However, they focus more so on the plural form of good, while Aristotle talks of the singular form of good. This form of good is used to talk of goods that are loved for the goods themselves. He then says that goods should be called two separate things, the goods that are good for their uses, and the other being the goods that are good by themselves. Aristotle then asks if the goods that are good by themselves are called good merely because of a singular idea. What things would people call good by themselves?
Then who is the right one? Well, if we were obliged to choose one of them, my suggestion would be for Aristotle, even though Hobbes makes definite, original and precise statements and observations on the manner and attitude of human’s nature. Why I do not prefer Hobbes is that he fails to notice and discern the natural and particular goodness of nature of man. Let’s examine Aristotle’s standpoints, then Hobbes’, and make a finish with comparative
Immanuel Kant, the creator of Kantianism, was an absolutist, meaning that he believed rules were not to be broken, no matter what. Also, the Kantian theory differs from utilitarianism and Aristotle’s virtue ethics because it does not believe happiness is the chief good. In Kantianism, the chief good is good will, which can be defined as a human will that a person commits out of respect for moral law. An action has moral worth when it is done out of good will. Kant believed that the actions that are done out of good will are not only moral, but are also our duty (Kant,
On the other hand, Plato takes a stance of a more theoretical view. His study into the soul is showing what is logical to the individual’s values. His stories consider that while conditions may be applied, what should be right is still a higher value Thus, this leads me to conclude that Thucydides makes empirical claims and Plato makes
Within Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he considers humanity and its relationship with moral virtue. By the end of this essay, I will have summarized how Aristotle sees virtue as something that can be improved through repetition and what sort of ideology is required for an action to be considered virtuous. Also, I will address how one may disagree with Aristotle’s views on how a person learns to become virtuous, thinking that the concept of virtue must be precisely defined rather than as free-formed as Aristotle understands it. Following that counterargument, I shall refute it by explaining how a satisfactory childhood impresses society’s code of conduct upon a youth and how a youth learns how to apply that code of conduct through trial and error. According to Aristotle, each individual has the ability to develop moral virtue, yet, this moral virtue is initially negligible in a person’s life since they do not possess the proper faculties to understand society’s expectations.
Augustine’s response to this dilemma was to introduce or to develop such rhetoric that could be used in explaining the concept of God. (Sayre,2016) His answer to this dilemma is close to the concept of Plato or what we can call “true rhetoric” which means that if we want to contemplate God in mind, one must prepare himself in such a way that he cleanses his mind first.
Within the second book of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”, he expands upon the ultimate human good of happiness, and interprets virtues of character in order to clarify his connection between the two. Although virtuous activity is differentiated into irrational and rational desires, a combination of both is important for one’s soul (Aristotle). Furthermore, an excessive or deficient amount of any activity is capable of corrupting one’s virtue of character, but can be counteracted by properly habituating these extremities to intermediary levels (Aristotle). However, distinguishing between too much and too little effort can be complicated and that is why humans rely on feelings in order to interpret their progress in life. Aristotle interprets
“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. The quote above is the opening statement of this book. It is saying that in all that man does, he/she seeks some good as ends or means.
According to Lao-Tzu, “Recognize beauty and ugliness is born. Recognize good and evil is born. Is and Isn’t produce each other,” (Tao Te Ching 2). In this case, Confucius leans further toward Aristotle, as he places great significance on using correct names. A reader of both Confucius and Aristotle can immediately notice the resemblance between their views of how people should behave.
Virtue is important when people consider their own characters: virtues are what defines a person, what they stand for, what they believe in. The argument made here is that virtue is a type of knowledge, as Plato states in Meno. In Meno, Socrates and Meno talk about how virtue is not a type of knowledge, up until they describe it. Socrates says, “If then virtue is something in the soul and it must be beneficial, it must be knowledge, since all the qualities of the soul are in themselves neither beneficial nor harmful, but accompanied by wisdom or folly they become harmful or beneficial.” (88c4-88d2) Wisdom is necessary for the characteristics of the soul, such as that brashness is a result of courage without wisdom, and because an understanding is necessary to have virtue, it is a characteristic of