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.
This kind of self-lover would “give up money in a case in which his friends would get more money, since there would be money for the friend, but a beautiful act for himself, so that he distributes the greater good to himself” (174:1169a27-30). In a narrow sense, this person is acting out of self-love or selfishness. However, unlike the irrational self-lover, everyone “approves of and praises those who are exceptionally zealous about beautiful actions” (173:1169a7-8). Indeed, Aristotle writes that any “good person ought to be a lover of self, since he will both profit himself and benefit the others by performing beautiful actions” (173:1169a12-13). This is why Aristotle considers the self-lover to be another useful paradigm in exploring human
During his discussion with Socrates, Euthyphro agrees with much of Socrates reasoning. One of these many concessions is that “the gods love the pious act because it is pious”. This concession ultimately leads to Socrates defeating Euthyphro’s claim. Therefore, Euthyphro should have answered slightly different than just a defeated “yes”. However, because of Euthyphro’s definition of the pious, equating the pious to the god loved, the statement is circular in understanding, but it remains a true statement.
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 Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle synthesizes an enthralling dissertation that, “the human good proves to be activity of soul in accord with excellence” (1098a 16-17) which requires, “a rational principle” (1098a 7-8). Even though some critics may contend that the human good lies within something other than excellently acting in accordance with reason, the case set forth in Nicomachean Ethics attempts to dismiss such detractors as inordinately obstinate in their parochial ideology. To support his conclusion, Aristotle adroitly employs several cogent premises. This paper will explain how Aristotle reaches his conclusion and examine potential flaws in his argument First, I will state each proposition in Aristotle’s argument. After I present an individual
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,
Acting like an ethical guideline rather than a strict rulebook suggests that perhaps the golden rule doesn’t need to be taken so literally, and is more about empathy and sympathy with another’s situation. Regardless, It does have some flaws however, a large problem with the golden rule is that everyone likes being treated different ways, for example, a masochist would enjoy being hit but many other people would not, Karl Popper wrote about his ‘platinum rule: the golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto other, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by.’ I think this is a good point because of the first criticism of the golden rule written above, however, Kant, Nietzsche and Bertrand Russel rejected this rule on a variety of grounds but the most important was its application, how can one know how others want to be treated? One could obviously ask them but this wouldn’t be widely applicable because one would have to ask every single person they interact with how they would
In Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Morals of the Prince” and Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave,” human nature is presented in different ways addressing the concepts of seeming and being. While Plato stresses the importance of being rather than seeming, Machiavelli reveals human nature is more successful when seeming rather than being. In Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave,” Socrates emphasizes that the only way to separate what seems like reality and what actually is reality is to experience it in its purest form. Knowledge gained from the senses is nothing more than opinion, and to obtain real knowledge we must use philosophical reasoning. Knowledge already exists inside a soul, but it is crucial that this knowledge be pointed toward the good in order to benefit future rulers.
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”.
To look at whether restraint is ethical, Utilitarianism and Kant’s ethical theory can be applied to cases where patients have been restrained. These theories have different ways for deciding if an act is acceptable or not. Utilitarian theory is the belief (based on morals) that an action is right if it creates the greatest good for the most people. It is based on the calculated consequence or outcome of a specific action. If somebody using an utilitarian approach thinks an action would bring the most pleasure or happiness to the majority of people then it would be the right thing to do.