Comparing Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics And Function Argument

1176 Words5 Pages
Nicomachean Ethics and Function Argument
In the first book of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s informs the reader what Eudaimonia, or living well, is. The purpose of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, is to discover the human good. For Aristotle, the way to figure out a human being’s good, we have to identify what the function of a human being is. Throughout Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that human function is rational activity and reason. Aristotle’s quest to determine what Eudaimonia, which can be translated to happiness and success, is in the Nicomachean Ethics and leads him to the question of the function of human beings. After reading all ten books of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, I am left perplexed when it comes to two points Aristotle argues about. Throughout this essay, I will argue against Aristotle’s definition of happiness and if a human being truly has a function or purpose.
Before I begin my arguments against Aristotle’s ideas of the purpose of a human being and his definition of happiness, I will provide some background
…show more content…
Aristotle believes that the “good” depends on its’ function, and if the function is performed well, then it exudes virtue. So if humans do indeed have a function, a good human will perform the function well. The human’s function then is the soul’s rational activity. Humans differ from plants and animals because we are rational beings. Therefore, human function is exclusive and only present in humans. The uniqueness of human beings can also be tested. If we are the only unique animals with rationality, that makes us unique and good, according to Aristotle. Human beings are the only animals that can be serial killers or drug dealers which makes it a unique capacity to human beings but not a good one. This means that just because something is unique, which would be good to Aristotle, does not mean it makes a human
Open Document