The first topic in philosophical ethics I would like to discuss is Aristotle’s virtue ethics. As an objectionist, Aristotle tried to determine what a good person is. To Aristotle, happiness is what made you a good person, and that is what the chief goal in life is. He believed that happiness was achieved when a species determines its’ own telos, or purpose. Along with that, Aristotle determined three facts of humanity.
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
Aristotle conceives ethical theories in his time.He divulge the ideas of the goods and morale by studying the nature of arête (“virtue”).Proposing that we humans of the world is oblige to do what is right,do our duties and moral for our humanity . Aristotle search for the good is a search for the highest good and highest good has three characteristic: it is not desirable for the sake of other good and all other good is desirable for sake. ”What we need, is a proper appreciation of the way in which such goods as friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth fit together as a whole”(Aristotle) He wrote his ethical theories for us to be able to know and to apply it in our daily lives in general understanding in our particular cases.Aristotle set virtue and excellence are required in doing anything.Aristotle was known to two ethical treatise: Eudaimonian Ethics and Nichomachean Ethics. .Both treatise tells the nature of purpose of human morale. Eudemian ethics,came from the word eudaimonia which means happiness,is a fruitful work of Aristotle from Nichomachean Ethics.The greek word eudaimon is composed of two parts:”eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or spirit”.To be eudaimon is therefore to be living in a way that is favor with God.But Aristotle regards a mere substitute for eudaimon as “living well”.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the concept of happiness is introduced as the ultimate good one can achieve in life as well as the ultimate goal of human existence. As Aristotle goes on to further define happiness, one can see that his concept is much different from the 21st-century view. Aristotelian happiness can be achieved through choosing to live the contemplative life, which would naturally encompass moralistic virtue. This differs significantly from the modern view of happiness, which is heavily reliant on material goods. To a person in the 21st-century, happiness is simply an emotional byproduct one experiences as a result of acquiring material goods.
The philosophical life/life of study –intellectual contemplation which responds to our rational side. It means to naturally have the interest and curiosity because for Aristotle the education is the cultivation of the character. 10. How does Aristotle define moral virtue in Nicomachean Ethics II, 1107a1-3? Explain the various parts of this definition.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle lays the groundwork for his perspective on virtue ethics, articulating the relationship between happiness, or eudaimonia, and virtue, or aréte. Aristotle’s particularly unique concept of happiness follows from his belief that happiness is the only end that humans wish to achieve that is purely an end in itself, and not a means as well, rather than an emotional disposition of happiness in the modern understanding of the word. Similarly, the Greek idea of virtue doesn’t have the same connection to duty that it does in English, rather it is most synonymously related to excellence. That is, to be virtuous is to be excellent at what you are. For example, a sharp knife is virtuous because it is good for cutting things;
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,
They possess these rights simply by being human. He even makes it clear that not all humans can or will act morally, but because they are humans, rights still apply to them. This objection to Machan clearly fails. Machan’s argument follows that of course groups like babies and the mentally challenged possess rights. They are human and, therefore, do have rights.
Numerous people have attempted to justify the use of such methods by putting down or rather, dismissing the animal as a creature lacking the mental capacities to be considered equals to that of a human being. In their book "Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issue" authors Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum say, "holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves" (104). He then goes on to explain that "animals do not have such moral capacities" (Baird 105). And as a result of this "we can't violate their rights because they have none" (Baird 105). Dismissing the animal as nothing more then an object may not seem like the most reasonable defense against the use of animals for testing
Virtue ethics is an ethical system that measures morality as virtue. Being virtuous is having desirable or 'good ' character attributes. Aristotle taught that a virtue is the midpoint between two vices, which are extremes. This spot is known as the Golden Mean. It is the perfect spot between the two extremes of deficiency and excess.