This final end is what Aristotle means by the chief good. The chief good is good for its own sake and all other goods are means. Aristotle purposes that happiness is the chief good. It makes since if we think about it. Happiness is desirable, I can’t use happiness to achieve any
The doctrines of happiness: There are different perspectives on happiness, two of which are the hedonic and the eudaimonic views. Both views have roots in philosophy, such as Aristotle and Aristippus. Despite their ancient origins, these views on human well-being are relevant even today. The hedonic view encompasses the idea those people are happiest when their life is filled with positive experiences and emotions, without negative ones. According to Fredrickson et al.
Machiavelli argued that the most victorious kings were not those who acted in line with dictates of law, or justice, or conscience, however those willing to try to do anything that was necessary to preserve their own control--and therefore indirectly preserve the goodness of the state. Machiavelli tells us that the sovereign should take any action that is important to keep up the order in society. In time this may result in the most compassionate decision too. Machiavelli explains that, Cesare Borgia, by by making use of cruelty was able to accomplish order, goodness and obedience in Romagna. On the other hand, due to the inaction of the Florentines, allowed internal conflict to develop in Pistoia, leading to devastation of the town.
Machiavelli’s views are based on a constant improvement of the state. In contrast, More’s ideas on a flawless civilization have the superior framework for a happy, comfortable, and stable society. In Utopia, the avoidance of war showcases true internal strength. Even though Machiavelli states, “war can’t be avoided, and putting it off will work to the advantage of others,” he fails to notice the strategic ways More describes in his preventions of war. Machiavelli’s brutish method to win wars leads to the downfall of his own population which More evades.
The fact that one has the right to say and believe is the foundation for democracy to function. If no one dared to say their opinions, then it had become a dictatorship where only one opinion on how society and the country should work had been the “right”. If people dared to express their opinions, they will help improving the society one lives. Freedom of speech gives one the responsibility to consider what fits into different contexts, and it will make us better persons and people. Simply, people will feel safe in the society they live in.
By experiencing the same emotion of audience is sort of ‘cleansing of the soul’ can through communication of emotion in the work of art. Just the soul is superior to the body, so is the rational part of the soul superior to the irrational part. Philosophy is good in itself because it good for what they can bring us, but others are good in themselves. The fact that it is worthwhile without bringing us anything extra means that it is one of the very highest good in soul not that it is useless. Clearly, the exhortation to philosophy was a passionate argument for dedicating one’s life to philosophy
Comparative analysis of Aristotelian Equality In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle asserts one cannot live a virtuous and fulfilling life without the presence of a friend, despite the presence of the essential goods. In addition to his point, he states the best friendships are built upon a true equality which in turn builds on the mutual contributions and goodness of the character of the individuals within a friendship. Without equality, Aristotle argues, friendships tend to fall apart either due to eventual conflicts of interest or the friendship outliving it usefulness. However, some might argue the best friendships do not need any equality among individuals and can still produce the benefits of a Aristotle definition of the best friendship. Although this argument suggests the absence of equality produces a better friendship and life, I will defend Aristotle’s view by presenting textual evidence from of Nicomachean Ethics proving otherwise.
“Melians (90): It is useful at any rate the way we see it, not to destroy a principle that works for the common good; that one falling in danger should be treated with fairness and justice, and thus benefit from this, if he can persuade his judges, even short of the exact limits.” At this point the Athenians were quite confident in their power, and didn’t need power. Since they were stronger than the Melians, it means that it was better for the Melians to think of their survival and not justice at that point. According to the Athenians, justice would only be considered when both sides are neutral. However, the Melians were not ready to give up on justice as they believed that it was a principle that works for the common
He/she should be of good character and has the characteristics of an ideal Confucian official. If he is a good official, he can use the law without destroying the moral basis. Combining the Western and Confucian thought about the characteristics of a good official is what I think a good solution to help our country change for the better. We do not remove law but we let the morals and values be in government officials. People would say that law destroys the society for it prevents us to be free.
This makes Plato seem to be a fantastic source, it is full of discoveries and creativity, and it is not afraid to let know. For example in the Republic, he treats happinessas a state of perfection that is hard to comprehend because it is base don metaphysical presuppositions that seem hazy and imposible to be understood by ordinary thinkers. Then he comes up with this new theory about happiness, and how it is all inside each persons desire to fulfill his or her own desires. Trying to look for a safe place, and with safety, comes great happiness. It is said that Plato began with short dialogues, which questioned basic morals such as courage, justice, moderation and so on.
The founding fathers believed that the government’s purpose was to secure the unalienable rights of American citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by protecting them against violations by foreign enemies. Although, the progressives believed that the purpose of the government was to give people the benefit of the programs the government have, while making the people more socially responsible. The Founding Fathers believed it was for the greater good of everyone to be free and do things on their own. They thought that if people had less rules and were able to do whatever they want there would be and inequality of the wealthiness. The Founding Fathers made the difference of political equality and economic equality very clear.
Thus, how imagery assists with the idea that DREAMers are less crime-prone than Native-born Americans. Given all these points, it can be derived that ethos, logos, and imagery were implemented in the article in order to successfully persuade the audience. Landgrave and Nowrasteh (2017) both use well-recognized organizations, as well as testable facts to support outlook in DREAMers legalization. Nevertheless, creating vivid images of the better future of tomorrow with DREAMers by our side paints a full picture as to why DREAMers are less crime-prone and should be accepted into our country. After all, aren’t we all human beings working hard for our