Module 07: Finalist Theories

FINALIST THEORIES

This module will provide you with some basic knowledge of the finalist theories,
particularly the philosophies of John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle. This will
enable you to comprehend and apply ethical theories and principles to issues affecting
computing.

In particular, the following will be discussed:

1. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism
2. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives
3. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism

When a man regards a particular human action as good or bad depending upon whether
or not the said human action brings happiness, then he subscribes to Utilitarianism.
Popularly known as the “greatest happiness principle,” Utilitarianism holds that the
happiness is the very yardstick of morality. Those actions that bring happiness are
considered morally right while those actions that inhibit happiness are considered
morally wrong. As Mill stated in his work, Utilitarianism:

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended
pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure
(Readings in Philosophy, p. 197).

From this point of view, actions are either inherently pleasurable or merely
instrumental. As Leonardo de Castro in his book Ethics and Logic: Basic Concepts states,
things may be valued for their own sake, or because they are instrumental in attaining
an end:

Since these things are valued for the sake of ends other than themselves they are said to
have instrumental value. On the other hand, happiness is not valued for something
other than itself. It is valued for its own sake. In this sense, it is said to have inherent
value (p. 10).

Example #1

Franz is a young and vibrant newly graduated computer scientist. When asked why he
always spends extra hours in the office working despite the fact that he is not entitled to
overtime pay, Franz replies that he loves his work and he does not want paper work
piling up on his desk. Franz is asked why he loves his work and why he does not want
CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 1
Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

pending work on his desk. Franz replies that he wants to excel in his professional career
as a computer scientist. Again he is asked, why do you want to excel in your professional
career? Franz says that he wants to get recognition and promotion. Why? Franz replies
that these would lead to fame and fortune, which would make him happy. When asked
why he wants to be happy, Franz says nothing.

Example #2

Julius is a computer buff. As such, he loves exploring computers and computer

applications. Julius is particularly hooked in the Internet. He spends a lot of time and
energy surfing websites and engaging in chatting. When asked why, Julius replies: I want
to enhance my knowledge. Asked why he wants to enhance his knowledge, Julius
answers: I want to excel in school. He wants to do this because he wants his parents to
be proud of him. When asked why, Julius says he wants his parents to be proud of him
so they will reward him and give him what he wants. And why do you want your parents
to give you what you want, Julius is asked. Because I want to be happy, Julius answered.

If you examine the above examples, you will observe that for every human action, there
is always a corresponding end aimed for. Neither Franz nor Julius acts without any end
in mind. Such actions are deemed valuable because they are used as means to ends;
thus, they are actions that are instrumentally good.

Notice that for both Franz and Julius happiness is the ultimate end. Happiness is their
final end. The examples illustrate what some philosophers consider to be man’s natural
propensity of happiness. We cannot help but desire to be happy, which is also the very
reason for seeking it. And because it is sought for its own sake and not for another, it
possesses inherent value. This is why happiness is said to be man’s final end.

According to Mill, the only things that are desirable as ends are pleasure and freedom
from pain. Things are desirable either for the pleasure that is innate in them or as an
instrument to attain pleasure and avoid pain. Here, the value of an action derives from
its consequences. An action is a means towards a consequence, which is always directed
towards pleasure and the avoidance of pain. According to Mill,

The ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are
desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an
existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments…
(Readings in Philosophy, p. 200).

This is the reason why Mill’s utilitarianism is also referred to as pleasure utilitarianism.

CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 2

Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

If you argue that pleasure and the avoidance of pain are not always the ends of man’s
action considering that there are people who voluntarily submit themselves to pain, or
expose themselves to it, think again. To counter your argument, it may be averred that
such people voluntarily submit themselves to pain, or expose themselves to it, because
they derive pleasure from doing so. Meaning, pain brings them happiness. This
conclusion is consistent with Mill’s assertion that:

Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved
to be good must be so by showing to be the means to something admitted to be good
without proof (Readings in Philosophy, p. 196).

That is, if those people attest to have gained pleasure out of their (presumed) painful
experience, we cannot oppose their claim. It is possible that there are people who
indeed get pleasure through pain.

Mill recognizes the act of sacrifice as a means toward an end. He, however, warns that a
sacrifice that does not contribute to the propagation of the greatest good (which is
pleasure or happiness) to the greatest number is not of value.

The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their
own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice itself
good. A sacrifice, which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of
happiness is considered wasted. The only self- renunciation which it applauds, is
devotion to the happiness or to some of the means of happiness, of others, either of
mankind collectively, or of individuals within the limits imposed by the collective
interests of mankind (Reading in Philosophy, p. 204).

Take this example: Temyong, whose virus scanner had yet to be updated and was
therefore not operational, took the risk of downloading an email from an unknown
sender. The email claimed to contain tips on how to increase one’s finances. Thinking
that this might help his parents in their financial concerns, Temyong opened the file
although he was aware of the risk of contaminating the computer system with a virus
infection. Temyong explored the website that the sender suggested. Suddenly, His
computer began having trouble. A rare computer virus infected the hardware of his
computer, causing of all of his files, including software, to be deleted. His siblings were
dismayed that they could no longer use the computer.

In this case, Temyong’s original intent was to help his parents. However, his act of taking
a risk and, hence sacrificing not only of his own welfare but also that of his siblings,
undermines the value of that intent. Instead of increasing or tending to increase the
attainment of happiness within his family, his act even brought displeasure and
inconvenience.

How do we judge and measure the quality of pleasure then?

CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 3
Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

Mill avers that between two pleasures, the one that should be given a decided
preference is the more desirable pleasure. Mill wrote:

If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasure, or what makes one

pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in
amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all
or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any
feelings of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the
two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both placed so far above the
other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount
of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their
nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a
superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small
account (Reading in philosophy, p. 198).

For example: Ms. D is both a computer scientist and a medical practitioner. She enjoys
and gets pleasure from practicing both of her professions. But when asked which of her
two professions she thinks is more desirable, Ms. D says being a computer scientist.
Since Ms. D has experienced both of the pleasure of computing and the pleasure of
healing, she is in a position to determine which of the two is more desirable.

Therefore, “the criterion for judging which pleasure is better than another must be
made by the judge who has experienced both kinds of pleasures” (Acuña, Philosophical
Analysis).

In resolving the issue of what sort of proof the principle of utility is susceptible to, Mill
avers that:

…If the opinion which I have now stated is psychologically true if human nature is so
constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a means of
happiness, we can have no other proof, and we require no other, that these are the only
things desirable. If so, happiness is the sole end of human conduct; from whence it
necessary follows that it must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the
whole (Readings in Philosophy, p. 212).

In sum, the theory of utilitarianism is an area of ethical philosophy that plays an

essential role in encouraging adherents of morality to focus on the determination of
ethical standards that would more or less afford universal acceptance. You may utilize
this theory as a guide in your study of the moral and ethical issues surrounding
computing as an area of human concern.

Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperatives

CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 4

Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

Kant’s concept of what is good totally contravenes Mill’s Utilitarianism. Where Mill’s
theory of utilitarianism holds that happiness or pleasure, or the avoidance of pain, is the
only thing that is innately good, Kant adheres to the philosophical belief that only good
will can be considered “good” per se or without qualification.

Another difference between the two philosophies is the fact that utilitarianism
considers the results or consequences of a particular action in determining whether or
not the said action is right or wrong. Kant, on the other hand, argues that an act is good
not because of certain consequences that occur in its performance, or on the basis of its
end- result, but because of the “willing” that accompanies the act.

In his work, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant introduced his concept of
what is good by saying that:

Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world can possibly be conceived
which could be called good without qualification except in good will. Intelligence, wit,
judgment and the other talents of the mind, however they may be named, or courage,
resoluteness, and perseverance as qualities of temperament are doubtless in many
respects good and desirable (Readings in Philosophy p. 178).

The foregoing qualities, however, may turn into negative and harmful characteristics
when the “will” that employs these traits is not good itself. Good will corrects the mind
and protects it from the repelling influences of arrogance and pride. It constitutes the
prerequisite for one to be worthy of happiness.

To exemplify “good will” Kant introduced the concept of duty. According to him, duty
comprises the notion of what is good with certain limitations and impediments. He
enumerated three propositions of morality related to duty, as follows.

First, “To have moral worth, an action must be done out of duty” (Readings in
Philosophy, p. 182).

For example, Jakes take care of his computer because it is his duty to do as its owner. He
does not think about why he should do so. He only wills the performance of his said
duty. In this way, his action attains moral worth.

Second, “An action done from duty does not have its moral worth in the purpose, which
is to be achieved through it, but in the maxim by which it is determined” (Readings in
Philosophy, p. 182).

This means that the purpose or end for which an action is done would be of no moment
as far as the attainment of moral worth or value is concerned. The worth of your actions
would depend not on any other condition or means but on the principle of the will
regardless of the ends that can be fulfilled though the performance of said action.
CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 5
Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

Third, “Duty is the necessity of an action done from respect for the law” (Readings in
Philosophy, p. 182).

In explaining this, Kant averred that although one can have the tendency to obey the
law in order to attain the object of the proposed action, one does not have any respect
for it precisely because obeying the law in this instance is a mere consequence or
incident and is not an activity of the will. To illustrate: Chito buys genuine and branded
software not because he wills it, but because he is acting in compliance with the law
against piracy. It is probable that at the back of Chito’s mind, he actually wants to buy
cheaper copies of the software he needs but the law impedes his desire to do so.

According to Kant, “To duty every other motive must give place, because duty is a
condition of a will good in itself, whose worth transcends everything” (Reading in
Philosophy, p. 184).

Kant’s philosophy went beyond the popular moral to the metaphysics of morals. He
begins his piece as follows:

… Everything in nature works according to laws. Only a rational being has the capacity of
acting according to the conception of laws, i.e., according to principles. This capacity is
will. Since reason is required for the derivation of actions from laws, will is nothing else
than practical reason. If reason infallibly determines the will, the actions, which such a
being recognizes as objectively necessary, are also subjectively necessary. That is, the
will is a faculty of choosing only that which reason, independently of inclination,
recognizes a practically necessary, i. e., as good” (Readings in Philosophy, p. 184).

This means that being rational; human beings have the capability to act in accordance
with a set of norms or principles laid down in the form of laws. With the used of reason
(or rationality), human beings are able to discern and decide whether to obey certain
sets of laws. This competence is will. According to Kant, if the will is not in complete
harmony with reason, “then the actions which are recognized as objectively necessary
are subjectively contingent, and the determination of such a will according to objective
laws is constraint…” (Readings in Philosophy, p. 184).

This formulation of a command of reason is called an imperative. A command of reason

is the means towards understanding an objective principle in so far as it is mandatory
for the will.

As earlier stated, everything in nature works in consonance with laws. Only a rational
being has the capacity to act in full accord with his notion of law sand norms—and the
will to do or not to do things. Imperatives are asserted by the use of the article “ought.”
This signals the incidental relationship of law and will to one another.

CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 6

Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

Imperatives are either hypothetical or categorical. A hypothetical imperative

commands an action that is meant to be good merely as means to something else. It
tells us that an action is good for some purpose. Hence, it is conditional upon that
purpose. But a categorical imperative commands an action that is good in itself. It
asserts that an action, or itself, is objectively necessary, i. e., necessary without regard
for any purpose or any end other than itself (De Castro, p. 27).

Here is an example of a hypothetical imperative: In computing, a user is advised to

become familiar with computer languages, since the computer, although user- friendly,
would operate only upon the user’s command. Therefore, the act of learning by heart
computer language and its application is an imperative to attain a particular end—that
is, familiarization that would facilitate easy operation of computers.

“Love one another” is an example of a categorical imperative. It is a command for the

performance of an action that is good in itself.

In Kant’s own terminology, categorical imperatives are also called Imperative of

Morality. He then proceeded to illustrate how categorical imperatives operate.

Categorical imperatives do not operate in and are not applicable to divine or holy will.
The latter transcends all limitations. Here, the “ought” is not applicable, as the “will”
appropriately stands in accord with the law. The two, however, operate in the
derivation of duties. Kant presented the idea of a “universal imperative of duty” that
according to him purports that the rules of your action as your will would become a
universal law of nature (De Castro).

For instance: Joaqs, a computer wizard, is thinking deeply about whether to test his
newly discovered computer virus by disseminating it through the Internet. His thoughts
revolve around whether his act would be a universal law upon completion. However,
since what he proposes to do is against computer ethics, a contradiction exists. Joaq’s
action as maxim cannot possibly operate as a universal law in computing. Being
susceptible to contradiction, his maxim cannot have moral worth.

Thus, Imperatives affect only actions and the end for which they are commanded, but
not the will.

The second formulation of categorical imperatives that Kant presented goes this way:

Act so that in your own person as well as in the person of every other you are treating
mankind also as an end, never merely as a means (De Castro, p. 31).

Here Kant considers the human beings as an end in him/ herself. Thus no human being
should be employed as mere means. The conception of human being as an end in him/
herself entails autonomy of will. The will by virtue of this autonomy has the ability to
CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 7
Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

legislate for itself. This independence of the will allows a causal relationship with
external causes (that do not determine the same). This is in contrast with physical
necessity that is governed by external causes.

To conclude, Kant declares that:

It is nothing less than the participation it affords the rational being in giving universal
laws. He is thus fitted to be a member in a possible realm of ends to which his own
nature already destined him. For, as end in himself, he is destined to be legislative in the
realm of ends, free from all laws of nature and obedient only to those which he himself
gives (Readings in philosophy, p. 193).

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

The central concept in Aristotle’s ethics is “virtue,” thus, his ethical theory is sometimes
referred to as “Virtue Ethics.” His ethical inquiry began with an empirical investigation
of what it is the human being fundamentally desires. One strength of his ideas is that
they are grounded on very real situations, covering actual activities and pursuits of men.

In his investigation, Aristotle is very keen on the different ends of human beings. He
observed that these ends could be classified into three: instrumental, final, and
supreme. He argued that there are ends that are used only as means for attaining other
ends. This shows that they are not pursued for themselves or for their own sake; rather,
they are utilized as instruments for other ends that are regarded to be of greater value.

In computing, the design and creation of programs are the ends (or goals) of computer
programmers. Once a particular program is completed, however, it ceases to be an end
and becomes a means towards attaining another end that is the completed program
itself.

Consider this scenario: Jeanne Paula is a newly graduated computer programmer.

Luckily, she was able to get employment in a computer service provider. As a young
professional, Jeanne Paula is puff of energy and dreams. One of her fantasies is to be
able to design and create a unique marketing program for a client. Jeanne Paula is
devotedly and patiently executes her design into a program. After several months of
hard work, Jeanne Paula finally completes the program. When tested, the marketing
program is approved and is considered a big success.

In this example, the act of being able to create program is Jeanne Paula’s end in mind.
But this becomes a means to another end—that is, the resultant of marketing program.

There are also ends that the described as final. They are perceived as inherently good
but not unconditionally final. This means that while they are pursued for their own sake,
there are some circumstances when they become subservient to other ends. This
CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 8
Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

happens when a “more comprehensive end” has to be taken into account. For Aristotle,
the decision as to which final ends to pursue, especially in cases when not all ends can
be chosen at the same time, is to be determined by this “supreme end.” This is the
human notion of the “good life.” Aristotle named this happiness. He claimed that it is
the reason why some final ends are embraced or abandoned (White). Furthermore, it is
this unconditionally final end that gives “purpose” and”direction” to our lives (Ibid).

Hence, not only is the supreme end unconditionally final and a reason for pursuing our
other ends, but it is also the reason behind our choosing among those ends whenever
we must (Ibid).

In identifying as man’s supreme end, Stephen White in Sovereign Virtues remarked that
Aristotle did not really depart extensively from the ideas of earlier moral philosophers.
His work shows that he took into account the views prevalent in his society during his
time. He used them as the starting point of his project to advance his own moral
philosophy (Ibid).

It is important to note, however, that Aristotle’s account of happiness is quite different

from the usual conception of happiness. After identifying happiness as man’s highest
good, Aristotle went on examining its nature. While some people would identify bodily
pleasures like food, drink and sex, among others, as the defining factors of happiness,
Aristotle insisted that it should instead be understood in terms of man’s distinctive
function. Since man is the only being endowed with rationality, then it follows that
reason is what separates him from other beings. He is the only one who is capable of
living a life of reason. This life is what is peculiar to him.

And so, happiness, a man’s end, should be understood in relation with man’s life that
utilizes that which is unique to him: reason. Aristotle then argued that the life of reason
is the happiest.

How could this possibly apply to computing?

For example, there are moral or ethical issues in computing that need to be addressed
There are issues in computing because computer users from time to time go beyond the
confines the integrity and goodness. Computing as a human action is subject to
evaluation through certain norms of ethical value. As such, computing could be a means
in attaining that which is desirable or good. By following the dictates of ethical norms
in computing, computer users could very well seek that which is the supreme end, the
good life of happiness that is not predicated on material or tangible things, as elucidated
by Aristotle. Actions that do not infringe the intellectual creations of others, decency,
honestly and integrity in the use of computer and its applications, among others, are the
computer user’s means towards attaining the “good life.”

CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 9

Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

Central to Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is the distinction he made between the two types of
virtues: moral virtue and intellectual virtue. Moral virtue is also known as the virtue of
character (generosity and temperance); intellectual virtue is the virtue of thought
(wisdom, comprehension, and intelligence) (Irwin). These consist in the performance of
rational activities towards the attainment of happiness. Both of these were identified as
activities not of the body, but of the soul.

Aristotle provided a comprehensive account of the virtue of character. His thesis

revolves around the concept of “moderation” or “temperance.” This was given a clearer
explanation by an elaboration on the structure of the soul and how moral virtue relates
to it. Our soul is comprised of rational and irrational parts. The rational component is
that which is naturally oppose to reason. The latter is further subdivided into two: the
nutritive and appetitive components. The nutritive part does not in any way share with
the rational element. Among its concerns are nutrition and growth. It is not in reason’s
nature to control these departments, which share nothing in man’s excellence (Irwin).
The appetitive component, on the other hand, includes the desiring elements, which in
a sense share in a rational principle. This only means that this component has the
tendency to obey and listen to reason. It is reason that directs the desires and appetites
to what is best. That is the mean between two extremes.

As regards the “mean,” Aristotle put emphasis on the fact that is determination is never
constant. Recognizing the uniqueness of each moral case, he strongly recommended
that the variables surrounding it be taken into account. It is not through a particular
mathematical computation that one would arrive that the “mean.” There are no hard
and fast rules that a moral agent can follow to approach particular moral situations. The
context plays a big role in its approximation. A careful response to moral situations
requires discernment and sensitivity to what reason will dictate. This makes the “mean
state” highly relative (White).

Furthermore Aristotle added that moral virtues can be developed through the repeated
exercise of the acts mentioned (Irwin). Making it a habit to strike the “mean” should be
the goal of any moral agent aspiring to be virtuous in character. This description also
gives emphasis to virtues as activities. It is not enough that the moral agent can discern
what is right. This will not make any sense if not acted out. Actual performance of
rational activities of the soul as manifested in virtuous acts is called for. It is in the way
that moral virtuous are required. More precisely, it is in the repeated performance of
rational activities over time that the disposition that will render one virtuous in
character is developed.

Virtue [of character] then is (a) state that decides; (b) consisting in a mean; (c) the mean
relative to us; (d) which is defined by reference to reason; (e) i.e., to reason by reference
to which is intelligent person would define it. It is a mean between two vices, one of
excess and one of deficiency. (Irwin)

CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 10

Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

Aristotle also enumerated some requisite characteristic that must describe a morally
virtuous agent with doing virtuous acts. Agents who are lacking in these descriptions
cannot be said to be genuinely virtuous in character: (1) The agent must act in full
consciousness of what he is doing; (2) he must will his action and pursue it for its own
sake; and (3) the act must proceed from a fixed and unchangeable disposition (Irwin).

Thus, for example, the computer user, as an agent of morality, should be in complete
control of his/her actions through the use of reason. This means that he/she should be
able to act in accord with that which is virtuous without succumbing to influences
outside of his/her will. When a computer user does something, he/she does so because
he/she willed it. A firm disposition is also called for in order that the agent’s act would
not be influenced by anything other than his/her own reason.

For more concrete example, consider Beng, who created program x, a software whose
applications could be very useful in detecting and providing an antidote for all kinds of
computer viruses. Before Beng even executed the design of the program, there were
already other people who were critical of it and cynical that it could be realized.
However, armed with her firm disposition to realize program x, Beng proceeded,
meticulously and patiently actualizing her concepts. In this example, you will observed
that Beng was cognizant of her acts, she willed that her plans of creating program x be
completed with her own initiative and volition, and she had a firm disposition.

Aristotle also pointed out that it is not enough that human beings should act; they
should also know. The latter is the concern of intellectual virtues. It consists of wisdom,
intelligence, and understanding. It is through these virtues of thought that the human
being is able to grasp, deliberate, and discern the first principles and the truths
concerning the particulars and the universals, all of which require reason. It is the source
of whatever understanding the individual has of human nature.

Every excellent decision presupposes an excellent reason. Decision is to the character

while deliberation and thought are to the intellect (White).

Aristotle did more than just lay down general principles for the attainment of happiness.
He also tried to address some relevant controversies and gave detailed accounts of
specific virtues. He specifically elaborated on how the virtuous will attain complete
happiness through the ways by which they relate to widely valued goals such as fortune,
prosperity, and honor.

While some people are too quick to dismiss the possibility of exercising virtue admits
adversity and misfortune, Aristotle was firm in his belief that human virtuosity has
sovereignty over fortune. Some are convinced that misfortunes will leave man helpless
in incapable of transcending it. In that case he has no other choice but to remain a
victim of his hapless fate. Man is therefore depicted as powerless under these
circumstances. Consequently, one who is favored by the wheels of fortune should be
CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 11
Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

happiest. Although Aristotle did not deny the potential contribution of good fortune to
the performance of virtuous activities, he rejected the idea that its absence would
dramatically affect them. He even underscored the fact that it is under these
unfortunate conditions that the values of the virtuous are put to the severest test. The
kind of stability developed in the character of the virtuous makes it possible for them to
successfully with stand the test of time. Their virtues are not easily withered by mishaps
in life.

Another issue is the perceived importance of prosperity in the attainment of a person’s

happiness. While Aristotle did not deny its importance, he also did not limit living a
happy and virtuous life to possessing wealth. While it would greatly help the virtuous to
accomplish more acts of excellence when he/she has more resources, the virtuous can
act virtuously even with scant resources.

Temperance as a virtue was relegated to the domain of bodily pleasures. Part of its tasks
is to determine which kinds of pleasures are worth pursuing. A temperate person is
someone who, through the use of reason, will be able to regulate his/her appetites with
respect to what would preserve his/her physical well- being (Ibid). With this particular
virtue a computer user could very well control illicit desires that satisfy only the body.
Thus, for example, he/she not patronize or produce pornography.

Dignity was described as that which “represents the pinnacle of good character,
complete and sovereign virtue” (Ibid.). It is the most deserving of honor but does not
seek it. A person of dignity will pursue what he/she thinks is best without regard for the
honor of that befits his/her station. He has no regard for external goods such as honor,
wealth and power, but is concerned mainly with the best benefits that can be produced
by virtuous acts. Dignity is thus regarded as the virtue that is best suited for misfortune
(White). Situations of great adversity will not dampen the spirit of a person of dignity in
pursuing what is best. The sovereignty of this virtue lies in its pursuing acts for
themselves; while its description as “greatness of the soul” finds sense in its “deep-
seated convictions” (Ibid). The concern for fairness is another important dimension of
this virtue.

Honor, is discussed, is superior to other external goods but it would not qualify as a
virtue. In relating it to dignity, Aristotle downplayed it as a motive and instead viewed it
as a reward for good actions done to others (Ibid.).

This has significance as well to computing. Where there is integrity and dignity on the
part of computer users, computer issues and problems will not predominate.

In the concluding part of White’s interpretation of Aristotle’s ethics, he likened the

rational activity of the virtuous to that of the gods and labeled it as the happiest and the
“best life of all.” He said that the satisfaction and happiness of the virtuous is primarily
drawn from the self- respect gathered from living a life of reason. This is actualized in
CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 12
Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology
Module 07: Finalist Theories

the continued pursuit of a virtuous and sovereign end and the expression of the
sovereign self even in the most trying of circumstances.

But if our end is not exclusively external, then we attain at least one of what we want
even if we die. And if we act not only to effect some change in the world but also to
uphold the values that make us who and what we are, then we realize ourselves in our
action, no matter what the outcome, and we express our sovereign self in living as we
wish and as we choose right through to the end… they choose what is noble over
everything else (Ibid.).

CS 315 – Social Issues and Professional Practices 13

Isabela State University – Cauayan Campus
College of Computing Studies, Information and Communication Technology