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
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
Consequentialists are a group of philosophers who asses whether an act is right or wrong based on the consequences of the action. There are different types of consequentialism including: ethical egoism, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. These three branches of consequentialism will be discussed later in this paper. A supererogatory act is something that is good but is not obligatory; these acts involve rendering aid to others that go above moral requirement. Consequentialists claim that there are no supererogatory acts; an act either produces the most pleasure and is therefore morally good, or it brings about pain and is morally bad.
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,
One of these philosophers is Kant, another one is Aristotle. For Kant, our moral decisions depend on some duties and we ought to act as required by our choices but for Aristotle, if our decisions aim at some goods, they are absolutely ethical. In my opinion, Aristotelian arguments for moral decision
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.
Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried. Similarly, there is a difference between something being in the state of being loved because it is loved and something being loved
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”.
Aristotle adds that a situation would most likely arise in one's life where they must choose which end they wish to work towards and this would result in one becoming superior to the other (Annas 32). If one was unable to determine which one of the ends they valued more they would simply be reduced to randomly choosing which to pursue. Aristotle argues that someone must have at least one final end by stating that if one does not value anything in life for its own sake then life would be empty and vain, and we know that life is not empty and vain (Annas 32). Through this rationalization it is only reasonable to believe that one should seek a sole final
And yet again, Socrates is able to react to this quote by causing Euthyphro to question his statement by replying, “And to give correctly is to give them what they need from [e] us, for it would not be skillful to bring gifts to anyone that are in no way needed.” (p.19). Through this reiteration of Euthyphro’s statement regarding gifting the gods, Socrates is able subtly hinting that a true, “good” entity should not require to be gifted from a being of a lower status and instead should help others as it is in their “good” nature. For God wants to help humans for the sake of working