1.- MYTHOLOGY AND ETHICS.

Many Greek students learned ethics along the lines of mythology. All the stories that it has
Greek mythology is extraordinarily suitable for ethical reflection. Some are not precisely
edifying, but most serve to extract very positive moral considerations even if only by
contrast. It is not clear the credit that ethics teachers attributed to those legendary tales, but for
the case is the same: while they wonderfully fed the imagination and minds of their students -
few but very influential in the future-, also served as deep human meditations. The
gods could be interpreted as the personification of the highest human desires, in such a way that
what man desired but could not achieve, the gods accomplished. Sometimes those same gods
they favored the poor and carefree humans and, in other cases, hindered them, if not taking away from them.
completely free will. On many occasions, gods can be seen with such human feelings
that reveal for themselves who created them. But it also helps to see more clearly how far
A man can arrive with his love or with his hate taken to the extreme.

A few myths will serve as an example to study some very clear ethical teachings:

The myth of Narcissus: Narcissus was a very beautiful young man who, in love with himself, died of starvation.
gazing in wonder at the waters of a pond. Seeing himself in the mirror of the water that reflected his
body beauty was no longer capable of anything other than continuing to look at herself until she lost her friendships, her family and
his own life. Tiresias had already warned his parents that Narcissus would have a long life if he avoided
to contemplate oneself. Although the young Narcissus captivated many maidens amazed by his beauty, he did not
they paid no attention to him. One of them, the nymph Echo, irresistibly in love with Narcissus and seeing herself rejected
He suffered the same fate, as he devoted himself to wandering the mountains and, stopping eating, he became so thin.
which was transformed into a voice capable of repeating only the end of the words it heard. In the
The place where he died gave birth to a flower called 'narcissus' that since then remembers the beauty of the protagonist.
of the myth. The comment on the relevance of this myth could not be more appropriate. The abundance of mirrors
everywhere, from beauty salons, gyms, body aesthetic clinics, etc., test the existence of
multiple Narcissus and Echoes. And the end of those current stories also aligns with what is narrated by the myth.
Unfortunately, there are too many sick people suffering from selfishness in rehabilitation clinics. Anorexia.
Bulimia and such disorders are very serious illnesses, as is looking at oneself until losing sight of...
the others.

The myth of Prometheus and Pandora: Prometheus stole the seeds of Helios from the gods so that men
they could be fed. Indignant, Zeus ordered the creation of Pandora, a woman adorned with
many qualities. Hephaestus shaped him, Athena gave him her girdle and adorned him as much as she could. The Graces and the
Persuasion was given necklaces, the Hours placed a crown of flowers on her head, but Hermes put on her.
breasts lies, a fickle character and seductive words. Epimetheus, brother of Prometheus accepted
Pandora falling hopelessly in love with her despite the warning her brother had given her not to.
accept gifts from the gods. Pandora carried with her an unopened box that contained all evils and
misfortunes (old age, illnesses, vices, sadness, poverty, crime) that until then did not exist in the
world. At one point, Pandora opened the box spreading all evils across the orb and closed it just
when hope was also about to leave, with which humanity found itself immersed in a unhappy reality.
As hope did not emerge, the existence of all men turned into a drama.

This myth seeks to explain the enigmatic origin of evil. Why, if we all want good, without
do we not impose an embargo? why do we so often do wrong without intending to? why is it that what is good for some
does it harm others while benefiting them? Pandora's box provides a mythical answer that differs greatly from Christianity, and
much more negative.

The myth of the Sirens: The Sirens are the prototype of seduction. The songs of the sirens are those
suggestive calls towards something very attractive, but which leads to destruction. All vices could be
define as siren songs because they promise a lot and actually give nothing, demanding a passage in the process
unconditional submission. Ulysses, knowing that his ship was going to pass near the island of the Sirens, and
heeding Tiresias' warning, he ordered his sailors to tie him to the ship's mast and not to
they would stop rowing until they had passed the island. Just in case, so much caution was taken that,
softening a bit of wax, he plugged the sailors' ears so they wouldn't hear the melodious voice of
the Sirens. And indeed, Ulysses knew well the weakness of human beings who easily yield to temptation
that always presents itself provocatively, easily deceiving anyone who, thinking they are brave, does not take
precautions. The Sirens captivated many with their songs only to later devour them, and Ulysses, who
imprudently he had not plugged his ears when he heard the sirens announcing that it was already
arriving in Ithaca where his wife Penelope was waiting for him, he shouted to his sailors to let him go and did the
impossible to untie, but he didn't manage to. And these, upon hearing nothing, crossed the danger. It is not necessary
many comments to deduce that the different seductions that throughout life assail the
Men, with all their charm, are siren songs; and all precautions are few if one does not want
end up devoured by them. But who has the strength to tie themselves to the mast of the ship or to plug their ears?
Ears with wax? Who knows how to decisively distance themselves from the fascinations that lead to ruin?
Ancient Philosophy: SOCRATIC ETHICS. ETHICAL INTELLECTUALISM.

Socrates (470–399 BC) has gone down in history as a model of an upright man who preferred to die rather than...
to renounce his ideas. Athens unjustly sentenced him to death and he accepted the sentence with a clear conscience.
clear of her innocence. She preferred to give her life as an example of submission to the laws rather than flee from the
justice or abdicate his thoughts. His friends facilitated his escape but he refused and accepted death without
fear. In the Apology of Socrates, his disciple Plato recounts the case and the defense that his master made for himself
same. Socrates believed in the immortality of the soul and that is why he did not care about leaving this life, showing his
disciples of moral integrity. History, with very few exceptions, has judged very negatively the
sophists and elevated to Socrates.

Ultimately, his death sentence was due to the doctrinal confrontation he had with the sophists who did not
they could hear Socrates rebutting them on the most vital point of their thinking. The controversy consists of
the search for Socratic objectivity against sophist subjectivity and relativism. In other words, the
Sophists believed that the law is made capriciously by the men who hold power, nothing more.
references and, on the other hand, Socrates started from the existence of a natural law that can and should be attained.
rationally by anyone who makes the necessary effort that all intellectual work entails. The
sophists teach the rhetoric and eloquence necessary to convince, not of the truth in which they do not believe, but
of what is most convenient in each moment. Socrates wants to teach the truth.

As far as we know, Socrates left nothing written. What we know about this author we owe almost entirely to his
disciple Plato, and some reference in the writings of Aristotle.

Ethical intellectualism consists of the conviction that in order to do good, one must know what good is. According to
this ethical theory, the one who knows what is good, necessarily does it. And conversely, if the good is not done, it is that
one does not clearly perceive what it means, that is to say, one does not take on what the good entails. Those who
they discuss this principle, arguing that in practice, men, even knowing what we have to do without
we do not impose an embargo, and they conclude from this that this is why we are free, and that this is what freedom consists of.
the issue is not simple. It seems that the story unfolds unconsciously relying on that
ethical intellectualism, when men have labored so hard in the education of generations, a
Another one. The Ministries of Education in all countries seek improvement in teaching trusting that
If children and young people learn more, they will be better, and society will advance in every way. Issue
the content of the most appropriate knowledge will be different, but everyone seems to agree on
Knowing more is a necessary condition to be better. Through a negative approach and with another example, it can be reached to
the same conclusion: in penitentiary establishments, the goal is for inmates to be educated, to acquire
practical knowledge and are educated in values so that they do not commit crimes again, that is, so that they are
better. And it can also be proven statistically that among the inmates in prisons there are many
that possess a poor or very limited education. Thus, the logical conclusion of ethical intellectualism is
that the 'ignorant' do evil because they do not know what is 'good'. And the social proposal they intend
It is to improve knowledge through the improvement in the quality of education, maintaining that this way it improves the
society necessarily.

ETHICS OF ARISTOTLE: Virtue

A disciple of Plato, Aristotle (384–322 BC) departs somewhat from his teacher in his philosophy, but without
his ethics is likewise based on virtues. The main work in which he develops his thought
Moral is the Nicomachean Ethics that he dedicates precisely to his son, who was named that. The ethics of Aristotle.
it is usually recognized as an eudaimonistic ethics. Eudaimonia is a Greek word that can be translated as
happiness, but the etymological meaning is somewhat different: the particle 'eu' means 'good' in Greek and
"daimon" demon. However, the use of demon is not of the spiritual embodiment of evil,
but rather it should be translated as angel, luck... Having a good angel means being happy understanding by
happiness is an extremely difficult state to achieve, something that does not consist in being a means to something else, but rather
What precisely is the end. And the end is the good, which is what everyone wants to achieve. The ultimate end of man is
of course, the good, happiness. Theoretically, when happiness is achieved, nothing else is desired and, in
change, Aristotle clearly perceives that most of the goods that are usually pursued are always
they aim as means to achieve something that is valued even more. If, for example, we say that
we want to finish our studies and with that we will be happy, we are probably not being honest because
Once that goal is achieved, we immediately want another one, such as getting a good job, and then another.
more, such as getting married. At the end of that long chain is the known happiness, the ultimate goal of
man.

Man is an eternally dissatisfied being and his desires are so often greater than his possibilities.
Aristotle, ethics is a practical reflection aimed at action. But each being must develop the
acts that make him fulfill what is his own, according to his nature. The nature of fish, for example,
it allows them while obliging them to swim and live in the liquid element that is their own. If you separate them from their
natural place, they die. In the same way, man has a unique nature and his actions must
to be faithful to her. But no one disputes that what is most characteristic of man is his rationality, followed by his most
genuine will be to think. In this way, the Greek author postulates the necessity that man has to think beforehand.
to do, and that will be called phronesis, prudence, and consequently, that is what must make him happy.
Acting prudently will lead to happiness. Of course, Aristotle also perceives that man does not
it is only understanding as it has a material body. Hence, it also posits other minor virtues,
specific to the body, that should not be underestimated.
Aristotle agrees with Plato in pointing out prudence as the fundamental virtue. Prudence is
an intellectual virtue that always points out with sufficient precision what must be done and marks
conveniently the midpoint between excess and deficiency of the rest of the virtues. He also calls it
dialectical virtue because it understands that prudence is the expression of practical rationality. To the others
he will call them ethical or moral virtues and in all of them the fact of being habits stands out, which means
to say that it is not enough to carry out valuable but isolated acts, but rather that one must achieve the habit of doing good
continuously. In this way, the virtuous man is happy because he knows he is in control of himself.

Who was Aristotle's disciple?

Who does Aristotle dedicate his book on ethics to?

How is Aristotle's ethics recognized?

What does eudaimonia mean?

What is the end or purpose of things, or what is it that humans want to achieve?

What is ethics for Aristotle?

What is unique to man?

What is the action of thinking before doing called?

What is Prudence according to Aristotle?

Whom does Aristotle call a virtuous and happy man?

Create a word search with the following words: Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, virtues, eudaimonia.
Felicidad, bueno, malo, fin, dianoética, moral, ética, prudencia, hábitos, costumbre, cuerpo, despreciar,
rationality, thought, Nicomachean.
Modern Philosophy: Hume's Empiricist Ethics.

Philosophical empiricism is a current of philosophy that considers that the only true knowledge is the
acquired through the senses. Unlike rationalism, empiricism distrusts reason and what
it considers metaphysical excesses. Empiricism is a precursor to modern scientism that judges that the
The only valid knowledge is the scientific knowledge obtained through experimentation. These conclusions
they have repercussions on ethics because, being ethics a "should be", it will always depend on what we say "to be".
In other words, to be able to tell a man what he should do, it seems essential to start from what he is.
Stated negatively, if one does not know what man is, nothing can be demanded of him morally. As already
It has been warned several times, from anthropology ethics has always been deduced, or in other words, from being
of man, what man must do to be what he is.

David Hume (1711–1776) is the greatest English empiricist philosopher. His initial empiricism ends in a
philosophical skepticism that is also conveyed to its ethics. Specifically, its empiricist critique of ethics is the
Next: for Hume, the 'ought to be' is not a concept comparable to the senses, nor therefore something of what
that moral obligations can be extracted. Thus, what Hume maintains is that it could not be founded
the ethics rationally. And since that conclusion seems probably excessive to him, the English empiricist will seek
another principle to base ethics on. That principle will be sensitivity. With an example from the same author, it
It will be clearer: if one looks for something empirically bad in murder, we will never find it. The senses
they only see material aspects: a dead person, the crime scene, its author, etc. The moral issue only arises
you can appreciate instead, Hume continues to affirm, when every human being experiences within themselves, that
internal feeling of displeasure at so many behaviors that we call depraved. Only there, in that
inner feeling, we will find morality, according to him. We can observe that with this conclusion.
abandon all moral objectivity, since it is always possible to think that someone, with total freedom, could
argue that they feel nothing in the face of murders or depravity but do feel something in other situations. The
feelings are very variable throughout life and very different between one person and another. Therefore,
thus, Hume disregards objective reality as the origin of ethics and leaves the ethical decision to
the subjective feelings and emotions. In this way, the individualism of feelings will now be
the dominant value, since there is nothing more individual than feeling. The clear fact is that faced with a
concrete situation, each person feels things very differently.

The sentimentalism and moral individualism that currently manifest in all their harshness in everything
the environments are, in part, clear heirs of philosophical Modernity and more specifically of thought
of Descartes and Hume, among others.

THE FORMAL ETHICS OF KANT.

Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) is a German thinker, author of fundamental works to understand the
Later philosophical thought. He was a professor dedicated to his work and wrote with great profusion. The
the most well-known book and that had the greatest impact was possibly the Critique of Pure Reason, in which
study what the limits of reason are, and how one arrives at paralogisms when intelligence tries to go further
There. This first critique was followed by the Critique of Practical Reason in which the philosopher delves in decisively and
certain originality in ethics.

In investigating ethics, Kant makes a distinction, which has become classical, between material ethics and ethics
Formal. The material ethics for our author would be codes of conduct to conform to,
obeying them without further ado. In this way, what a man who follows a material ethics does is obey
that is formulated in a code, through more or less precise commandments and also with the
hope of receiving an award for the choice made. For Kant, those ethics would certainly be amoral.
because they respond to a hypothetical scheme, in the following way: if you do A, you will get B. With an example.
It will be clearer: Let's imagine a father telling his son: if you study, I will buy you a motorcycle. It is possible.
observe that the student who adopts such behavior is situated outside of a moral context and places themselves in a
commercial sphere, since it must be understood now that its study 'is worth', or is, 'in exchange' for a motorcycle.
Instead, to avoid falling into that error, Kant proposes that duty must be fulfilled for the sake of duty itself, and not for
another thing. Kant calls these types of obligations categorical imperatives. In the proposed example, the one who
studying should be done solely because it is his obligation. If he is a student, his moral obligation is to study. A
a student who does not study is not, strictly speaking, a "student". It can be noted that the author
German trusts that within the human being arise moral obligations and, therefore, there are
to listen to that voice of conscience and hold on to its indications.

Kant proposes two categorical imperatives that have become famous:

Act in such a way that the principle of action you choose could be a universal principle of action.

2. Act in such a way that, in your relationship with others, you treat people as ends, never as means.
means.

As you can see, it does not say what you should do specifically, but what requirements your must have.
conduct. This is what formal ethics consists of, in which the subject must 'fill' their life responsibly with a
type of performances that arise from within, but have clear repercussions "outside." Anyone,
reflecting, you will see what you must do, and consequently, you will feel compelled to do it. From this
manner, one no longer obeys a stranger, as could happen in material ethics, but the subject
obey oneself. We are faced with a mature ethics, typical of equable and balanced men who
they usually analyze what they do, and why they do it.

It is well known the inscription that he had placed on his tombstone which summarizes his thoughts:
Two things have impressed me above all: the starry sky outside of me, and the moral law within me.
With the starry sky, it seems to indicate that this firmament is excessively far away and does not end up
understand it as "excessive" and, on the contrary, points out that the field of morality arises from within man.
as something necessary and obligatory, although the experience of freedom transforms it into contingent. That is why,
One does not always do what should be done.

UTILITARIANISM. JOHN STUART MILL. (1806 - 1873)

Utilitarianism consists of identifying good with what is useful and evil with what is useless. In a way, it is a form of
hedonism. It is considered possible to find a maximum utility for the maximum number of people, which
It suggests that it is impossible to please everyone and it is suspected that some will have to be displeased.

Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and his son John Stuart Mill defended utilitarianism with varying success. Even
the last one has a work with that same title. But this doctrine is surely easier to live than to
theorizing. In everyday life, it is true that we decide many things based on their utility, but that doesn't mean
we try to justify them methodologically.

It is undeniable that we constantly seek utility and reject performing useless tasks. But this does not
it means that we shouldn't do too many useless things. For example, what is the point of studying Latin, classical Greek or
Hebrew, or why put pictures on the walls of the house? And yet, in every house, there are pictures and
In all universities there are people studying those languages. It cannot be concluded, therefore, that we are
We are all crazy even if we do useless things. We will have to search and find another explanation.

Utilitarianism seems more like an ideology than a serious and objective ethics. When one tries to substantiate the
utilitarianism encounters insurmountable difficulties. Caring for a dying patient is an ethical necessity, but
utilitarianism might not see it as useful; helping a developing country also constitutes something ethically
correct and accepted by all and, however, from a utilitarian point of view, not many would be found
justifications for doing it. Utilitarianism is selfish and taken to its ultimate consequences would bring us back to the
jungle, to the law of the strongest.

Sometimes, proponents of utilitarianism propose a certain arithmetic as a criterion for moral decision-making. Let it suffice.
a simple example: in response to the need to obtain financial resources, someone might consider a
an alternative consisting of dedicating years to hard work, or alternatively, robbing at gunpoint a
bank branch. Stealing appears at the beginning perhaps as the easiest, most useful, and quickest option, but thinking things through
"arithmetic, or utilitarian" better, it is clear that it involves excessive risks: justice can put you in
prison sooner or later, even risking one's own life... etc. The other alternative, that of working, is
it would ultimately prove to be the most useful because it does not involve excessive risks. But that arithmetic, if extended further
the example would clash with more alternatives to make money, for example, playing the stock market, or roulette, that you
I won the lottery... and the initial questions that any utilitarian should pose would still stand.
without answering: is it necessary to make that money? how much money would be necessary? does it matter what you do with
that money? What is money? To be a reliable ethical theory, utilitarianism leaves too many questions.

Contemporary ethics

Unable to access external links.