Ethics Over Coffee

"The road to hell was paved with good intentions."

Personally, I hate this phrase, but it's often used to bring up the idea that intention is not enough. When it comes to judging the actions of others with regard to morality, should intention count for everything or should the resulting consequences be the deciding factor?

Let's explore this topic together!

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. When you judge someone's actions, what do you usually focus on first: what they meant to do, or what happened?
2. Can good intention excuse a bad outcome?
3. Can bad intention be forgiven if nothing bad actually happens?
4. If two people cause the same harm, but one meant well and the other didn't, should they be judged differently?
5. Does intention matter more when outcomes are uncertain?
6. Are intentions morally relevant only because outcomes are unpredictable?
7. Are people morally responsible for consequences they couldn't foresee?
8. Should punishment take intention into account?
9. Would a society that judges only outcomes be more just or more dangerous?
10. Would a society that judges intentions be too easily manipulated?
11. Is moral judgment about evaluating actions, or evaluating people?
12. If intentions matter most, does that excuse incompetence or negligence?
13. If consequences matter most, does that justify manipulation or coercion?
14. Do you think a single standard can work for all situations?
15. Has your view shifted during this discussion?

LOCATION:

We will be meeting at 24h Caffeine Corner. If you get off Shinchon station exit 3, just go straight and you will find it to your right.

This meetup is a practical study of Nicomachean Ethics, approached not as an abstract theory, but as a guide for how to live well. We will read and discuss key ideas with a focus on character, judgment, and practical wisdom, asking how Aristotle’s insights apply to real decisions and everyday life.

This is not a debate, a self-help workshop, or an academic survey. The aim is to understand virtue as Aristotle understood it: the formation of character through reasoned choice, habituation, and a sincere pursuit of the good.

This meetup is open to anyone who is genuinely curious, but participation requires having your own copy of the Nicomachean Ethics and completing the assigned readings. Discussion will be grounded in the text itself, and all contributions should engage directly with Aristotle’s arguments rather than general opinions about virtue ethics.

The first meeting will be an introductory session and will not require prior reading. However, participants are still expected to have their own copy of the book, as this study is intended for those who wish to take the material seriously.

Meetings are planned to occur every other week. The study will begin once there is sufficient committed participation.

LOCATION:

For now this will take place at the regular Gangnam location for this group. However, the location and time can be changed depending on the convenience of those who are interested in attending. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss a change of location or time.

This discussion will explore the nature of punishment and to which end it should serve. Some believe that criminals deserve harsh punishments while others believe they deserve a chance to reform. Which is better for society? Which is better for the individual?

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. What do you think is the purpose of punishment?
2. Should punishment primarily serve victims, offenders, or society?
3. If a punishment works to reduce crime, does it matter whether it feels "deserved"?
4. If someone genuinely reforms, should punishment still continue?
5. When considering an punishment, should we adhere to principle or should we prioritize effectiveness?
6. If a criminal had a terrible upbringing, should that reduce punishment?
7. Are some crimes so serious that rehabilitation isn't enough?
8. Should punishment aim to deter others or focus only on the offender?
9. Would a purely rehabilitative justice system feel fair to victims?
10. Is retribution about justice or about satisfying moral outrage?
11. Is forgiveness compatible with justice?
12. Do you think different crimes require different philosophies of punishment?

LOCATION:

We will meet at Gangnam Coffee 강남커피 near Shinnonhyun station.
Please contact me if you are having any trouble finding it.

Also, I'm not affiliated with this cafe in any way. So, please be courteous to the staff and buy a drink or snack. Let's also try to keep conversations at a reasonable volume. We don't want to cause any inconvenience to the other customers.

This discussion will explore the nature of punishment and to which end it should serve. Some believe that criminals deserve harsh punishments while others believe they deserve a chance to reform. Which is better for society? Which is better for the individual?

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. What do you think is the purpose of punishment?
2. Should punishment primarily serve victims, offenders, or society?
3. If a punishment works to reduce crime, does it matter whether it feels "deserved"?
4. If someone genuinely reforms, should punishment still continue?
5. When considering an punishment, should we adhere to principle or should we prioritize effectiveness?
6. If a criminal had a terrible upbringing, should that reduce punishment?
7. Are some crimes so serious that rehabilitation isn't enough?
8. Should punishment aim to deter others or focus only on the offender?
9. Would a purely rehabilitative justice system feel fair to victims?
10. Is retribution about justice or about satisfying moral outrage?
11. Is forgiveness compatible with justice?
12. Do you think different crimes require different philosophies of punishment?

LOCATION:

We will be meeting at 24h Caffeine Corner. If you get off Shinchon station exit 3, just go straight and you will find it to your right.

Also, I'm not affiliated with this cafe in any way. So, please be courteous to the staff and buy a drink or snack. Let's also try to keep conversations at a reasonable volume. We don't want to cause any inconvenience to the other customers.