WWAD? (What would Aristotle do?)

We have been discussing a court case that sums up our society in a nutshell. It’s a classic look at the struggle between youth and the adults (term used loosely) and their ability (or inherent inability) to understand one another. We have to live together; there should at least be some attempt at compromise. Anyway, we have been looking at the court case affectionately called BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.

But, let’s stop and think. What would our enlightened and philosophical friends Aristotle, Kant, and Bentham have to say about this?

(First, they would all probably be confused about the high-tech, face-paced society in which we live.)

Let’s talk Aristotle.

He was an ancient Greek philosopher who believed in the Golden Mean. By this, he was sort of saying to take the middle ground and not go too far out on either extremes of the issue. Aristotle would probably tell both the kid and the principal to chill. He would tell the kid to not press his luck with the principal because the two already had a history of not getting along. Also, I think Aristotle would tell the kid to pick his battles carefully with the principal. As for the principal, Aristotle would tell her not to abuse her power by making an example of this kid. He wouldn’t want her to go on a power trip with this case. Also, Aristotle would want the Chief Justice to really take a look at the evidence and not jump to either side of the issue – possibly settling somewhere in between so as not to make an example of either party.

Care to consider Kant?

Kant’s theory is called the Categorical Imperative. Not need for further explanation, right? Riiiiight. What Kant meant by this was that you should live as if your behavior became general law or was a general rule. Kant would ask both parties to consider: “would you want everyone to do the same thing you’re doing?” Or, “what if everyone started doing what you did?” I honestly think Kant would tell the kid to go ahead and do what he did. (He wasn’t doing anything illegal. He was making a statement. Kant wouldn’t be against making statements. He would say “do it” so then other people can see they have the freedom to make their own statements.)

Kant would ask the kid to reevaluate his choices and think about why he really is doing this. Kant would ask him why he was doing it – are you doing it because it’s funny or do you really want to take it as far as it could go (i.e. federal court, etc)? After the kid has really thought about why, I think Kant would have him figure out if there would be another more suitable way to do what he really wanted, such as be funny or make a statement.

Another way to interpret Kant is to say that he believes in the Golden Rule – treat others as you wish to be treated. I think he would use this philosophy to talk with the principal. He would have her reevaluate her choices as well. Kant would want her to think about how she would want to be treated if she were in the kid’s shoes. Kant would have her think about if she ever did stuff like that when she was the kid’s age. He would have her put herself in his shoes and think about whether or not she followed all the rules when she was his age. I think that is how he would have the principal reevaluate her choices in the incident.

Bring it on Bentham.

Jeremy Bentham believed in Utilitarianism. The main point of this philosophy is that the outcome should be the one that causes the greatest good for the greatest number. I think this philosophy would apply more to the Chief Justice in charge of the outcome of the case. Bentham would have the Chief Justice consider both verdicts. Then, the Chief Justice would have to figure out who would benefit and who would be hurt the most from it. He would, most of all, need to consider what each outcome would teach the students – about their rights, about the justice system, etc. Bentham would have to ask himself “what am I teaching these kids about America, our society, their rights and our Government by making this decision?”

Final thoughts:
1) Statements aren’t illegal. Actions are.
2) Aristotle would love the iPod.