Essay on Book VII of the Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle understands virtue is a disposition that issues correct choice. In this essay, we are given the task to explain what Aristotle means by choice, which is in turn show that choice is not wishes, opinion, nor desire. Rather, Aristotle believes choice involves desire. So, I will explain concisely why correct choice is not a tendency to opine the correct thing to do rather correct choice is an intimate coordination between our rational and desiring faculties. Thus, controlling and coordinating what we desire and why we desire something. Ultimately, leading the agent to what the right thing they should do, full stop, regardless of numerous alternatives.

In Plato’s “Apology” and “Crito”, I believe Socrates’ philosophy of not doing harmful things on purpose, because of ignorance, or the act of doing it unwillingly, is false. First I will show you some contradictions introduced in the books of the Apology, and Crito and explain them. Next, I will explain how in the present day Socrates philosophy is false due to the vices of mankind, with evidence from the Apology, then I will show you how Socrates might argue his point and a counter argument in present day, and finally I will conclude that Socrates’ philosophy is an incorrect philosophy and has many holes within it.

Aristotle's assessment of an individual’s actions depends to some extent on whether those actions are voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary (37). Actions that are involuntary when it is executed under pressure and causes distress to the individual exploiting. One feels there are state cases, as when someone is compelled to do something dishonorable under threat, but we should reflect on such events voluntary since the individual is still in restraint of their behaviors. One believes if something is done in the case of ignorance may be called involuntary if the individual later recognizes that ignorance, but it is non-voluntary if the person does not understand or endure pain for such awareness (Aristotle 38-39). However, lack of knowledge

As one reads though the translations of Aristotle’s thoughts, you begin to realize the complexity, yet the common sense of his work. Modern day people have a goal in life, to achieve a certain amount of success and to live life relatively happy. Most agree that to get to that goal, the populous must conform and participate

But at the same time, scholars trained in modern formal techniques have come to view Aristotle with new respect, not because of the correctness of his theory but for the remarkable similarity in spirit between much of his work and modern logic. As Jonathan Lear put it, “Aristotle shares with modern logicians a fundamental interest in metatheory.” Aristotle saw logic as a tool that underlay knowledge of all kinds and undertook its study because he believed it to be a necessary final step for learning. Logic enables one to recognize when a judgment requires proof and to verify the validity of such proof. Aristotle’s thought had clear limitations, and his contribution to logic is generally considered to be his greatest achievement.

Aristotle makes a fine distinction between involuntary and nonvoluntary actions. According to Aristotle, ignorance of the particular facts of a given situation may be excused; however, ignorance of acceptable versus unacceptable behavior is evil and cannot be excused. Also if someone commits an act, then that action's classification is based on the person's response to the consequences of the action. For instance a woman swinging a bat, and unbeknownst to her, a little boy walks directly behind her and is then struck in the head. The woman, overcome with regret, acted involuntarily; however if the woman saw the consequences act without regret, her act would be classified as non voluntary. The situation is not voluntary, but how the woman responded was voluntary. "…and the man who does not repent may, since he is different, be called a not voluntary agent; for, since he differs from the other, it is better that he should have a name of his own" (Book III Ch. I).

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s concept of courage directly relates to Prudence and Agnes from The Blue Sweater, as well as Meriam from Christian in Sudan sentenced to death for faith. Aristotle is concerned with the question of how to face fear courageously and live and die with nobility. Prudence, Agnes, and Meriam are all faced with fearful things. In this essay, I have created a separate analysis for each character discussing how Aristotle would likely react to the actions of these individuals. Aristotle would denounce Agnes’ actions as those of a reckless coward.

Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn

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.

Throughout time, people have always had varying views and ideas of everything. Through philosophy, these views and ideas can be put into solid words, theories, and assertions. Two very influential and famous philosophers are Plato and Aristotle. Although Aristotle was a student of Plato, they have differing views of metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to give a complete and systematic account of all reality and existence. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature and grounds of knowledge; epistemology asks what something is and how it came to be. One’s metaphysical position influences and affects their epistemological view by forming opinions on what is real or not and coming to knowledge through experience and/or by their metaphysical beliefs of reality.

In the book Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, Aristotle describes various way of living one’s life, the ultimate goal in life, and how to achieve happiness and live the best life. Aristotle describes three different kinds of lives in Nicomachean Ethics. These three lives consists of the life of honor, the life of pleasure, and the life of study. Aristotle, from the first book, insists that the life of study or contemplation is considered to be the best life. He argues that self-sufficiency is required for the life of study whereas the life of honor and pleasure are based upon a need for other people as well as a never ending cycle of pursuing higher goods.

Plato and Aristotle view knowledge and the process whereby it is obtained. They both point out that many epistemological concepts which they believe where knowledge comes from and what it is actually. Most of them have been astonished me in certain ways, but I found that rationalism and "wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is" make the most sense to me regarding the nature of knowledge. As the following, we will discuss about why these two philosophical viewpoints are superior and the others are inferior.

Explain and summarize Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. Do you think it is a valid ethical system? Why or why not? Give your reasons.

Aristotle’s ‘function argument’, produced in the Nicomachean Ethics, is subject to harsh criticize that seemingly attacks Aristotle as being a writer that doesn’t think his works thoroughly enough. The lack of blunt argument-statehood is substantial enough to and unfortunately interferes in proceeding to understanding what Aristotle has set out to demonstrate. We will find out, in further reading of the Nicomachean Ethics, that Book 1 is merely an introduction to Eudaimonia and the Human Function. It is but a sketch, or rather an outline to what the book informs throughout. Where many believe to be the start to the Function argument, Aristotle produces imagery of human-related objectives to their appropriate functions-craftsman to man and body parts to whole. This is meant to provoke the reader to critically think about their own function (as a human) and Eudaimonia (note that we learn about this right before the function argument is presented). I will defend the function argument and it’s plausibility in this essay by explaining the method utilized to