dilemma 18 (the magnanimous man in heaven)

1. Kant
• "though all knowledge begins with experience it does not follow that it arises out of experience
• the world appears on the basis of our minds' perceptions and judgements
  
  
2. Aristotle
• virtue lies in a mean, between excess and deficiency (courage is the mean between excess of rashness and deficiency of cowardice; magnanimity (w/ re. to self-esteem) is the mean between excess of vanity and deficiency of pusillanimity)
  
  
• **consideration must include flexibility b/c one extreme may be more closely linked to the mean than the other...(e.g. friendliness is closer to excess of being ingratiating that the deficiency of being surly)
  
  
• moral eval. of an action must consider responsibility of human agent (was action undertaken voluntarily or involuntarily--i.e. produced by external force or out of ignorance?)
• **so when a good deed occurs, but only as an accidental event resulting from some unforseen force or circumstance, can it still be a virtuous act? hmmm.
  
  
3. Rousseau
• liberalism V. communitarianism: following the general will does allow for individual diversity and freedom, but because the general will does aim for well-being of the "whole", following general will can cause conflicts with specific interests of individuals
  
  
• SOCIAL CONTRACT: by ignoring the interests of all groups or factions (collection of individual wills) in favor of the general will, only then would decisions be made to benefit society as a whole (in accordance with general will)

• what is the "general will" anyway?
  
  
• **can the goals of the general will truly meet all individual needs...i.e. is it possible for the "benefit of the whole" to gravely infringe on the rights of some individuals? (assuming that the decisions made have not been made to benefit only particular groups in society...)
  
  
• e.g. what about gay marriage:
• fallacious arguments could be made for the general will that procreation and perpetuation of the human species depend on heterosexual unions, thereby opposing gay marriage.
• this decision would be an infringement on the basic freedom and potential happiness of a fraction of individual wills. what then?
• it could not be for the benefit of all, because not all unions would be gay, and therefore supporting gay marriage would not infringe upon the benefits of the whole of society
• in which case, what is the role of the Sovereign and how should intervention occur in order to support benefit of the "general will"?