For The Purposes Of This Week’S Assignment I Will Be Maintaining

The article continues with a discussion of having to address students’ doubts, weaknesses, and fears as well as their academics. The author gives an example of a professor who takes

“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

People travel through life with what seems like a single goal: to be happy. This may seem like a selfish way to live, however this lone objective is the motivation behind nearly all actions. Even seemingly selfless deeds make people feel better about themselves. That warm feeling experienced while doing charitable acts can be described as happiness. But what is authentic happiness? There is an endless possibility of answers to this question, and man seems to be always searching for the solution. Although one may reach his or her goals, there is always still something one strives for in order to be happy. In the book Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert takes the reader through

Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.

     When talking about happiness and goodness, there must be an important quality present. According to Aristotle, people need to practice balance and moderation in their every day lives. Achieving this middle ground, or mean, translates into being virtuous in Aristotle’s mind. If virtue is present, so is its opposite vise. For every virtue, there are two vices. One vice is excessive while the other is deficiency. Courage works as a great example because it is virtuous. The excessive vise is recklessness and the

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

He defines happiness as something that self-sufficient, final, and the end of action. Although he finds it cliché to say that it is the chief good, he argues that all the things human strive for, health, honor, and wealth all aim at the same one goal. He did not state that it was something we, necessarily, should aim at, but that it is something that we aim at, at default. He asserts that happiness is the highest goodness

What is the purpose of a human being? “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence” (Nicomachean Ethics). When one thinks about happiness, these words said by Aristotle allow us to understand its significance. Through Aristotle’s teachings, he made it clear that the point of life is to be happy. Aristotle uses the word happiness as having to do with a person’s life as a whole, and not as the constant desire of wanting to experience pleasure (Aristotle’s Ethics). People tend view happiness as an emotion that is not long lasting, while it is really about accumulating the good experienced an entire lifetime. To Aristotle, happiness is about flourishing, virtues, focusing on our well-being, and self-sufficiency.

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.

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.

The ethics of care is an ethical theory that typically appreciates the emotions and relational capabilities that enable morally concerned persons in actual interpersonal contexts to understand what would be best (Pojman and Vaughn, 2014, pg. 479). This theory of ethics also rejects the view of the dominant moral theories that the more abstract the reasoning about a moral problem the better because the more likely to avoid vbas and arbitrariness, the more nearly to achieve impartiality (Pojman and Vaughn, 2016, pg. 480). Virtue theory has characteristically seen the virtues as incorporated in various traditions or traditional communities. In contrast, the ethics of care as a feminist ethic is wary of existing traditions and traditional communities:

"Virtue is something lofty, elevated and regal, invincible and indefatigable; Pleasure is something lowly and

The world seems to be a dark and unforgiving place, but happiness is hidden within. It is found in a beautiful view, an uplifting song, or a compliment from a friend. According to the Ted Talk video, The Habits of Happiness, Matthieu Ricard claims that everyone “has a deep, profound desire for well-being or happiness”(Ricard 2:39). Ricard uses the three techniques of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos to captivate and move his audience. With the use of metaphors, personal experiences, and even graphs Matthieu explained to his audience the full force and perception of the bendable word that is happiness. This Ted Talk dove into philosophical meaning on just how to achieve well-being, without having everything in the world.

Perhaps now I need to introduce one of Aristotle’s suppositions: “living well and doing well are the same as being happy” (1.4.1095a19). But what does it mean to live well? A good example is that of the harpist. If the function of a harpist is to play the harp, then the function of a good harpist is to play the harp well (1.7.1098a9-12). It is this “superior achievement (of the function) that expresses virtue”(1.7.1098a10). When we apply this example to human beings it can be seen that the good human’s function to do well is completed “when its completion expresses the proper virtue”(1.7.1098a14-15). We have already determined that “the human function is the soul’s activity that expresses reason” (1.7.1098a8), since the human function is reason and “we must take [a human being’s special function to be] life as activity”

Moreover, the morality, good character and happiness cannot be separated from one another. This is because to a huge extent we tend to offer as the best individuals to our families, friend and colleagues who are the source of our happiness. Therefore there is an understanding that we can enjoy their company when we offer our best morals and support. With this understanding, we realize that a good moral character is a requirement to true happiness irrespective of the people we are dealing with. This understanding enables individuals to realize and prevent any moral deviation so as to maintain happiness with all persons (Delattre 137).