In looking at Lincoln and whether or not he could be considered courageous we found some small number of examples where he might have been courageous.  However, the number of such examples so far was next to nothing.  And even then our working definition of Courage is not necessarily completely defined.  

So far we have the Aristotelian definition which presents the spectrum of actions and intentions.  There is the act of Courage, but if this acts is born from ignorance or from brashness then we do not considered it to be a Courageous act since the person acting didn't judge there situation well and just stumbled upon a successful course of action.  For there to be Courage under this line of thinking than the person preforming the act must understand the danger(s) and understand what the options are for resolving the situation.  Then picking the course of action that will get the best results.  

Kant works with the intention of the person in the act overcoming of their fears.  However, if the act of overcoming fear is not involved then there is no Courage.  

The Utilitarian perspective is the one that I least understand in terms of Courage.  From what I understand they do not take virtues like Courage into account in their lives.  For them only the calm choice of what shall produce the best results is what matters.  

I ask that if anyone can give a better explanation of the Utilitarian perspective than please comment as I am both curious and wondering what I am leaving out or possibly misunderstanding.  

First Post for class 9/12/13

Hello, I created a new Blog for the class since the last one wasn't going to work.
As for today,
The "Good" that Aristotle speaks of he relates to "Happiness", as its translated, is spoken of as being self-sustaining.  Its also spoken of as being "Complete".  When he talks about this I think that he's talking about how it isn't something that a person seeks as a catalyst for another goal, its something that someone seeks just for itself.
While I can understand why he would consider that better I also feeling that the translation needs to be updated so that we can understand what he's talking about from a current perspective.
So here's my attempt to explain in a modern context.
-The Good, is more or less something that represents benefit not only to oneself but to the group of people that you are involved with.  It applies to various actions and situations as being something that represents the benefit of actions and intentions towards oneself and others.
-The Happiness that Aristotle speaks of, is not so much Happiness and fulfillment of the mind and body, in so far as a persons actions can bring about fulfillment of the mind and body of the individual.  This is a fulfillment that cannot be achieved through any one action but rather derives from the knowledge that you have achieved goals or that you are moving towards such success through your actions.

I hope my definitions come close to the being a more accurate translation.  Please comment and inform me if I left anything out.

Robert