|
23266
|
The spirit in the soul wants freedom, power and honour [Galen]
|
|
Full Idea:
The spirited part of the soul is desiderative of freedom, victory, power, authority, reputation, and honour.
|
|
From:
Galen (The soul's dependence on the body [c.170], Kiv.2.772)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the concept of 'thumos' [spirit], taken straight from Plato's tripartite account of the soul, in 'Republic'. Note that it includes a desire for freedom (in an age of slavery).
|
|
23220
|
The brain contains memory and reason, and is the source of sensation and decision [Galen]
|
|
Full Idea:
The brain is the principal organ of the psychical members. For within the brain is seated memory, reason and intellect, and from the brain is distributed the power, sensation and voluntary motion.
|
|
From:
Galen (The soul's dependence on the body [c.170]), quoted by Matthew Cobb - The Idea of the Brain 1
|
|
A reaction:
[not sure of ref] Interesting that he assigns the whole of mind to the brain, and not just some aspect of it. He had done experiments. Understanding the role of the brain was amazingly slow. Impeded by religion, I guess.
|
|
23265
|
The rational part of the soul is the desire for truth, understanding and recollection [Galen]
|
|
Full Idea:
That part of the soul which we call rational is desiderative: …it desires truth, knowledge, learning, understanding, and recollection - in short, all the good things.
|
|
From:
Galen (The soul's dependence on the body [c.170], Kiv.2.772)
|
|
A reaction:
Truth is no surprise, but recollection is. Note the separation of knowledge from understanding. This is a very good characterisation of rationality. For the Greeks it has a moral dimension, of wanting what is good.
|
|
20883
|
Modern utilitarians value knowledge, friendship, autonomy, and achievement, as well as pleasure [Hooker,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Most utilitarians now think that pleasure, even if construed widely, is not the only thing desirable in itself. ...Goods also include important knowledge, friendship, autonomy, achievement and so on.
|
|
From:
Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
That pleasure is desired is empirically verifiable, which certainly motivated Bentham. A string of other desirables each needs to be justified - but how? What would be the value of a 'friendship' if neither party got pleasure from it?
|
|
23268
|
We execute irredeemable people, to protect ourselves, as a deterrent, and ending a bad life [Galen]
|
|
Full Idea:
We kill the irredeemably wicked, for three reasons: that they may no longer harm us; as a deterrent to others like them; and because it is actually better from their own point of view to die, when their souls are so damaged they cannot be improved.
|
|
From:
Galen (The soul's dependence on the body [c.170], Kiv.11.816)
|
|
A reaction:
The third one sounds like a dubious rationalisation, given that the prisoner probably disagrees. Nowadays we are not so quick to judge someone as irredeemable. The first one works when they run wild, but not after their capture.
|
|
20885
|
Euthanasia is active or passive, and voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary [Hooker,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Six types of euthanasia: 1) Active voluntary (knowing my wishes), 2) Active non-voluntary (not knowing my wishes), 3) Active involuntary (against my wishes), 4) Passive voluntary, 5) Passive non-voluntary, 6) Passive involuntary.
|
|
From:
Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 5)
|
|
A reaction:
'Active' is intervening, and 'passive' is not intervening. A helpful framework.
|
|
20882
|
Euthanasia may not involve killing, so it is 'killing or not saving, out of concern for that person' [Hooker,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
Passive euthanasia is arguably not killing, and the death involved is often painful, so let us take the term 'euthanasia' to mean 'either killing or passing up opportunities to save someone, out of concern for that person'.
|
|
From:
Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds good, and easily settled, until you think concern for that person could have two different outcomes, depending on whether the criteria are those of the decider or of the patient. Think of religious decider and atheist patient, or vice versa.
|