In “Aquinas on Natural Law and Human Law” and “Aquinas on Happiness and the Kinds of Laws” by Thomas Aquinas and in “Utilitarianism” and “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill they discuss their version of the ideal society that we should be living in. Aquinas asserts that all humans must strive to find happiness and God while Mill claims that the good life is one of maximizing pleasure that our society must help create. Aquinas thinks the common good is for all, while Mill does not think that everyone in society should have access to it, which is why I agree with Aquinas’ version of society more than Mills. Aquinas was deeply influenced by Aristotle and agrees with him that happiness should be our primary focus. According to Aquinas, happiness is based on God and our desires. He argues that there are both higher and lower desires, the higher being one in accordance with faith and God where the lower is our Earthly pleasures. Aquinas asserts that it is society’s duty to satisfy our material wants, allowing us to endeavor for the rational parts of our nature. It is impossible to be completely happy without fulfilling both of these desires according to Aquinas, this means that it is impossible to be completely happy on Earth without faith. He says, “Final and perfect happiness can consist in nothing else than the vision of Divine Essence” (Summa Theologiae 2). Aquinas argues that as a society we seek to know the essence of things. To achieve that objective, we must
“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
In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.
For Dante and Aquinas, happiness does not only compose a useful life on earth but also in Heaven. Dante and Aquinas were sure that continued use of Aristotle virtues would not land any of their followers in heaven. To increase chances of one entering heaven, Dante and Aquinas developed proposed the incorporation of hope, faith, and charity into the daily virtues that people possess. According to Dante and Aquinas, possession of virtues like good temper and judgement could only lead one to live a good life but not perfect for heaven. Dante and Aquinas specifically based there philosophical thinking on four ideas; perfect ordinary happiness on earth, happiness on earth is not important as compared to happiness in Heaven, following of Aristotle virtues was not a problem to them but it could not help in trying moments, and lastly the importance of perfecting the art of love especially to people
This is similar to Locke’s outlook on the social contract which is directly related to his theory about the state of nature, but his outlook also differs from Aquinas’s understanding of eternal and natural law. Locke believes that God has made every person equal, and the owner of themselves which is their own property. Because of this they need to give certain right to the government or a “social contract” in exchange for protection of their own property. This includes themselves and their gained properties which are gained by
John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.
To support Aquinas’ claim that money, honor, fame, power, goods of the body, or pleasure is not required for human happiness, one may cite they share ends for the sake of human beings. That is, their ends are meant only to fulfill human capacities
Are we naturally moral creatures? Do we always act towards the common good of others? I am positive that we do not, and in fact, as much as society wants to, we go against our morals and lead with our ‘feelings’. These feelings may feel right, but it doesn’t mean they will lead you in the right path to fulfil your ultimate end, true happiness. Hitler was a passionate man driven by feelings, but what he felt and did during the World War Two era was not for the sake of the common good, and was not morally right. In today’s society we often struggle between what is legally right and what is
John Finnis is celebrated for his reworking of Aquinas’ natural law theory. Finnis’ is renowned for his ‘seven basic goods’, making reference to the question of ‘how is your life going’, an approximation of human flourishing. Furthermore, for a deeper analysis, nine methodological requirements of practical reasonableness, utilised to determine sound decision making, shall conclude the analysis. These two lists combined are said to create unchallengeable and universal principals of natural law. Finnis’ basic notions in regards to natural law are deemed best evident when intellectual creatures act in a rational manner. Practical reasons is at the core of natural law. Natural law is a reference to human’s rational and intellectual
…. virtue’s semblance. And when a man has brought forth and reared this perfect virtue, he ……. shall be called the friend of god, and if ever it is capable of man to enjoy immortality, it …… shall then be given to him”. (212d) These lines seem to be the entire neglection of material goods, but Socrates is not denying the importance of material goods. He emphasizes on the proper use of the material things rather than the importance of their presence in human life. Socrates is stressing upon the ultimate state of happiness, which would not be disturbed by the absence of material goods. The above line states that happiness is the innate quality of soul. Moreover, he said that when a person realizes his self-equipped and mortal state of soul, then he is able to find the true happiness in his life. The knowledge of true self is the path of happiness in human life. The knowledge of the true self destroys the material desires of people. This quote presents the idea that happiness is the vision of God, which is also a belief of Thomas Aquinas on the ultimate state of happiness (The Pursuits of Happiness) After the thousand years of Socrates’ demise, the master Gautam Buddha is also referred to the Socratic concept of happiness
He recommended gaining a rational control over one’s desires, these desires being those that can be harmful to life such as: lust, greed, pride, and power. He argued that the key to human happiness is to turn away from the body and towards the soul. He said that harmonizing the different parts of the soul would produce a divine-like state of inner tranquility that the external world could not alter. A moral life is to be preferred to an immoral life. This view of happiness is linked to other concepts such as justice, virtue, and the ultimate meaning of human existence. Living a moral and just life would lead to a happier life.
There are many theories surrounding happiness, and the pursuit of happiness. Some believe that an external force must be present to bring about happiness, while others argue that happiness is individualized, and is completely up to a person's internal mindset of whether he or she is able to achieve and maintain happiness. Aristotle, a significant ancient Greek philosopher, believes that happiness requires an action. He affirms that there are many factors that play into someone's happiness; including materialistic things, which help support this state of being. His claim is that happiness is a holistic approach to life and must be achieved by living virtuously with moral character. Aristotle also indicates that happiness is not a moment in time, but rather a journey of exploration by way of living harmoniously, through a pursuit of achieving life’s goals and desires. He adds that a life of happiness is driven by virtue and emotions, which all play a role in achieving optimum happiness.
Aristotle begins his exploration into the most outstanding life by attempting to figure what the highest possible good achievable is for human beings. He comes to the conclusion that most people will agree that happiness is the most sought after good. Happiness is self-sufficient and is the complete end of things pursued. However, they cannot seem to agree how to achieve happiness and what happiness is. In order to figure out what happiness is, Aristotle must evaluate the true function of human beings. This true function, as seen by Aristotle, is the key to achieving happiness. Aristotle describes happiness by saying:
In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.
According to the philosophy of happiness (14, 15, 16 & 17), Aristotle stated the factors that make happiness as good health, money, relationships and good moral behavior. Aristotle pointed out that happiness was the ultimate desire for human being leaving nothing more to be desired. The happiness is sought for its own sake unlike other things which are sought in order to achieve happiness. Aristotle understood that for an individual to be happy one must be of good morals and can suffer to achieve the greater happiness later in the long run. Many individuals believe that
Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers of all time created an idea that happiness is the ultimate end goal. This world renowned philosopher argues that exercising a fulfilling life will lead to happiness. Likewise, happiness is said to be the ultimate end goal of all activities in life. Basically, Aristotle portrays every activity as a subordinate to becoming happy. He argues that being self sufficient, and leading a fulfilling life will create happiness through virtue. A virtuous person is noble and possess the ability to rationalize. In order to be noble one must posses the ability to create equilibrium of the soul. That is, staying within the mean. Similar to the mean, Aristotle depicts