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. To do this I must first explain several concepts of Aristotle which are: (1) how he concludes that the human function is reason, (2) what he means by happiness and how it is the human good, and (3) why he believes that the activity of the soul must be virtuous to become
In the Battle of Okinawa 1941, Japanese Kamikaze suicide pilots targeted the US in Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor. Over 2,400 American and British lives were taken from this world, an additional 1,178 wounded. The President of the United States, Harry Truman, was faced with an ethical dilemma of whether to use the atomic bomb against Japan that could end WWII. My goal is to try to answer this moral question using the philosophical views on the morality of Held, Kant, Aristotle, and Mill. I will also explain why I believe Kant’s theory is the most appropriate theory when answering moral questions in general.
Aristotle has a firm belief that human being’s actions need to be aimed at and end with some sort of good. With this is mind, he further explains that happiness is the end result of our actions. Thomas Hill, although similar in view, advocates for the importance to not only preserve our environment but connects how the preservation of nature directly relates to human virtue. In this essay, I will argue that Thomas Hill’s beliefs on human virtue along side with the preservation of our environment goes hand in hand with Aristotle’s views of the development of human virtue. Both Aristotle and Thomas Hill believe that human virtue not only has the power to control our actions positively or negatively but can also influence whether human beings
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). Much like the work of a harpist is to play the harp, “the work of a human being is a being-at-work of the soul in accordance with reason” (11:1098a7-8). Moreover, in order to achieve the good, it is important that each being performs his work excellently. While all harpists’
Aristotle wants to explore and understand nature of different states and constitutions but in order to do that, he argues that first we would have to take a deeper look at the nature of citizenship. Aristotle believes that saying that a citizen is someone who lives in a city or has access to the courts of laws is not enough, he supplements this argument by mentioning other people groups that has access to these things as well, specifically slaves and resident aliens (The Politics of Aristotle, 2009, p. 122). Instead, Aristotle proposes an idea that citizen is someone who upholds the public office and participates in administration of justice, this definition, which he suggests is only applicable to individuals in democratic state, is then further broadened stating that: “a citizen is anyone who is entitled to share in deliberative or judicial office”. To understand if John Locke has an answer to Aristotle’s question or if he’s even interested in such a question it is necessary to look deeper and explore more how Aristotle and John Locke views the states and constitutions, how they explain them and what are their views on citizenship (if they have any). Aristotle points out that though the status of citizenship in most cases are reserved for those who are born from citizen parents (in other words inherited from citizen parents) becomes irrelevant in such cases as constitutional change,
Aristotle believed that a citizen can contribute positively to the collective community in a variety of ways. He asserted that the greatest contribution a citizen can make is serving in deliberative and judicial office. An individual becomes a citizen when one obtains the ability to participate in deliberative and judicial office because they have reason and the ability to discuss political affairs. All humans are born with the abilities to grow, sense, and reason, but citizens who share in reason contribute to the common good of the
The assignment will be investigating the democracy of Aristotle and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Democracy in itself can be very different and varies from form to form. The assignment will investigate Aristotle’s view and Jean Jacques Rousseau concepts on state and man, the governess of the state, freedom and man .Each of these topics will be contrast on the views of Aristotle and Jean Jacques Rousseau alongside each other. Each of these philosophers’ key points will be looked and the inner working of out they thought a city should be run.
John Locke views civil society—a group that is under the authority of an exclusive leader who is in charge of protecting their welfare through legislation—as a crucial repellant to absolute monarchy as well as vital to protecting an individual’s property, because its origin which is the paternal model where an individual gives up certain rights in return for protection from an executive. In his Second Treatise on Government, Locke pushes the idea that God did not intend for a man to be alone, but to have the option of joining a society amongst other men. Continuing with this notion, he explains the origins of the civil society through the paternal model which he considers as the beginning of society of people coming together under one man.
Early colonial experiences had a tremendous affect on the founder’s view about rights and limited self-government. Accordingly, Thomas Jefferson explained, “ Every man and every body of men on earth possess the right of self government. Jefferson’s view defined the belief of many of the colonists, that government must be representative of the people.
While freedom as a concept feels fairly intuitive, nuances in interpretation can change the basis of an argument. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America do not define liberty in precisely the same way, which in turn guides two different visions in how a government should function.
The purpose of the government is to ensure that every citizen has equal rights and privileges, to defend every member of the society, and to promote both the public and private interests of the people. The issue of how to best protect and promote both private and public interests was addressed by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. In his work, Leviathan, Hobbes proposes that absolute monarchy is the ideal type of government because under the other types of government, the citizens will pursue their private interests at the expense of the public interests. In contrast, Locke’s work, Second Treatise of Government, propose that a democracy is the proper solution to achieve the goal of the government in terms of equality for all its people. Locke’s
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” While writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson believed these ideals were to be the focus of the government. This phrase, however, was adapted from John Locke’s focus of government: “Life, liberty, and property.” John Locke, unlike other philosopher such as Hobbes, believed that personal property was essential for life and protecting that property was to protect yourself. Locke also believes that with the ownership of property comes unequal property ownership Today, there are still debates on what constitutes one’s property and how to implement policies that can create an equal distribution of property (ex. The wage gap). Locke, therefore, argues that different types of property ownership, even in the state of nature, comes from adding value to that
“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)
Self-interest is when people settle on choices that are in their own particular best advantage. Like then you choose to get up toward the beginning of the day to go to work and profit, or when you pay the supermarket for sustenance that you might want to eat.
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.