Aristotle believes that the “good” depends on its’ function, and if the function is performed well, then it exudes virtue. So if humans do indeed have a function, a good human will perform the function well. The human’s function then is the soul’s rational activity. Humans differ from plants and animals because we are rational beings. Therefore, human function is exclusive and only present in humans.
However, they focus more so on the plural form of good, while Aristotle talks of the singular form of good. This form of good is used to talk of goods that are loved for the goods themselves. He then says that goods should be called two separate things, the goods that are good for their uses, and the other being the goods that are good by themselves. Aristotle then asks if the goods that are good by themselves are called good merely because of a singular idea. What things would people call good by themselves?
The main principle of utilitarianism is happiness. People who follow this theory strive to fulfill the “ultimate good”. The “ultimate good” is defined as ultimate pleasure with out any pain. It is said that the pleasure can be of any quantity and any quality, but pleasures that are weighted more important are put at a higher level than others that are below it. This ethical theory also states that if society would fully embrace utilitarianism then people would naturally realize their moral standing in the
A species does not exist for the same reason as humans do; we are for different environments and different values. A man is often possessing reason and rationality different from an animal, that isn’t capable like a human would. Aristotle believes happiness, (especially in terms of pleasure) is a fleeting pleasure, something momentary and temporary. Aristotle concept of happiness entails a complete life, well lived. Aristotle wants us to keep in mind to seek the ultimate goal of human beings and the end goal (telos) or the purpose of each function because that’s what makes each individual unique.
The virtue of good engineer includes creativity, good understanding of culture, morality, and capability of communication. In utilitarian and Kantian view of ethics, such virtuous values are not taken into consideration. This short paper suggests how future engineers should apply the virtues and excellences in their fields and why virtuous engineers are more likely to contribute to society and make it better. In Aristotle’s view, virtue(arête) is defined as an essential factor to achieve happiness of an individual, while happiness(eudaimonia) is defined as an ultimate objective of human-being. Aristotle insisted that the order of priority may decide whether one’s goal should be considered as a means or the goal itself.
In my opinion, greater happiness helps society more, than great suffering, because I think it is just human nature to favor greater happiness instead of great suffering. As a result, I think it is morally permissible to torture if it results in greater happiness. This view is called utilitarianism where the main principle is to maximize utility, which is happiness or the prevention of pain. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that was founded by moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham. According to him, happiness and pain govern human actions, and so morality’s main principle is to “maximize happiness” and minimize pain (Sandel, pg.
Aquinas created them in order to give life meaning, and to identify God’s given purposes in life. They are designed to identify actions that are morally good, more catered for an absolutist frame of mind. The primary precepts are as follows: To worship God, To create and inhabit an ordered society, to reproduce, to learn, and to defend the innocent. According to Aquinas, following these precepts is essential for maintaining good and to stir away any evil.
Viewing this theory from either perspective will generate an overall positive outcome. For an argument to be purely Utilitarian, the following three requisites must be met – the consequences of the act should have an overall positive value (which in turn determines the ethics of the act); this value of the consequences is then assessed by the amount of overall utility produced and essentially there needs to be “impartiality - where each person’s happiness must equate another’s happiness. The utility present in this argument is general “welfare”; for the organ recipients, organ donors and their respective families. Alternatives to the word welfare, by definition, is “well-being” or “organised help given to people in need” – according to the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus. Upon analysis of each requisite, it is evident that welfare is illustrated in some form or another.
He also differs with Aristotle on the relationship between virtues and happiness. To Aristotle, virtues just for the sake of our own sake and for the sake of happiness. But, to Al-Fārābi, virtues just only for the sake of happiness, without for the sake of our own self. In addition, their views different on the aim of happiness. Al-Fārābi bring the aim of happiness as absolute happiness which is get happy not just in this world but also in afterlife.
For him, “the highest form is goodness. Therefore, goodness is absolute, permanent, and unchangeable.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a great French philosopher of the 18th century, claimed in his work Émile that “humans are basically good and, if proper development is fostered, the natural goodness of the individuals can be protected from the corrupting influences of the society.” He used the child Émile as a symbol of the innate goodness and morality of human beings. In his work “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” Rousseau conceived man as a “noble savage” who lived