How Does Aristotle Address The Issue Of Individual Rights And The Freedom Of Choose?

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

     With the possible exception of Plato, Aristotle is the most influential philosopher in the history of logical thought. Logic into this century was basically Aristotelian logic. Aristotle dominated the study of the natural sciences until modern times. Aristotle, in some aspect, was the founder of biology; Charles Darwin considered him as the most important contributor to the subject. Aristotle’s Poetic, the first work of literary notice, had a string influence on the theory and practice of modern drama. Aristotle’s great influence is due to the fact that he seemed to offer a system, which although lacked in certain respects, was as a whole matchless in its extent.

As a result of these contrasting opinions on the morality of slavery, Aristotle and Seneca also differ in their understanding of the amount of freedom possessed at birth. While Aristotle believes some are born as slaves and others as rulers, Seneca pronounces that we are all "fellow-slaves... Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike." (p. 59). Seneca's account exhibits the perception that all people inherently possess the same freedoms and rights. It is unnatural to repress or deny a person of these ingrained liberties, labeling them as a slave and consequently stifling their deserved rights and opportunities to exercise and apply these rights in their future. Although Seneca does not renounce the system of slavery entirely, "On Master and Slave" provides a basis for the eventual abolition of slavery and unmerited usurpation of freedom.

The first part is the natural slave's existence and characteristics. The second part is the natural slaves in society and how they interact with his or her master. According to Aristotle, natural slaves' main features include being pieces of property, tools for actions, and belonging to others. This quote shows that slaves were not seen as human beings but as pieces of property that belonged to an owner. An enslaved man or woman could have been sold and worked to death like a horse or any other

The United States is known for its many liberties to all, liberties that lead to all sorts of bad according to Socrates and Aristotle. Plato-Socrates in The Republic and Aristotle in Politics criticize democracy, a form of government that tries to equalize all. Centuries have passed and many of the democratic elements described in their works apply to current democratic regimes in particular the United States.

Aristotle’s ‘function argument’ produced in the Nicomachean Ethics, is subject to harsh criticize that seemingly attacks Aristotle as a philosopher whom does not 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 in the Nicomachean Ethics. 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 of the Function Argument (NE1.7, 1097b30-34), 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 Eudaimonia 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 build up this strong structured argument. This essay will converse with excerpts directly from Aristotle’s work, as well as

In these sessions, I have gained a better understanding of Aristotle and Plato’s ideas and theories. Particularly, I have a specific interest in Aristotle and the notion of the two extremes and to aim towards the “gray or middle of the road”. I also have an interest in Plato’s theory regarding the just and unjust and the repercussions of their actions.

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

-Socrates had the option to choose, exile, or a fine for punishment he did not feel he was guilty at all, and would not accept any other punishment than freedom. Since exile and a fine were not considered freedom as he would be submitting to unjust laws.

In this module 2 Case assignment, I will be deliberating over what it is that Aristotle means to convey in his paper on voluntary action. Additionally, I will discuss the importance of differentiating between what is a voluntary, and an involuntary action. In order to achieve this, I will be presenting a brief overview of how Aristotle himself distinguished between voluntary and involuntary actions in his piece from his book, Nichomachean Ethics. To delve deeper in to how to make this distinction, I will start by looking at such factors as compulsion and ignorance, which have important roles in the classification of an action. I will also be discussing the implications of choices, opinions, wishes and the deliberation involved therein. Additionally, I will reference an example of when an action occurs that is less than

The natural slaves, however, cannot achieve any such telos due to their natural impairment and inferiority to the citizen. Their natural purpose in life is to serve the ruler and provide for them, since the natural slave lacks such capabilities as reason, "For he is a slave by nature who is capable of belonging to another - which is also why he belongs to another - and who participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it" (1254b16-23). Usually, as Aristotle points out, natural slaves bread other natural slaves, although, sometimes superiors are known to have natural slaves as well. However, he struggles to determine whether the natural slave is in fact completely rationally impaired and upon what reasons he should be enslaved. Thus, this creates difficulties when trying to differentiate who should be enslaved, why and how to distinguish between a natural slave and a natural

According to Aristotle, moral virtue involves choice. However, these choices are arrived at through reasoning because the choices are deliberate desires. Aristotle asserts that "… the starting point of choice is desire and reasoning about some end..." (Crisp, 2014, p. 148) implying that desires present humans with possible results which they have to reason whether or not they want to pursue. Aristotle further maintained that for an individual to arrive at a good choice, they must have correct desires and true reasoning. Following Aristotle's thought, an individual who may need to lie can ask themselves the kind of person they would become if they lie if they don't want to become such person, it would mean that their desire to lie is not correct,

Aristotle makes a contrast between two kinds of knowledge, that is of importance to the decision maker. He identifies things that do not change, like universal things we can call right and wrong, and what is living well and living poorly. He states that decision distinguishes character better than actions do. You can make a decision to take action but the decision to do that thing is what’s important. Aristotle believes that those who say decision is a wish or belief are wrong. They made that decision because they wanted to and did it deliberately. We decide on things for the end result. This is a very interesting and true statement I feel. Nobody runs for president for the race, they run for the end result of hopefully becoming president. Staying on the topic of decision making catering to the end result, if a person decides they want to be healthy they will eat healthier and exercise. This person isn’t doing these things without thinking about the finish which would be becoming healthier. A decision is not the same as a belief in general. A belief is thinking of or hoping on something and the decision is what you do before the actual act. “Further, decision is praised more for deciding on what is right, whereas belief is praised for believing rightly.” (Aristotle 34) This statement really seals Aristotle’s idea on decision making. People who seem to make the finest decisions are vastly different then ones who have the best beliefs. Some have strong beliefs but make the

Before a serious investigation of any aspect of Aristotle’s political theories is undertaken, we must take a moment to acknowledge that many of the institutions and doctrines he defends have been repudiated in modern political thought. In fact many such institutions are appalling and simply morally wrong. One such institution is slavery. Aristotle argues in the Politics that slavery is just. No argument is needed to conclude that Aristotle made a terrible ethical and moral error in defending slavery. Further we must accept that the argument of the abolition of slavery was available to him as his defense of slavery is in response to critics who claim slavery is unjust. What sparks intriguing debate is questioning why

born to be freemen and those born to be slaves. However, we see that Aristotle