I also didn’t see Aristotle provide examples of what a coward, courageous, or reckless person may resemblance to. As for someone who is reckless might actually provide happiness or security for some people in different communities and achieve the goals of what they all wanted. Overall, Aristotle is not a relativistic person as he didn’t think of how it might compare to a relative person. I think this has to do with the fact that he is a victorian morality and didn’t really get to experience situations
Happiness doesn’t come from how much knowledge you have but instead comes from your heart when you help someone. There should not be an underlying motive for doing good. Russell connects love and happiness together when he explains that in the opinion of the traditional moralist, “love should be unselfish.” He disagrees with this statement and elaborates by illustrating a situation in which a man asks a woman to marry him. Through this, he portrays that we should try to make our loved ones happy, but it should not be a priority before our own happiness. People can be very selfish even when their initial intentions are good.
Human nature is irrational; and to force individuals who’ve been bound to rationalism to let go of rational actions and seek personal freedom is only going to create mass suffering for those who cannot think in the same selfish and righteous way of Equality. Equality has good meaning in his ideals; however it is easy to subjectively ignore that there is possibility that others may from even actions intended to free them to seek happiness. Ideally a world would exist where all could live together in peace, where all could respect one another’s happiness; but due to the inherently subjective way humans interact with the surrounding world, it is merely impossible for such a world to exist. Rules only seek to try to build such a world; but it’s impossible for
Mills explains Utilitarianism as achieving life’s goals, it is what everyone wants or seek for. He further explains that utilitarianism promotes the quality of life. Furthermore, utilitarianism is connected to happiness, because we all seek to achieve different goals in life, and those goals are what makes up happy. We all want certain things in life, or want to achieve certain things. Utilitarianism promotes happiness, happiness exclude pain, suffering, struggles, stress, and anything that makes one ‘unhappy’ or ‘sad’.
Even the answer of Eichmann demonstrates how wrong Kantian ethics had been misused and misinterpreted by him. Nevertheless, according to Kantian ethics, a personal life should not have a confliction with the law which is another reason that indicates that Eichmann was not a true “proper”
In short knowing and doing are in the same line. In knowing the truth your virtues will ultimately be guided by this knowledge. The “telos” or ultimate goal of human life for Aristotle is to attain “happiness”. “Happiness” here is does not mean the common meaning which we use everyday but it is more synonymous to the war “eudaimonia” which means to be in a state of being that is in good spirit. This emphasis that happiness is not just a temporary thing but a permanent outlook on life which means that they only way for us to truly know whether we have had a happy life is when we die.
When we aware somebody’s need, we either prefer to help or we prefer not to. If we sympathize with them, we will offer kindness and at the same time a gracious connection is made. This is the positive power that each of us possess. Moreover, this is the most powerful act of generosity because true generosity is pure and giving any without expectation and no demand to be repaid. Random acts of kindness are the essential and vital to human well-being as they set us free from isolation, egoism and selfishness.
Her thesis is that not everyone is able to participate in their society’s “happy activities” because the dominant groups use happiness to systematically exclude and marginalize certain communities, thereby withholding the socio-political conditions for happiness.The moral issue here is materialism more specifically, the belief that people can buy happiness is immoral. Ahmed makes it clear to her audience that she isn’t focusing on the ways to be happy like so many other philosophers before her, in particular Aristotle. She has a very different approach for understanding how people
People being naturally conceded also is not persuasive because everyone has different personalities, meaning that nobody is truly the same. Another non-persuasive thing that was mentioned was that if we act with our desires and pleasures than our overall happiness will be better since we worked towards that desire. This is not persuasive because most of the time if we gain our desires then we just want something more, it is an endless cycle of wants and
This conception allows him to isolate two features of what he determines the ‘end goal’ or ‘final purpose’. The first, it being the most perfect or most complete good and the second, that it be self sufficient. This end is not a subjective object of desire. It also cannot be assumed that this human good is something which all humans pursue. Rather, it is what we should pursue and as such provides us with a standard that can normatively evaluate the good of human life.
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b). This argument, though most people would intuitively disagree with it, is in reality quite compelling. Just as those who are colorblind can not paint, and the crippled can not run, those with a naturally flawed or warped view of what is good can not be virtuous.
Fahrenheit 451, a book created by the mind of Ray Bradbury, was made to show the challenges of the Utopian lifestyle, but it is also a fantastic example of the Hero’s Journey. "We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against.” -Bradbury pg 56. The most common idea of a utopian lifestyle is when everything is the same but, a Utopian lifestyle is defined as everything being perfect.
A good person will necessarily be happy because every positive means results in a positive end. The main goal for every action is happiness. Every man desires happiness and therefore they will do good to attain it. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from the inside and is an activity that is based on choices. If a person is not happy, that means he failed to choose the right path or decision.