Where there is a higher good, there is a government striving to achieve those ambitions. Furthermore, the extent to which Aristotle 's nativity can be applied when analysing the above statement is not relevant. Although, governments do have internal issues they still make actions that strive for morality. This being in regards to not only what is the highest good, but also to protect the people. Therefore, Aristotle’s thoughts on the matter are rightfully just and full of good judgement. “The highest good” in Aristotle’s works is not an easy idea to define. Within Politics it’s described as being something aimed at by political communities and in other works, such as Ethics, it’s described as being composed of three characteristics. (7) However, due to the topic of discussion being in relation to human government, the description from Politics will be more applicable. Aristotle …show more content…
However, what would be the purpose of human government if not to aim for the highest good? If Aristotle was naive in nature how would that be supported? There are several flaws in national power, such as the post system perhaps, however that does not mean the government does not care about it’s people 's well being. Unless there were no signs of external productivity being made by a collection of people then there’s a problem with the government 's system. Which goes back to Aristotle’s point he makes discussing how the state itself was only formed after the first hierarchy of human needs were met. (8/9) This being in relation if the people are too busy worrying about their safety the government is not aiming for the highest good. However, as discussed prior there are numerous actions taken place that help insure the well being of the community. Because of this structure that has been put in place, the people are put at ease and allowed to be happy. This happiness then transfers over to further continue a steadily growing population that facilitates the drive to continue peace and
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.
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
Document Based Essay 2 James Madison once wrote, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Throughout every era in history, nations establish a government with the responsibility of safeguarding the principles, morals, and ideals of mankind. Unfortunately, this establishment seemingly abandons that responsibility and further magnifies the corruption within human individuals and society as a whole.
As we have established, if the primary role of the state is to secure and maintain the most possible happiness for the people, the surely an unjust state would not be a state capable of achieving this goal. Monarchies seem the ideal constitution to Aristotle because the virtue of the monarch is not diluted by the potentially selfish desires of others. However, this is also the least stable of the
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. ”1 -Thomas Paine, “Common Sense” In 1763, Dr. Samuel Johnson, an Englishman, said, “If the abuse is enormous, nature will rise up, and claiming her original rights, overturn a corrupt political system.” This statement has been validated throughout the course of human history.
Does John Locke have an answer to Aristotle’s question of: “what is a good citizen”? 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).
In Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle brings up the idea that in order to discover the human good we must first develop a certain understanding and identify the function of a human being. Aristotle’s function argument is brought up through his belief that the human function is rational activity, meaning that our good as human beings is rational activity performed fine because this is what leads to living well. The good Aristotle tries to get across can be seen in many different forms depending on how it is viewed, because of the idea that the main function of anything is to reach a final end, the final end is considered the good. “The end of medicine is health, that of shipbuilding, a ship, that of military science, victory…” (Nicomachean,
I think the purpose of government is to make and enforce laws the main purpose of government is to protect it citizen. The purpose of government is to keep strict order and to stop is citizens from hurting one another. An effective system of government protection it citizens. The purpose of government is to ensure the safety of the nation and its resident. While other concerns such as economic growth are important, governments primary duty is keep people save.
Aristotle thought the best form of government was a polity or constitutional government; however, a polity was non-existent in Aristotle’s time. Correspondingly, Locke
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.
Essay 1 Aristotle and John Locke both believe humans were not created to live alone but instead among other people of the same community. Humans are not independent beings, and those who live in isolation lack the purpose of life: becoming a citizen and exercising one 's full potential of human flourishing. According to Aristotle, the collective community or multitude of citizens coexisting with one another is happiness, whereas Locke believes that the collective community is protecting autonomy and property. Both philosophers believe that to become a citizen, one must contribute to politics with the intent of creating a better society for all. Aristotle and Locke however, have differing views on how a person accomplishes this.
Thomas Hobbes described that life in a state of nature would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In addition, no one would be able to survive in an Anarchy society where there is no order and the safeguard of others is at risk. Therefore, governments require for citizens to surrender some freedom to obtain the benefits of the government. Thus, the government has preserved its two major purposes: maintaining order and providing public goods to the public and an uprising purpose of promoting equality. The main and oldest purpose of government is to maintain order by establishing laws to preserve life and protect property.
Everyone has a perspective of their own about the government whether it be good or bad. Ancient Greek philosopher Plato and English philosopher John Locke both discuss the topic of government in their literatures. In the Republic by Plato, Plato introduces this concept of a just city. In this city, he believes that the older and wisest person(s) should rule as they are very knowledgeable. Everyone is born innately different according to Plato.
The concept of the Noble Lie is presented by Plato in the Republic. In Republic, Plato is engaged in creating an ideal political community, through the noble lie. The Noble Lie, ironically, despite being a lie, is still recognized as ‘noble’ by Plato since it aims to promote social welfare and harmony amongst the citizens. Plato’s idea of the noble lie led to the division of citizens into three distinct categories, namely, the rulers, the auxiliaries and the workmen . This paper will argue that Socrates principle of the Noble Lie must be considered justifiable under circumstances in which it intends to achieve moral ends.
Upon evaluating Aristotle’s ideals of citizenship, one finds a world wherein citizenship and freedom are one in the same – active participation in debate and deliberation in the political community through the exclusively human use of reason and speech capacities. Given this ideal of citizenship, it becomes the case that the ideas for human flourishing and thus the good life follow suit. For Aristotle, human flourishing comes from the cultivation of virtue that is a result of continued participation in the political community, or, continued intentional citizenship. For the good life, it is important to note that it is the continued practice of virtuous activity, rather than the obtaining, that is required. For, “…possession of virtue seems actually compatible with being asleep, or with lifelong inactivity, and, further, with the greatest sufferings and misfortunes; but a man who was living so no one would call happy…”