Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

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

I do believe that Aristotle’s two conclusions (happiness is the activity of the soul and happiness is the highest good) satisfy his criteria for being the highest good because being involved in noble activities comes from being a contemplative person about morals, and the world in general. Being

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.

As one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Aristotle was one of the greats. He altered history and the way our world views philosophy and ethics. One of his theories of ethics that he written in the form of 10 books was Nicomachean Ethics, this theory consisted of Aristotle’s perspective on the life of man and what makes a good life for man. Personally, I think his theory of ethics is a good outline of how to be an ethical and happy, I think Nicomachean ethics is a valid theory as it makes sense, and as a base line or starting point can be applied to many situations. Aristotle purposes that all human beings work toward a supreme happiness or good, this good is

Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up" (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10). True friendships are a rarity in today's culture. In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, he delves into what a "true" or "complete" friendship should be. The friendship of David and Jonathan in the Old Testament lines up with Aristotle's criteria for an ideal and complete and n true friendship. David and Jonathan’s friendship meets Aristotle’s criteria that friends must be good and alike in virtue, they should be equal, and they must love each other for their own sake.

Aristotle provides the teleological approach of how to live well in his collection of lectures, Nicomachean Ethics. In Book II of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents his definition of virtue in which it is "a kind of mean" (N.E. 129). According to Aristotle, moral virtue is a means to an end, happiness. By using Sophocles's Antigone, I will support Aristotle's theory of virtue in which he reasons it to be a state of character between two extremes. A virtue that remains relevant today as it did during Aristotle's era is that of courage. By using Aristotle's account on what represents the virtue of courage, I will demonstrate how it could be applied to the dilemma the characters of Antigone encounter. Even his definition of justice is

As soon as I read over this question, I knew it was the one I would have to answer, because it was the one I wasn't sure I could. I felt the prompt would allow me the opportunity to directly illustrate the person that I am. However, my current knowlege and interpretation of Aristotle's “Nicomachean Ethics” has made the task reprehensibly difficult. I found myself wandering through a mind-numbingly agonizing process to properly address the prompt. This process consisted of working through two separate paths that addressed the topic. Though, I found myself seeing that both of these paths brought me further from the very virtue I was trying to show that I pursue.

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.

According to Aristotle, friendship shares the same qualities of a proper self-love. In Aristotle’s”Nicomachean Ethics” (book 9), he asks us, if there is such a thing as friendship with oneself. He states that people who are good friends to others tend to be comfortable with themselves, therefore, they do not mind being alone because they have a clear conscience. However, Aristotle also says, that people who are not comfortable with themselves, tend to seek the company of others to distract themselves from their own regrets, caused by their bad actions. He states that people must have a “friendly attitude" toward themselves in order to be good friend (Ethics, pg. 255). I believe that wicked people are in conflict with themselves, and they seek companionship as a distraction, to escape from themselves. I agree with Aristotle’s view and I would also argue that only a virtuous person can love himself or herself, because bad people are full with inner demons and are unable to love themselves, let alone be a good friend to others. Therefore I believe that without to Self-love, there is no friendship. I don’t believe you can have a fulfilling relationship with anyone without loving yourself. In other words, how can you have respect for someone, if you don’t have respect for yourself?

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

In today’s society, many individuals seek pleasure, money and fame trusting that these external goods will bring purpose and happiness to their lives. While living in a materialistic world, it is easy to understand why people interpret the purpose of life in such a way. Everywhere people look, they see advertisements for commercial brands demonstrating that their life will be complete once they own certain things, or dress a certain way. People are blinded by false advertisements on life and due to that, people have a corrupt definition of the meaning of life, and furthermore, the term “happiness”. They associate pleasure to purpose, but to certain philosophers, it has a completely different meaning. Aristotle, for example, has a deeper meaning

When Tony told me he had an affair, I was shocked and confused as both Tony and Beth are my friend. Since reading Nicomachean Ethics, Books I, II, and VIII, I couldn’t help but think what would Aristotle do?

In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the highest good is happiness, which means living well. The highest good must be a complete end in itself, and it should also be self-sufficient. Before one can determine what happiness is, one must first determine the function of man, because good consists of performing one’s function well. The function of the man is activity of the soul according to reason, which is a rational part of man. The ultimate good of man flows naturally from performing his function well, which will then lead to happiness.

“EVERY art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (Ross, n.d.). Aristotle believed that both external (wealth, material possessions) and internal (temperance, courage, etc.) contributed to a person’s happiness and that a person’s final goal was to find the “good” or their function in life. He also believed that the pursuit of the final goal led to certain actions and pursuits and that the cumulative sum of these actions over a lifespan would determine a person’s morality. In other words, a person may spend his or her whole life committing moral acts, such as giving to charity and saving lives but may act out of character and commit one immoral act such as theft. Since his or her life was spent mostly committing moral acts, that one immoral action does not make him or her immoral and therefor he or she should not be judged by that one aberration.