The aim of Nicomachean Ethics is to determine what the good is which leads to the discussion of Eudaimonia and virtue. Aristotle’s opening sentence establishes that all actions aim at some good (1999, p. 3) so therefore good must be that which all people aim for. MacIntyre interprets that, “Good is defined at the outset in terms of the goal, purpose, or aim to which something or somebody moves. To call something good is to say that it is under certain conditions sought or aimed at. There are numerous activities, numerous aims, and hence numerous goods.” (1998, p. 53). It is evident that there are numerous goods as each different activity aims at different goods, for example, medicine aims at health and economics aims at wealth (Aristotle, 1999, p. 3). Although we aim at numerous goods through our actions, we do not aim for wealth or health for their own sake, but for the sake of a final good: …show more content…
This means that the good for humans is the something which we desire for its own sake and it is the thing which all of our activities ultimately aim at. Aristotle claims that this final aim is
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the human good is the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. Aristotle concludes this from an invalid argument. On the one hand I do agree that the activity expressing virtue is a requirement for the human good. But on the other hand, I insist that the human good is a state and not an action. By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts.
Seth Andrews Dr. Daniel Cistro ENGL 1102 03/10/2023 The Separation of Selfishness The great philosopher Aristotle provided an exciting take in his famous work “Nicomachean Ethics” in chapter VIII of the ninth book; where he divides selfishness into two spheres; one representing noble selfishness shown by one who seeks virtue, honor, and good works, and the other representing the simple "vulgar" selfishness shown by one who chases after worldly things. Everyone falls into one of these spheres; what separates the two is that the good man can reason with others while the simple man is too engulfed with his own passions to acknowledge anyone else. The noble character is the most selfish of them all, but he enriches his community
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book ll, he explains that virtue is a habit of right action, formed by acting rightly (Nicomachean Ethics, p. 71). What he means by this is that everyone has the chance to act virtuously, but we must for work at doing what is right. Aristotle thought we should be virtuous because if we live virtuously than we will have a better life over
When it comes to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, I believe that he has found a common thread in humanity in the fact that humans strive for the moderate in living virtuously. However, I would argue that the thread is varied enough to have no true worth in discerning the aspects of humanity. People have too different moralities and goals. Because Aristotle allows for these “local variations”, as Martha Nussbaum later terms in her defense of Aristotle, he is acknowledging that there cannot be an overarching analysis of humanity.
“Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that which everything aims. But it is clear that there is some difference between ends: some ends are activities, while others are products which are additional to the activities. In cases where there are ends additional to the actions, the products are by their nature better than activities.” (Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, as translated by Crisp, 2000, p. #3) Aristotle was the first philosopher who wrote a book on ethics titled, Nichomachean Ethics.
The main topic of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is eudaimonia, i.e. happiness in the “living well” or “flourishing” sense (terms I will be using interchangeably). In this paper, I will present Aristotle’s view on the role of external goods and fortune for the achievement of happiness. I will argue that he considers them a prerequisite for virtue. Their contribution to happiness is indirect, via the way they affect how we can engage in rational activity according to the relevant virtues. I will then object that this view threatens to make his overall account of happiness incoherent.
While Plato believes that knowledge is what leads those to “the Good”, he clarifies by saying that knowledge makes people pursue moderate choices of justice, equality, truth and many other virtuous behaviors so they ultimately arrive enlightened to “the Good”. Plato expresses this idea directly in “The Allegory of the Cave”, “In the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed” (pg 3, p 6). Plato is stating that with knowledge grants the capability to be good, and once this is realized the use of knowledge must be directed towards pursuing “the Good”. With rationality, the knowledgeable are able to make moderate decisions in all aspects of their lives. Aristotle believes this perception of “the Good” to be unattainable because Plato does not relate it to the physical world thusly it is irrelevant to the ethics of humans, but Plato contorts with the idea that the actions of the man are what distinguish the definition of “the Good”.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics begins by exploring ‘the good’. Book I argues that, unlike other goods, “happiness appears to be something complete and self-sufficient, and is, therefore, the end of actions” (10:1097b20-21). In other words, happiness is the ultimate good. But how does one achieve happiness? Aristotle formulates this in the context of work, since for all things, from artists to horses, “the good and the doing it well seem to be in the work” (10:1097b27-28).
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions. There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions. Are we responsible for some of our actions after all? If so, under what circumstances?
Thus, when human function is done well, it is in accordance with virtue and best human life is achieved. In addition, it can be inferred that since Aristotle’s definition of happiness is to be virtuous, performing rational activity well can lead to happiness. In addition, Aristotle states, “if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete” (1098a18). This means that eventually there will be one virtue that is inclusive of all virtue and that displays an end, and this virtue will be in line with the self-sufficient and inclusive concept of happiness as the chief good. If this inclusive virtue and good is achieved, ultimate happiness will be achieved as well.
The first, it being the most perfect or most complete good and the second, that it be self sufficient. This end is not a subjective object of desire. It also cannot be assumed that this human good is something which all humans pursue. Rather, it is what we should pursue and as such provides us with a standard that can normatively evaluate the good of human life. The human good is activity of the soul in accordance with [rational] virtue, and if there
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the concept of happiness is introduced as the ultimate good one can achieve in life as well as the ultimate goal of human existence. As Aristotle goes on to further define happiness, one can see that his concept is much different from the 21st-century view. Aristotelian happiness can be achieved through choosing to live the contemplative life, which would naturally encompass moralistic virtue. This differs significantly from the modern view of happiness, which is heavily reliant on material goods. To a person in the 21st-century, happiness is simply an emotional byproduct one experiences as a result of acquiring material goods.
Aristotle argued that the good life would focus to a great extent on contemplation and learning, or acquiring the intellectual virtues. According to Aristotelian theories, to achieve eudaimonia, one must possess arête and telos. Arête can be directly translated as
In short knowing and doing are in the same line. In knowing the truth your virtues will ultimately be guided by this knowledge. The “telos” or ultimate goal of human life for Aristotle is to attain “happiness”. “Happiness” here is does not mean the common meaning which we use everyday but it is more synonymous to the war “eudaimonia” which means to be in a state of being that is in good spirit. This emphasis that happiness is not just a temporary thing but a permanent outlook on life which means that they only way for us to truly know whether we have had a happy life is when we die.
In order to do this, we need to 'know thyself ' and become as learned as we can, knowing the good for all, while also being humble. We are all naturally good people, so we must promote the good in the world. According to Aristotle, however, happiness, his goal for all humans is not that easy to obtain. He claims that "happiness is a certain sort of activity of the soul in accord with virtue (Aristotle, p.12). On the Aristotelian model of how to obtain happiness, it deals a great deal with the issue of particulars.