Difference Between Aristotle And Machiachean Ethics

874 Words4 Pages
In todays world there is a distinct gap which separates virtue (ethics) from politics. For instance, the two distinct areas are not usually studied together, but are mostly separated from one another. This is far different than Aristotle’s approach in which he grouped both areas together because he felt that they are both practical sciences concerned with good action. Nicomachean Ethics is where his beliefs come to the forefront, with his connection of politics and virtue. He argues that all of the sciences are put to use in political science, which make it the master of promoting human good. He states that the “true politician is thought to have put most of his effort into studying virtue” (NE, 13). I take this to mean that the study of virtue seems to be of primary importance to both politicians and political scientists.…show more content…
Aristotle says that in order to be a proper student of ethics, the student must already have substantial life experience and instruction in virtue. A student that is not properly informed in ethics will not profit from the subject of virtue because this person is more inclined to listen to their own passions than to actually reason. (NE, Ch.1) Branching off of that, Aristotle believes that to be a leader, one should have the highest moral virtues achievable. They must have virtue in perfection. He also says that humans practice virtues because embracing them are what it means to be happy. According to Aristotle, moral virtue is what defines a leader. Without a leader, society ceases to exist, which means that the leader is truly the whole society. If you do not have a leader you are living a Barbarian life. Aristotle and Machiavelli do agree on the stratification of society, with the ruler being on top and the subjects below
Open Document