Aristotle 's Theory Of Morality

To conclude, the efforts to use moral enhancement to further empower human virtues that help provide moral

This extensive perception of virtue may include such precise virtue as courage, wisdom, or moderation, but it should be possible to offer a perfectly general description of virtue as a whole, the skill or ability to be fully human. It is impossible for each human being to have the same virtue because everyone created unequally.

In Book 1, he defines the best and most sought after human good as happiness. After discussing and reinforcing his concept of happiness as the most desired and best good, and the goal of a human life, the discussion segues into an examination of virtue and the rest of the work.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, at an absolute basic sense, aims at the title of this course: the good life. In an age where philosophy and ethics were not largely developed, Aristotle aims to provide a universal standard for human flourishing and happiness, or the good life. His main argument is that all of our actions and goals are aiming towards human flourishment, but that each action falls into a range of virtues, where excess is one extreme and deficiency is the other extreme. The virtue that we all strive for, he states, is in the middle of these. For example, temperance is a universal human virtue, with pleasures and pains as the excess and deficiency. He states that virtues can be developed and learned over time and through practice,

The idea of striving for goodness has always been something that has been instilled in our minds since birth. We were always taught to the do the right thing. But why? What are the benefits of being a good person versus being bad? This is question that Colin Mcginn tackles in his article, “Why Not Be a Bad Person?” In it, he explains why he think virtue is the more intriguing moral standard, and explores why some people may disagree with him.

This formulation introduces the concept of doing something for the right reason not for an ulterior motive. The character of the motive is what dictates the adherence to the imperative. This is possible with autonomy, the decision to act according to moral duty without outside influence.

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

There is no such thing as “absolute good” but “good for”. Whenever I meet my defining moment, I think about the question, “Whose good should I be serving?” I am not saying to evaluate whose interests are more valuable, but to evaluate whose interests are more important TO ME. There are three principles for me to evaluate different interests. The first is the interest’s indirect impact on the third party. For example, the police are investigating a theft and I know who the thief is. I must

The definition of happiness has long been disputed, and in order to establish a general definition one must discover mankind’s function (1095a.20). The distinct function of human beings will differentiate man from all other beings, thus it cannot be related to the characteristics of animals or plants. Aristotle explains that all living beings grow, and that man and animals share instinct. Through elimination, Aristotle establishes the distinct function of man as logic. Only human beings contain three souls and have the ability to use reason. Aristotle states, “the function of man then is activity of soul [thinking well and doing well] in accordance with reason” (). Ultimately, logic allows human beings to use reason in decision-making and to be virtuous.

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Aristotle defines the function of a human being as an activity of the rational soul. He argues that most functions of humans, such as being alive or having sense perception, are shared with plants and animals and cannot be distinct functions of human beings. The only remaining possibility which is not shared with things other than human beings, according to Aristotle, is the part of the soul that has reason. Human function, therefore, is an “activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason.” But further qualification must be made when referring to the something’s function in the context of a greatest good; in this case, it is not sufficient for something to simply function, it must also function well. For example, the function of a pianist is to play the piano, but the function of a good pianist is to play a piano well. According to Aristotle, adding a function’s best virtue to it will work without qualification to make something excellent in every case. So, the function of a human being is an activity of the rational soul and the greatest good for a human is activity of the rational soul in accordance with its virtue.

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

Intelligence, wit, judgment, and the other talents of the mind, however they may be named, or courage, resolution, perseverance, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects; but these gifts of nature may also become extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them, and which, therefore, constitutes what is called character, is not good.

Experiencing subjects of a life, in the eyes of Regan, are argued to have an inherent value, a basic right that is equal amongst individuals. Regan believes that because an individual is a subject experiencing life, said subject has an inherent value. Regan notes that critics argue that only humans have inherent value, but if such delegation of species takes place, speciesism, a form of discrimination, the fact of the matter becomes essentially immoral. The reduction of a subject’s inherent value based on grouping of species is indeed a form of inequality…of speciesism. He argues that in order for inherent value to be portrayed equally, discrimination of the sort cannot be morally acceptable, nor tolerated. Regan accepts that simply saying that humans have more inherent value than animals is not a rational justification. One can say that an individual’s mother has more worth than a dog’s mother; however, on what grounds does this argument lie? This is merely an irrational and immoral statement that degrades an individual. In turn, the justification of which individual has more

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics he accounts that humans should make sacrifices and should ultimately aim first and foremost for their own happiness . In the paper I will argue that it is really in a person’s best interest to be virtuous . I will do this by first describing Aristotle’s notion on both eudaimonia and virtue , as well as highlighting the intimate relationship between the two . Secondly I will talk about the human role in society. Thirdly I will describe the intrinsic tie between human actions . Finally I will share the importance of performing activities virtuously .