Aristotle, who was born in 384 B.C. in Macedonia, was a student at the Plato’s academy.
He followed the footsteps of Plato but further distinguished in his ideology about the facets of justice. The concept of law is deeply embedded in Aristotle’s political philosophy. This is reflected in his definition of law, which stated that each law is a rule that either prescribes or prohibits different types of actions. For example, committing a murder is prohibited under law.
Aristotle’s entire philosophy of law revolved around ‘teleos’. ‘Teleos’ is a Greek word that means purpose or goal in life. He claimed that justice is teleological which means that each individuals on its own acts in accordance with his/her ethics but when placed in a societal set up it is politics that is witnessed in the people.
Aristotle classified knowledge into three categories: theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, and productive knowledge. Theoretical knowledge aimed at contemplation, productive knowledge encouraged creation and practical knowledge gave rise to action. He did this because he believed that mere abstract knowledge of ethics and politics is worthless.
Aristotle distinguishes between practical and theoretical knowledge in terms of the level of precision that can be attained when studying them.
Aristotle also elaborated on six distinguished kinds of social structures. A state with only one ruler is either a monarchy or a tyranny. A state with several rulers is either an aristocracy or an
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
The laws are suppose to protect the society and its people, yet when the order of the government turns corrupt, then the validity of everything is at stake. As one can see, the corrupt laws placed Socrates in prison and he chose to abide by the impartial laws in order to be consistent and loyal to the
Aristotle, on the other hand, had a much more positive outlook on the applicability of his political theory. In many ways, his ideal ideology would look much like Plato’s, although with a more guided and empirical approach. Aristotle, like Plato, argued that the state was not only necessary, but essential to the happiness of its people, because the state was the only means by which the city could achieve happiness. According to Aristotle, “the best good is apparently something complete” and likewise, that “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification” (Nicomachean Ethics, 205) and “everyone aims at living well and at happiness” (Politics, 315). Furthermore, he argued that “happiness is an activity of the soul expressing
The general theme of The Republic is the meaning of justice captured by Socrates and Cephalus speaking about the benefits of growing old. The conversation quickly becomes an argument between the two about what justice is. Cephalus is a business man, a pillar of the community, and a man of religion. When speaking about his wealth he seems apathetic about money; this is when Socrates has an epiphany about Cephalus inheriting his money and explains the manner in which one acquires their money as speaks volumes to how intently they appreciate it.
“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.
He held that upright life is the only life worth living. To him, justice was a matter of knowledge and hence, a truth aspect. Meanwhile, he honored and acknowledged his duty to obey the Laws of the state. From Socrates' perspective, Laws are absolute.
Philosophers have debated the distinct subjects such as justice and happiness extensively. For instance, Plato discusses the subject of justice by arguing that justice is what allows people to live excellently. In contrast, Aristotle discusses happiness by arguing that acquiring virtues enables people to achieve the ultimate goal of happiness. What is the meaning of the terms justice and happiness? The term happiness could be elucidated as a satisfaction from goals achieved or from one’s status.
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).
Many classical philosophers have given their voice to the nature of human life and what entails its climax. The very nature of human beings has been investigated, broadly, to establish a comprehensive understanding often pegged on morality. Yet, such thoughts have prompted diverse viewpoints with accompanying grounds or reasons. Happiness is an unending topic of discussion in philosophy. This paper explores the similarities and differences in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism to coin a position in whether or not happiness is the ultimate end that human society aspires to acquire.
Aristotle believed that constitutions were used as ways to organize the citizens within a given city. However, Aristotle did not believe that citizenship was simply determined by the residence of an individual in a city. In fact, he thought that the citizenship of a person should be determined on the share that person plays within the administration of
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers attempt to define justice. Unlike the definitions that his peers give, Socrates is searching to define justice as a structure, not a set of behaviors. Socrates uses a tripartite city-soul analogy to define justice and show that it is found when there is harmony between the three parts of the city—guardians, auxiliaries, producers—mirrored to the three parts of the soul—reason, spirit, appetite. Although Socrates provides a well-structured account of justice in an attempt to demonstrate that there cannot be social justice—in the city—if people don’t first bring internal justice—in the soul—in themselves, he has a notable contradiction in his premises. In Socrates’ ideal city it is a necessary condition of an auxiliary acting in a just way that he must cause any producers who get out of hand, or
For human beings, something that is naturally just must be in accordance with right reason. This is only way to reach a natural and happy end. Aristotle admits, it may be difficult to see the existence of this natural justice since governments vary and no perfect regime exists. We know this because we can observe the different definitions of justice that are implied by the laws of different
The law is an intriguing concept, evolving from society’s originalities and moral perspectives. By participating in the legal system, we may endeavour to formulate a link between our own unique beliefs and the world in which we live. Evidently, a just sense of legality is a potent prerequisite for change, enabling society to continue its quest for universal equality and justice. Aristotle once stated that "even when laws have been written down, they ought not to remain unaltered".
Debate surrounding the question of citizenship, and the ensuing ideals about what makes a good life, has existed for as long as citizenship itself – providing many contrasting views and interpretations about the peak of human flourishing. Aristotle himself recognizes this fact, stating that “…there is often dispute about the citizen…since not everyone agrees that the same person is a citizen” (Politics 65). This is indicative, then, of the fact that there will be many different interpretations of human existence and its purpose; due to the fact that there is not even agreement on citizenry and what the ideas of it reflect for human life. The juxtaposition of two such views, those of Aristotle and Locke, allow thinkers to evaluate not only two
Aristotle advanced the philosophy of ethics, where he demonstrated that it is a means of achieving an end to happiness. However, happiness means many things to different people. To Aristotle, the most adequate way to pursue happiness is through the virtue of excellence. In his writings, Aristotle connected his therory of virtue to economics, and leadership as well. It is a matter of connecting ones personal ethics to that of ones business ethics.