Good In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Only when these two aspects of the soul are engaged can one be closer to achieving happiness. Aristotle refutes elitist thinking by stating that all people have the capacity to reason within the soul. The good and bad characteristics in people come from the kinds of activities that they desire to undertake. Aristotle also generally defines the good life as simply doing what one wants to do, but happiness can only truly be achieved when one desires to do the correct things.

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 Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, ethical virtue is at the base of every Aristotle argument. Aristotle’s goal is to discover: what constitutes human excellence? A key position Aristotle takes in ethical virtue involves habit among human actions, “Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and who are made perfect by habit.” (Nic.2.1.1103a23-25). Through this statement, Aristotle believes that humans do not have virtues by nature, which means humans cannot be born with virtue. However, nature equips humans with the potential to acquire virtue over time through social training and habituation. Aristotle’s concept is on the same grounds as Roger Bergman’s, author of Catholic Social

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.

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.

Aristotle begins to question what is good? The good is explained to differ in different activities and arts, but shares a common ground because it appears to be for the sake of how things are done; a means to an end. Aristotle uses the example of medicine; its mean is to end in health. However, there are many different ends and humans chose some of them, as a means to something else, therefore not all ends are final ones. That which is chosen never as a mean to something else proves to be more final than that which is chosen for itself and something else. Therefore, Aristotle justifies that the mean that is always chosen for itself and not for means of something else is called the final. Aristotle uses this definition and applies it to happiness, since happiness is always chosen as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else. The thought of honor, pleasure and virtue being chosen as an end for itself may apply but can be assumed they lead to happiness as a means to an end.

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.

Aristotle searches his answer to the question, what is happiness? In order to find his answer, he places constraints on what can count as happiness and searches the function of a man He proclaims good must be something final, and self-sufficient. Good is seen different in different activities and art, but it is resent for the sake of which everything is done. Aristotle searches what the good than is in each. In medicine it is health, in strategy victory, in architecture in a house and so on from all the other arts but in every task it describes the end of that task, since the point in all of them is for the sake of the end that everything is done. Thus, if there is something that is the end of all the things done by human action this can be the predictable of, “good.”

I have multiple objections when it comes to Nicomachean Ethics. In my opinion, I believe that is very discouraging. Aristotle stated, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good” (Aristotle 624). There are multiple individuals like criminals for instance, believe that they are doing a good when they shoot a bank or rob a person on the street. They are not achieving in any action a good. But if think about on the opposite spectrum of military personnel, killing criminal at war, those criminals had a family and a home. Can you describe this situation as a thought to aim at some good?

Human desires are unlimited and constantly emerge in us and continually replacing with other desires. Human beings are providentially managed for their own sake and made their own choice. Human wants are seemingly insatiable so man would crave anything that can provide pleasure to itself and this may go on without limit. If this is the case, since human desires are endless, people would lose their abilities to desire eventually and no longer interested in or motivated to do anything. Hence, human beings are in pursuit of the good should be an ultimate end. In most cases, many think honour, pleasure or wealth is the best good because these are the factors that can bring them happiness and so does all other goods. Therefore, Aristotle proposed that the best good is happiness since it ends in itself.

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.

As Aristotle emphasizes, the field of ethics is concerned with the well-being of the city as a whole, not as much with individual well-being (NE I.2, 1094b). On an individual basis, the distinct human function has no significant moral role. However, when practicality is stressed over theory, the moral significance of that distinct function becomes more integral. Aristotle’s account of the highest good in Book I of Nichomachean Ethics concerns the the general desire for happiness: it serves as a guide for a political leader, not a layout for individual morality. Thus, the distinct human capacity is morally significant insofar as it acts though politics. Although it is true that the method he uses to arrive at his conclusion seems to

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle names two types of functions: artificial functions and natural functions (Aristotle, 7). Artificial functions develop from human activities. In other terms, humans define certain jobs as having certain functions (Aristotle, 7). Basically, they write the description of each and every job. A teacher's job is to teach. A police officer's job is to serve and protect. These two jobs have certain descriptions because humans defined them that way. Another kind of artificial function comes from when humans invent something. For example, if human beings decide to invent a heater, they have to decide what the function of a heater is. If a heater's function is to produce heat, we can assume a heater that doesn’t produce heat is a bad one.

To Aristotle leading a good life, for the most part, means fulfilling one’s purpose in a way that is good by balancing life’s pleasures. In order to determine if an object fulfills its function in a good way, we must first consider the object. If we were to agree that a car should be reliable, then we could also agree that reliable car should be considered a good car. Similarly, animals, for example, possess certain traits like the power of locomotion, and the desire to seek nourishment and reproduce. According to

“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.