In this essay, I will be discussing Aristotle’s conception of the “good life” which he outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics. As we will see, the “good life” for man according to Aristotle is one where we perform the particular activity which is distinctly ours and guides us towards eudaimonia – sometimes translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’. He shows us how the other conflicting depictions of the ‘good life’ are misguided, and how we should aim for a life of reason. First, however, I will discuss briefly what Aristotle meant by the term ‘good’ and then move on to how he arrived at the conclusion on human happiness. Aristotle believes that the ‘good life’ for a particular organism depends on what that organism is and the conditions it requires
However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person. Thus, I argue if Kant’s theory were true, it would be very difficult to be a good person as utilitarianism do not allow for acts that go beyond duty. Kant’s argument suggests that good will is the only thing good without qualification. First, Kant begins to distinguish between things that are good without qualification and things that are good only under certain qualified conditions.
Aristotle filled Nicomachean Ethics cover to cover with claims pertaining to happiness, virtue, friendship, and similar concepts. One claim states that happiness is choice worthy in its own right and self-sufficient, as “it is the end of the things achievable in action” (I.7, 1097b). Another claims finds that happiness requires external goods (I.8, 1099b). The purpose of this paper is to create a complete comprehension of these claims before responding to them.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle synthesizes an enthralling dissertation that, “the human good proves to be activity of soul in accord with excellence” (1098a 16-17) which requires, “a rational principle” (1098a 7-8). Even though some critics may contend that the human good lies within something other than excellently acting in accordance with reason, the case set forth in Nicomachean Ethics dismisses such detractors as inordinately obstinate in their parochial ideology. To support his conclusion, Aristotle adroitly employs several cogent premises. This paper will explain how Aristotle reaches his conclusion and examine potential flaws in his argument First, I will state each proposition in Aristotle’s argument.
There is a noticeable concern that virtue ethics leaves us hostage to luck. This is commonly referred to as ‘Moral Luck’. Morality is concerned about the responsibility and relevance of praise or blame. Nevertheless, only actions performed under conscious choice are praised or blamed. The assumption that a ‘good’ person should be formed from one mould is challenged by Friedrich Nietzsche.
In a critique of both the works, the paper adopts the Aristotelian thought citing that actions of human aims to fulfill goodness, which arguably is the happiness, one that arises from virtues practiced out of habit. Both the philosophers weigh in heavily on the role of happiness in the day to day lifestyles of humans. Adopting a sharp critic to the conventional principles of utility, Mill recognizes that happiness, as opposed to pleasure has a wider space in human attainments. He goes in deeper to explore the levels of pleasure
There are a few significant aspects of this definition. First, it shows utility, or the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as both the basis of everything that people desire, and as the foundation of morality. However, utilitarianism does not say that it is right for individuals to simply pursue what makes them personally happy. Rather, morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle, that is, moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world.
Suffering to Nietzsche is necessary for cultivating excellence, but not to be understood as a value in itself . In this sense, a universal morality is detrimental precisely because it stifles the potential of those who can cultivate excellence by their internalising the norms of such a morality. The „revaluation of values” is aimed at the practical impact and origin of the virtues and moralities which they found. Those who adopt such „moralities”, that devalue suffering and value happiness, nurture a ressentiment not only for their lives, but for those who rise above it, who have the power to will so. For example, envy is deemed to be bad, and consequently, a form of eliminating the fact that one has more than the other is manifested through a norm which demands that all are equal (e.g in the eyes of
Now he is trying to decipher what goodness is, at some point good may be taken as the glue that hold everything together, but also good may determine the functionality of any determinate object. The ability to become happy depends on how good you do your job, whether your performance is above average and produces profit. It it to be said that if good is the glue that holds everything together, then this must be acting at a cosmic level. Regardless of what he's aid about setting aside the visible heaven, he now is interested in creating a model in order to explain it. With this Plato introduces what is the Anima Mundi or world soul.
The pursuit of happiness is defined as an individual and collective activity. Given that philosophers defined happiness as an issue that precedes morality in life, it is important that an individual consistently seek to exude happiness. For this reason, the use of drugs as a substitute and means of being happy is a flawed and often completely misguided of what it means to be happy (Haybron, 2011). It is important that virtue motivate the motivation of personal happiness. Exuding empathy, kindness and gratitude are some of the approaches that are likely to realize collective personal happiness.
Conclusively, the ‘Experience Machine’ has illustrated an intriguing counter-argument to the hedonistic claims. By illustrating the concerns and problems of the machine Nozick in turn reveals flaws in the belief that the maximisation of pleasure and minimisation of pain is all that is required for one 's wellbeing. However, it is (arguably) equally as easy to find flaws in some of Nozick’s claims too. In this way, the ‘Experience Machine’ can be considered effective in the sense that it questions the hedonist and the concept of pleasure as holding the most intrinsic value yet still not fully convincing enough to fully dismiss the
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.