Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics

When I think about what makes me happiest in life, I put my family and friends at the top of the list. I know that there is no way I would be who I am today without them. My family loves me and has taught me most of what I know about how to live. Friends have taught me so much more about myself than I could ever have imagined; how to laugh at myself, how to love myself, how to learn from my mistakes, etc. All these people in my life have given me so much and I have in return offered what I have to give. Secondly, I would probably put my knowledge. It is what I need to be able to understand how the world works today and voice my opinion in the community; to benefit myself and teach others. Next on my list, I would put art.

Ethics is the moral criteria that we as human beings have. They are the rules of the game that are supposed to guide us through our decision making in life and how to behave to one another as part of a society. However, there are different perspectives on how this criteria should be used, and when and whom they apply to. I will focus on the three most influential moral theories: virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. Although there are many great names of philosophers that fall in those theories, I will be discussing Aristotle, Kant, and Mill’s perspective, respectively.

According to Aristotle, intellectual virtues belong in the ‘rational’ fragment of the soul and moral virtues lie in the ‘irrational’ measure of the soul However, they are both dependant on reason. Although Aristotle recognised many virtues, he was an advocate for the notion of the existence of only four cardinal virtues. His proposal proved to be popular in the society that he lived in, being acknowledged by Plato and other bodies. The four cardinal virtues are: courage, a virtue which ensures control in the interest of goodness, temperance, a virtue which diminishes wants and desires by limiting them to reason, justice, the only virtue that consists of expressing care for other beings. A human that possesses the virtue of justice has the ability to practise this virtue on other human beings and not solely on themselves. The final and one of the most important virtues is prudence, a logical virtue of practical reason by which we separate the good and the methods of achieving it. Aristotle accentuates that virtues are pragmatic skills and hence experience guides us towards becoming more dexterous in avoiding deficiency. Although familiarity with the vices as extremes supports us in our aspiration for the mean, the wider connotations of the doctrine is that only through experience will we as humans come to know the right pretences and

In book seven of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle sets out his theory of akrasia, or weakness of will. Aristotle attempts to explain both how such actions are possible (contra Socrates), and how we can dissolve the puzzles (aporiai) generated by our most important (kurios) commonly held beliefs, which arise in response to the actions of the incontinent person. This paper will review book VII of the Nichomachean Ethics (EN), and attempt to resolve some of the remaining questions left open by Aristotle’s critique.

In order to obtain a successful argument speaker must be rhetorical. According to Aristotle the secret to being a persuasive public speaker you need to understand ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos. They are considering the essential qualities of a speech or presentation which will help the audience accept the message you are trying to deliver. In order for a speaker can convince an audience they must understand ethos. Ethos is that a speaker must accept anything he says in order to get the audience attention and credibility. The speaker must be respected, trustworthy, and authority to have credibility to perceive your audience. The next step is pathos which is the quality the speaker can persuade their presentation and emotion to the audience.

Aristotle continues to speak about virtue by bringing up actions that are voluntary and involuntary. He then says that involuntary actions are done through ignorance or compulsion which would starts outside the person. There are many situations in which both voluntary and involuntary actions can be combined. He brings up an example of someone holding a family hostage and giving a person a decision to do something bad. This person chooses, but also wants to do it to save their family. Since the person wants to choose the best outcome, this is a voluntary action. This would be a noble act, but it would make us do something bad. He also says that we should not do some noble things because it may not be worth it. It is very hard to find where we

In this essay, I will provide an ethical analysis of Phil Connors’ character through the philosophical lenses of Aristotle and Plato, by demonstrating how Phil’s sour attitude at the beginning of the film turns virtuous by the end, through a self-imposed, major character shift. During the majority of Groundhog Day, Phil’s attitude toward his seemingly hopeless situation is portrayed as very outwardly cynical and condescending, thus leading him to experience pain in many forms. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics describes how virtue is acquired, similar to learning a craft (1103a32-33). He goes on to detail our personal interactions with others, saying that “a state of character results from the repetition of similar activities” (1103b14-22).

Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of excellence: intellectual and moral. Intellectual excellence is learned through teaching, building experience with time, whereas moral excellence comes from habit. He also recognizes that man is naturally premoral for moral habits do not naturally exist. We learn by constant repetition, building habits which reflect our moral extremes, good or bad. Thus, nature makes us programmable; habits which a man forms in his youth shape his character; to be

Happiness is often thought to be an emotional state that results from anything a person does or observes that they approve of or consider positive or pleasant. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that true human happiness is much more than a temporary state of wellbeing, as humans are not satisfied by the pleasantries or conditions that satisfy other animals. Through virtuous activity and virtuous friendships, people are constantly trying to perfect themselves in order to achieve some greater good. This good, Aristotle reasons, must be an end within itself, and the ultimate end of human activity. Therefore, happiness for Aristotle is the final goal and the perfection of human existence, and it depends on a lifetime of virtuous activity.

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores virtues as necessary conditions for being happy. A virtuous person is a person with a disposition toward virtuous actions and who derives pleasure from behaving virtuously. Aristotle distinguishes between two types of human virtue: virtues of thought and virtues of character. Virtues of thought are acquired through learning and include virtues like wisdom and prudence; virtues of character include bravery and charity, which are acquired by habituation and require external goods to develop. As a consequence, not all people can acquire virtues of character because not all people have the external goods and resources required to develop that disposition.

My girlfriend is pregnant. I have never felt so lost, without purpose, so blind and unable to see a clear path. Right now I am at the point where the action causes a reaction and I am living with the result. I do not know what took over me, but as some might put it love was a hard mistake. I have to explain everything, from the first moment I felt these emotions to the instant my seed was leaving my body into the being I adored and wanted a physical connection more than anything in the world. I find it extremely hard to sit down and tell someone my deepest feelings and hardships without knowing the person, but I feel this is a way to invoke these emotions in a way that they will never come out again. There is no doubt in what I did and did

life presumes that the individual therefore is not living the standard life being considered comfortable or normal in society. As previously stated there is no normal way to live life, as it is relative to the individual. While the jobless individual in the moment may not be satisfied with his current situation, he however may still have good relationships with family, friends, or coworkers that are there to help. The individual also did not choose to be jobless and we can also not assume that because of his lack of money that he does not have good morals and has made the right decisions prior to getting laid off. From this analysis we can see that a poor individual can still live a good life and by titling someone as poor does not necessarily mean they can not be happy or understand moral values.

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

Aristotle characterizes moral goodness as an aura to carry on in the correct way and as a mean between extremes of inadequacy and abundance, which are indecencies. We learn moral goodness fundamentally through propensity and practice as opposed to through thinking and guideline. Goodness involves having the suitable mentality toward torment and delight. For instance, a quitter will endure undue dread even with peril, while a rash individual won't endure adequate dread. Aristotle records the standard ideals alongside their comparing indecencies, as spoken to in the accompanying table. An upright individual shows the majority of the ideals: they don't appropriately exist as particular qualities yet rather as various parts of an ethical

This essay will be examining the ethics of Plato (428-347 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C). I will firstly attempt to summarise the five fundamental concepts of Plato and Aristotle before providing my own opinion and view on their ethics. I will concentrate on their theories on the good life as a life of justice, censorship, knowledge and the good life.