In Aristotle, "Nicomachean Ethics", the author conveys that the nature of his universe is place where you aim for happiness and to be a good person. The author explains that the goal of reading "Nicomachean Ethics" is for the reader to determine the best way to achieve their own happiness and to be good person by using their moral virtues that were thought to them. To achieve this, you have to understand your virtues and the kind of person you are. Every human is born goodness in their soul, but what you do with it will determine your happiness. In addition, when do good deeds from the goodness of heart that will also contribute to your happiness and show that your selfless person. Aristotle explains that we should see our life as whole and …show more content…
That's separate human from animals because human is rational being and they control there thinking and action. Also, humans have the ability to distinguish between good and bad. This ability is something that was thought very early on in a person life. They develop an intellectual and moral virtue. The Author, explains that humans learn the intellectual virtues by instruction and you learn moral virtues by practice or habit. All humans are born good or in other words morally virtuous. This gives the humans the ability wants to be good and do good things because it's embedded in their soul and what makes a human good person. Aristotle shares that human being need a purpose and reason to why we are here on this earth. We as human have the desire to know what mission in life. For example, Is it to share happiness or help other, etc. However, the decisions and what's in our hearts is going to determine if we are good or bad. Moreover, we as human have the goodness in that is a virtue that we use to make good decisions that makes us proud or a sense of accomplishment. Having the ability to understand that our goodness comes from our virtue we will fulfilled and bring us
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.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book ll, is about his idea of how people should live a virtuous life. Throughout this book, he explains that humans learn virtue from instructions and we learn virtue from practice too. Virtue is something that is very important because it is a moral habit that results in keeping our moral values. Aristotle believed that nobody is born with virtue, everyone has to work at it daily. After reading Nicomachean ethics, Book ll, my main conclusion of it is that us as humans are better off being virtuous than simply doing what we feel like doing at any moment in time.
From Mencian view, human nature (xing) is inherently good. Mencius 6A/2 states that humans’ good nature is like water’s nature to flow down, which means that even if we do bad things, our nature is still good. Mencius 2A/6 and 6A/6 name the goodness we all have as the “four hearts”, the heart of compassion, shame, deference (respect in 6A/6) and judgment. The four hearts are inherently present within us like part of us, and hence natural to us, as stated in 2A/6 and 6A/6. Despite the good nature, we need to do something to have a good life.
In the first chapter, Aristotle claims that friendship is needed among humans. He also claims that there is more than one kind of friendship and that people who disagree have a misguided mindset. He says they see these different forms of friendship as factions, and not entirely dissimilar concepts. At the beginning of chapter two, he thinks we can more clearly see the differences if we understand the object of love. Continuing, Aristotle claims that there are three lovable types of things.
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.
This question has been asked for hundreds of years, are humans born inherently good or bad? Some might argue that as people mature, society’s influences ultimately determine whether or not that person will end up being good or bad. These people suggest that humans are naturally born of good intent. Many studies show that this may be true. In another case it can be argued that some people are born with a natural instinct to do bad things.
We may not have complete control over our lives, but let us not fail to pay attention to our intuitions and our experiences of it. Many aspects go into deciding whether one is morally good or bad and ultimately can be traced back to
Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused. In order to evaluate Aristotle’s ethical argument, it is first necessary to explain his definitions of character acquisition, volition, and responsibility. Aristotle defines character acquisition very succinctly:
Therefore, if one wishes to be healthy, he can choose to eat healthy and practice sports, but his choice of being healthy just by its own will not predict the outcome of actually being healthy. Conclusively, “choice relates to the means and wish relates rather to the end”. Additionally, Aristotle also expatiates on anger and appetite. These characteristics, for Aristotle are related to pleasure and feelings which are themselves relate to all animals. However, choice is not for that choice is only related to rational beings.
Aristotle asserts that contemplation in and of itself is separate from virtue, but that “in so far as he is a human being and a member of society [the contemplative man] chooses to act in accordance with virtue” (Aristotle 274). While there is much scholarly debate over the exact relationship between morally virtuous activity and contemplation, there is a sense of agreement that “a commitment to contemplative activity is a necessary feature of moral activity,” and thus contemplation is the “end of morally virtuous activity” (Bush 54). Essentially, the purpose of a virtuous activity is to achieve contemplation, which is happiness. As Aristotelian happiness is achieved by choosing to live a contemplative life and through contemplation itself, it is much different from the more materialistic 21st-century view of
What signifies a noble, valuable and satisfying life? Aristotle says that good life comes with the implementation of virtues ideas. By definition, Aristotle states that virtue entails the act of attaining excellence and having the ability to know good and righteous and be able to accordingly (Foot, 2002). That virtue is a state of character that is helpful in achieving a satisfactory and happy life, which, according to Aristotle is a life with reason. Doctrine of the mean
In this respect every human deed is already predetermined by the aim one want to achieve but the quality of the action is not the same for it varies from the life one lead. These principles can be applied to the objects as it was mentioned on the example of a flute. For every sphere there is a definite virtue – for the generalship that is victory, for building – an edifice and for every choice or action that is the aim. For most cases the aim is happiness in different forms depending on the lifestyle of the seeker, and this happiness is always on account of itself, not for something else. For Aristotle this is a final and thus – perfect aim that is a result of all efforts.
Also, an imposed lifestyle, this has to do with fame or wealth. Aristotle calls these a life of study and moneymaker, although not all about wealth. All these actions have a particular end, but we can still argue about it. Also, we find interest in happiness, thereby it is important that “we must examine virtue; for that will perhaps also be a way to study happiness better” (283). We determine to be good by involving our whole functions as human, which has to be within the soul that reveals virtue.
If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of
Aristotle refers to the soul as a part of the human body and what its role is in pursuing true happiness