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. 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
According to Socrates, virtue is good and is a kind of knowledge. He starts his argument by stating in 87d that virtue is good. Following this, Socrates claims that “If then there is anything else good that is different and separate from knowledge, virtue might well not be a kind of knowledge” (87d). I interpret this to mean that if good is a subset knowledge, then virtue is a kind of knowledge. He then follows this by examining how virtue is good in order to show that is a kind of knowledge.
He could have fixated on the positive and negative consequences of a person's actions; such as what impact Euthyphro's prosecution would have on his family. Or, he could have fixated on whether a particular action complies with the rules or not, such as the question of whether his father transgressed a law. These are some approaches of other philosophers. However, these were not Plato's main intrigues; Plato was eager instead to consider, what actions are most salutary for the human soul. As a result, Plato is kenned for his fixate on virtue ethics, an approach to ethics that places highlight on one's moral character.
Justice, as defined in the dictionary is behaving according to what is right and fair. However, Plato goes even beyond this definition. He understood justice as a special sort of balance and harmony of the soul. Harmony is attained through the satisfaction of the desires and fulfillment of the three components of the soul, which are reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason is the desire for knowledge and orderliness.
Thucydides and Plato have a clear set boundary in their writings as to what type of assertion they are fabricating. Thucydides sets a very narrow view with his piece of The Peloponnesian War that holds more weight in solid evidence of what a “good life” is demonstrated as. Plato, on the other hand, has several writings that go into depth of weighing what someone’s soul ought to have within itself. The statement of Thucydides making empirical claims, with Plato making normative claims, is supported with evidence in their respected works. For a claim to be considered similar to an empirical one, it must be almost like it is a law to be followed.
An argument on “Beauty is Subjective” GUO, Jiongji (Lyndon) Just as Plato has written in Hippias Major, for which sustained inquiry into beauty is seen as central to Platonic aesthetics: “Nevertheless beauty is not just any form.” From his aesthetic theory, we can come across that Beauty behaves as canonical Platonic Forms do. It possesses the reality that Forms have and is discovered through the same dialectic that brings other Forms to light. Simply saying, the quality of beauty always stands prior to beauty. Based on his theory, it is of vital importance to find out the way you exert the Form into the item, subjectively or objectively. In this approach, I hold the view that beauty is subjective instead of objective.
The state achieves this by implementing laws which promote justice and virtue, by educating its people so that they may make better and more informed choices toward happiness, and by overall promoting the interests of the whole rather than that of any one individual. However, the just state may be impossible according to Plato and Aristotle, but this is not to say that we should give up entirely. Rather, we should make note of the just city and continuously aspire to that ultimate state of happiness, for the city that aspires toward justice, although imperfect, is the best possible condition we are capable of
When it comes to happiness there are various answers as each person and philosopher like Aristotle, Hedonics and contemporary viewers like me all have different views and definition. When searching for the word “happiness” on google it is defined as “the state of being happy”. But many questions, how do we achieve this so-called happiness? Philosophers like Aristotle believes that happiness is the goal of the human life and is attainable thorough our actions. Hedonics believes that happiness is based on one’s emotion and life satisfactions, whereas contemporary viewers like me believe it to be obvious goods like pleasure, wealth and honor.