This paper not only analyzes philosophies from Plato and Aristotle who discuss justice and happiness respectively, but also highlights the similarities between the two philosophers. Prior to Plato’s analysis of the term justice, different philosophers had communicated their opinions on justice. This owes to the fact that Cephalus believed that “ 'justice consists in speaking the truth and paying one 's debt.” Consequently, Polemarchus concurred with Cephalus’ argument, but added a little ingredient to Cephalus’ meaning of justice. According to Polemarchus, “justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies.” It is critical that Thrasymachus defined justice as the “interest for the stronger.” Nonetheless, Plato disagreed with opinions from
For the social life, protecting the moderation connects to justice. 3-3 the Better Person Aristotle defines good people. Passions Choice Actions Better characteristics Good Good Good Strong will Bad Good Good Weak Will Bad Good Bad Bad Characteristics Bad Bad Bad Better characteristics is who think doing good behavior without any conflict. Strong will is a person who have bad passion but who can win and do good thing. Weak will is a person who have bad passions, but who try to do goodly, but who is swayed by passions.
Plato’s morality is based on rational cognition. People can only be moral if they know the highest good. If people do not know what is good and what is evil, just repeat the precedent or custom behavior. Even if they can be law-abiding, it is not ethical behavior. Good is the highest goal pursued by Plato in ethics.
This is the part of the reintroduction of friendship that is harder to argue than that of one merely for personal purposes. In post-modernity there is a necessity for utilitarian friendships and genuine friendships, so long as we can differentiate the time and place for each of these. Aristotle argues that utilitarian friendship is based on advantage meaning that “advantage is its reason for being” (Mitias 203). Although some philosophers we have discussed see no crossover between the two types of friendship, I think utilitarian friendship has many valid functions. “Both friendships of utility and friendships of pleasure are capable of leading to friendships of the highest sort.” (Schall 227).
The doctrines of happiness: There are different perspectives on happiness, two of which are the hedonic and the eudaimonic views. Both views have roots in philosophy, such as Aristotle and Aristippus. Despite their ancient origins, these views on human well-being are relevant even today. The hedonic view encompasses the idea those people are happiest when their life is filled with positive experiences and emotions, without negative ones. According to Fredrickson et al.
Two are duties to ourselves - namely that of cultivating our intellectual talents and preserving ourselves (hence forbidding suicide), and two are duties to others, namely honesty in promises and helping them to achieve their own ends (G 4:29-30). I will discuss the plausibility (and implausibility) of two of these examples. First, to discuss the most plausible of these examples, I will assess our duty toward others to contribute to the fulfillment of their ends. This example encourages that we not only refrain from taking away from other’s happiness but that we actively and positively work to contribute to others’ happiness (G 4:430). I think that this is plausible and effective because, as Kant argued, if this standard was universalized - in other words, if everyone worked to contribute to their own, and to each other’s happiness and wellbeing - we can potentially actualize the virtues of harmonious and respectful coexistence.
Emerson also gives a logical argument regarding the "law of one to one" in friendship. Here he states that the common practice in friendship is to have two people and that a friendship between more than two people may not be feasible. This logic is lacking since what is required for a friendship is "affinity that determines which two shall converse" and not will. To point out, his essay concludes that what is commonly referred to as friendship is not really friendship, "Friends, such as we desire, are dreams and fables,". This logic is sound and valid since we often paint an image of friendship that gives it much more credit than it deserves.
1. Blind acceptance is the mentality of considering a statement as authentic without a complete understanding. Furthermore, it means to consider one idea and sticking with it. It is the inverse of creative and critical thinking. Additionally, blind acceptance is common because of three reasons; accepting a belief or viewpoint of a person with a positive impression in society or an opinion that a vast group believes, or because it is the easy way out.