selection

While the previous reason supporting my claim draw inspiration from real life events, this reason – the most important of the four – is the basis by which we can calculate what exactly is our nature. The reason that I am here at this very moment typing this sentence is due to my genes being favorable and beating the other competing characteristics. Humanity’s struggle has been uphill since our first branch that separated us from monkeys. The toughest were meant to survive while the weakest were meant to deteriorate in to extinction. Now, in our world where social problems have become an issue that we can fix, along with advances in medical care, the struggle that our long lost forefathers faced on a daily basis is irrelevant to us now. Of course, this is not to discount the war-torn countries that still face to life and death situations every day, but for the average American we live in a relative state of comfort. It is important to understand then, that this comfort and stat of being content can only come about through the vile actions of our human nature. Because our human nature is bad, we are able to survive the plague; our tenacity to keep moving is what defines the human race, and in an objective sense, it is bad. It is a thoroughly selfish desire through which we have survived and although it is bad, it is our nature.

Reasons Against My Claim

(I) Technological Revolution

There has been, at least in the last century, nothing as pure in though and reason as the technological revolution. This was a movement that wasn’t started to satiate our hunger for domination or control, but to satisfy our curiosity. Kids growing up who wanted to go to space became the next aeronautical engineers in pursuit of their life long ambition. At the heart of every innovator and creator is the soul of child, trying to make sense of his or her surroundings. This feeling of curiosity that drove this revolution is the purest form of human intervention; it was not because of our need to show that we are the best, that Steve Jobs started Apple. Eventually, it became a competition – as everything does in the economy – but the original inspiration behind his company was to simplify and understand human existence. Whatever we use the technology for (warfare, sabotage, surveillance, etc.) does not correspond with the human nature that created the product or idea. The original makes proves that human nature is good, as it creates to answer and does not create to win.

(II) Progressive Movement

The progressive movement, at first, can be seen as a reason that human nature is bad. The very reason that women had to march against the government or why African Americans were not even considered people should be why human nature is bad, but it is not. See, with the progressive movement, it was not about exposing human nature as evil, but it was about information. When information about the treatment of fellow Americans is spread widely throughout the land, people naturally have the inclination to say something about it. They might live in ignorance for a while, but once the veil is lifted, the human race will go to the ends of the Earth to defend their own people. The whole reason that legislation was passed was due to the successful efforts of the progressives to inform the people that they need to act – and they did.

(III) Charities

Our desire to give back and make amends, or just give back to give, is the most blatant indication that human nature is not bad. If human nature were bad, then there would be no charities or hospitals in war-torn areas. The fact of the matter, is that while the decisions of the few in terms of causing strife and harm are the reason why human nature is bad, how does that explain the sacrifice of millions of people and their personal lives to go help people that could little matter to them in the long run? This compulsion stems from a good human nature; if human nature were bad, we would be completely self-centered and independent of each other. Humans’ capacity to come together in the face of calamity is the biggest physical indicator of human nature being a characteristic of good.

(IV) Moral Capacity vs. Instinct

When one says that human nature is bad, they are not saying that we are bad, but they are defining our instinct as bad. There is a difference between human instinct and human nature; human instinct is a part of our nature but it does not solely describe what we are. What truly defines what we are, is our moral capacity and our ability to deny our instincts. The rest of the animal kingdom does not have this ability; they do not have the ability to reason. We alone have this ability and because we alone have it, it is inherent that it must be part of our nature. To deny that our capacity to do good and triumph over our instincts has no base in fact; this capacity, and the actions that stem from our reason, show more than anything that human nature is more than just primal domination.

Decision

After examining both sides of the issue, my final decision would be to still stick with my original claim. Human nature has the potential for greatness. This is something that no one can deny. Yet, this potential for greatness and great things is born out of our ability to reason and come to a moral conclusion. This moral conclusion is not, however, our nature. Our nature by itself is selfish, dominating, and relentless. The only way to temper human nature and attempt to make it good is by moral philosophy. So many of the philosophers that we have read have pointed out first what makes men evil, and through their philosophies, attempt to see what can alter our nature. It is through this eternal question of what can we do to make ourselves better that philosophers derive their inspiration, and thus we can conclude that if our soul is something needs to be improved, its original state is one of defect.

Rebuttals

Counter-Argument: (1)

World wars are not a good example of why human nature is bad because they are such isolated incidents. One common theme after a world war is the shared repentance that all sides share. After World War 2, Germany was forced to pay reparations and to this day, the students in German classrooms are taught that the Hitler regime was the biggest national disgrace. The individual’s capacity for his/her nature being good outweighs that of selfish politicians and their schemes.

Counter-Argument: (2)

Poverty for most is just the way of the world. There will always be those at the top of the food chain and those at the bottom. Just because there exists such a system does not mean that human nature is bad. Rather, the systemic poverty is a result of the good of human nature, our triumphs, winning; imagine if the entire world were equal, our race would have no desire to progress if there was forced wealth equality. We are inbuilt with the competitive drive to succeed and saying that our need to compete is “bad” is stretching the truth. Our need to compete does not make us bad – it keeps us alive.

Counter-Argument: (3)

The reaction to genocide is the biggest counter-argument against why it is an indicator of human nature. These events and so isolated and so narrowly defined that when it happens, the rest of the world has the same reaction. As seen in World War 2, other countries will do everything in their power to make sure that those atrocities stop. This collective hatred of humanity for subjugation of another people is an indication that human nature wants the best for other humans.

Counter-Argument: (4)

Evolution can explain the way we are but it cannot explain our choices. The new definition of our nature is such that we are defined by our choices. People have the ability to deny their natures. We see this everyday; a person with a predisposition to kill can stay that urge by engaging in other practices. So, if it follows that we can deny certain things that are inbuilt, and then we can deny that human nature is bad. Because of its potential for good, saying evolution makes human nature bad, is outdated.