A Good Man Lives Well And Fares Well

If you were to ask someone what their definition of a happy life would be, they would probably give you an answer like, “having fun.” This is completely untrue in Aristotle’s terms. According to Aristotle, for a man to lead a happy life he must learn each of the intellectual virtues, and practice each of the moral virtues throughout his life. These moral virtues are justice, courage, temperance, magnificence, magnanimity, liberality, gentleness, prudence, and wisdom. With so many virtues to constantly abide by, a man cannot know if he has led a happy life until his life is nearly finished. In the story “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” by Flannery O’ Connor, the question is

Although, as Aristotle believes, everything we do in our life leads to some good, he makes it clear that some goods are subordinate to others, and that the greatest good is happiness. He believes that the knowledge of this good carries weight for our way of life, and makes us better able, like archers who have a target to aim at, to hit the right mark (Aristotle 2). To possess the ability to achieve this ultimate end; however, we must first have some sort of understanding as to what happiness is. The definition of happiness typically varies from person to person, some think it’s pleasure or something found in someone you love, others believe it lies in wealth and success, but Aristotle defines it as

“Happiness is in the enjoyment of man’s chief good. Two conditions of the chief good: 1st, Nothing is better than it; 2nd, it cannot be lost against the will” (Augustine 264-267). As human

Friendship, according to Aristotle there are 3 definitions of friendship. Friendship of Utility, “thus friends whose affection is based on utility do not love each other in themselves, but in so far as some benefit accrues to them from each other.” Friendship of Pleasure, “And similarly with those whose friendship is based on pleasure: for instance, we enjoy the society of witty people not because of what they are in themselves, but because they are agreeable to us.” Friendship of the Good. “The perfect form of friendship is that between the good, and those who resemble each other in virtue. For these friends wish each alike the other’s good in respect of their goodness, and they are good in themselves; but it is those who wish the good of their friends for their friends’ sake who are friends in the fullest sense, since they love each other for themselves and not accidentally. Hence the

In The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that there are three types of friendships. The three friendships being that of utility, pleasure, and virtue. First, in Sections 1-3, I will explain Aristotle’s claims of the three types of friendship. After that, in Section 4, I will examine Aristotle’s argument that there are two friendships that are not as lasting as the other friendship. Then, in Section 5, I will analyze whether or not the friendship of virtue can occur between only virtuous people. Next, in Section 6, I will evaluate whether or not true friendship is the friendship of virtue like Aristotle claims. Lastly, in Section 7, I will object to Aristotle’s claims.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

Aristotle believes that happiness is an activity “in accord with virtue.” Happiness is in accord with the most excellent virtue. All men agreed that happiness is to “live well”, but Aristotle expands this further into a whole

For most of us, achieving some state of Happiness is a core objective. Indeed, in a great many of the philosophical musings on the very purpose of our lives here on Earth will tend to focus on the importance of achieving happiness, of sharing happiness and of bringing happiness to others. It is therefore reasonable to propose the knee-jerk response that happiness is the end in and of itself. However, as Kant asserts, this is an incomplete understanding of our supposed purpose here. As the 18th Century German philosopher asserts, happiness lived without the principle of good will, can have the capacity to be a rather unsavory force. According to Kant, in fact, this concept of good will is a core determinant as to whether the characteristics by which we can be defined may be considered virtues or vices. Kant argues that this truth "holds with gifts of fortune; power, riches, honor, even health, and that complete well-being and contentment with one's condition which is called happiness make for pride and often hereby even arrogance, unless there is a good will to correct their influence on the mind and herewith also to rectify the whole principle of action and make it universally comfortable to its end." (Kant, p. 7) This principle underlies the initial rejection of the assumption that Happiness, however formulated, is the

Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctually moral without giving thought to the overall happiness. On the other hand, Mill does in fact use happiness as the bases for his ethics. He proposes that actions are right if they promote overall happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness (Mill, ). In this paper, it will be argued that Mill 's views on happiness are more reasonable than those of Kant 's because happiness should be the base for ethics.

Since we have discussed the states of friendship and virtue in relationship to happiness, we must now examine the activities of friendship and virtue that make a happy life easier to attain. Aristotle claimed that of the goods in life “some are necessary conditions of happiness, while others are naturally useful and cooperative as instruments (1099b28-29).” He goes on further to exclaim that “having friends seems to be the greatest external good (1169b10-11).” Therefore this external good would be useful in attaining happiness. Friendship can be used as an instrument in performing virtuous actions necessary for happiness because “the solitary person’s life is hard, since it is not easy for him to be continually active all by himself; but in relation to others and in their company it is easier (1170a6-8).” Friends can also help us achieve happiness but guiding us to do virtuous acts, “for it is proper to good people to avoid error themselves and not to permit it in their friends

Firstly, Aristotle asserts friendships based on the love of virtue is the complete type of friendship, compared to two other types (122, section 6). The two other types of friendships are pleasure, and utility. However, he asserts these types of friendship are not lasting, because they are created for the sake of obtaining a good generated from their peer. Insofar the individuals in the relationship generate pleasure, or provide a service of utility to each other (121 section 2 line 15-17). Problematically, once that pleasure/utility has ceased, the friendship will likely dissolve since the advantageous goods have stopped being provided (122 section 2 line 15-17). He does propose that a friendship based on pleasure resembles the virtuous friendship, because the individuals in these relationships aim to be pleasant to each other (126, section 4). However, a friendship based on the goods an agent has to give is considered a lesser friendship, in comparison to the virtuous friendship. It is because the peer has a qualification that makes them desirable, but there is no mutual desire/awareness to generate goodwill for the

In the text, Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, but translated and edited by Roger Crisp, a few questions stand out for consideration. “What is happiness?” “What makes me happy and why?” In this text, Aristotle examines the main factors of happiness which consists of gratification, the life of money-making, the life of action, and the philosophical life. He explains what is needed for happiness and what it means to be a truly happy human being. In his definition of

From the beginning of their evolution, human beings have been searching for the meaning of happiness. While many may see this to be an inconsequential question, others have devoted entire lives to the search for happiness. One such person who devoted a great deal of thought to the question of man's happiness was the famous ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. In his book The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discussed the meaning of happiness and what it meant to live a good life. He asserted that the devise which has been invented to create what is good for man is called "politics;" and it "uses the rest of the sciences"¦so that this end must be the good for man." (Aristotle, I, ii) Aristotle also identified four general means by which people live their lives in order to gain happiness, but stated that only one was a means by which a person could actually attain it. According to Aristotle, it was not political power, wealth, or worldly pleasures by which a person could achieve real happiness, it was living a contemplative life.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle define happiness as the ‘highest good’. Aristotle states that everyone agrees that this highest good is happiness, but often disagree about what happiness really is. Many would believe that happiness is gained from material possessions, wealth or high social status, but Aristotle states that this is not the highest good. Aristotle believed that to obtain happiness, we must have virtue. Virtue is defined as a state of being and acting in the correct manner with high moral standards, neither acting in

For this essay this paper will be discussing the subject of moral behaviour and if it is necessary for happiness. The view that this paper will reflect and focus on is that “moral” behaviour is not absolutely necessary to be happy. To fully comprehend the topic in question we must look at the definitions of morality and happiness. Moral behaviour is subjective in the sense that what may seem right to one person may not seem right to another. Happiness is also entirely subjective due to the fact that what can make one or some people happy might not be the case for others. Examples will be given to demonstrate the fact that moral behaviour is not necessary for happiness. To be blunt the matter of the fact is that there are many people out