Jared Sanders 5/4/16 PHI 372: Ethical Inquiry Term Paper What, if anything, does happiness have to do with morality. According to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, there is a direct connection between morality and happiness. Aristotle states that happiness is the main goal of human existence. He follows this idea by saying the only way to achieve happiness is through his account of morality. Aristotle’s “happiness” is a translation of the Greek word Eudaimonia. A definition of Eudaimonia could be “the
beings desire happiness and that all rational beings at least should desire moral righteousness. However, their treatments of the relationship between the two are starkly opposed. While Aristotle argues that happiness and morality are nearly synonymous (in the respect that virtue necessarily leads to happiness), Kant claims that not only does happiness have no place in the realm of morality, but that a moral action usually must contradict the actor’s own inclination toward happiness. Because Kant
Aristotle and Kant on Happiness, Morality and Normative Force 1. Do you think Happiness no matter how formulated is the purpose of our lives? Defend. For most of us, achieving some state of Happiness is a core objective. Indeed, in a great many of the philosophical musings on the very purpose of our lives here on Earth will tend to focus on the importance of achieving happiness, of sharing happiness and of bringing happiness to others. It is therefore reasonable to propose the knee-jerk response
Aristotle and John Stuart Mill on Happiness and Morality In this paper I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia disproves Mill’s utilitarian view that pleasure is the “greatest good.” The purpose of this paper is to contrast Aristotle’s and Mills views on the value of happiness and its link to morality. First I will describe Aristotle’s model of eudaimonia. Then I will present Mill’s utilitarian views on happiness and morality. Lastly, I will provide a counterargument to Mill’s
Morality and Happiness Everyone wants to be happy during their life, but is acting morally necessary for happiness? According to Introducing Philosophy, by Robert C. Solomon, Clancy Martin and Kathleen M. Higgins, many people say that “any good moral rule should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number” (447). I believe that this statement is true. Morality is necessary for happiness because every person has someone in this world that they truly care about. We all care about someone
moral.The moral principle of Utilitarianism revolves around maximizing the happiness of the largest group of people that the utilitarians action will affect. To the utilitarian it is the consequences that matter and not the action itself, even if that action is to take a life. I agree with the claim that to be morally good a person must strive to act in a way that increases the happiness of the collective and that happiness is the only desirable end result and all other things are just a means to
J.S. Mill’s and Morality According to John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is the concept in which “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness.” He argues that happiness should be distinguished between high and low pleasures. Hence, pleasures that engage the higher faculties of the human body are seen as more satisfying than the baser pleasures in life, such as watching movies with friends. Mill follows by arguing that utilitarianism, in the end, can be seen as morally binding
Essay The Greatest Happiness principle Morality is used to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Many philosophers have come up with ways to determine the morality of an action, and one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and an advocate for utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, morality is based on the greatest happiness principle. The greatest happiness principle states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
Theories of morality and ideas on how to achieve it have many interpretations throughout time. The five philosophers we studied in this course all have different understandings of what our purpose in life is and the different ways to obtain it. After studying the various theories, my own moral worldview has changed and grown since the start of this course. The philosopher that impacted me the most is Immanuel Kant, a philosopher from the sixteenth century Enlightenment era who believed that human
topic of moral motivations, they have drastically different interpretations of morality. Aristotle believes that virtue is the key to happiness and Kant argues that motivation does not make an action moral. These arguments show just two of the many interpretations of morality, and while they are very different, share some commonalities. The arguments illustrated by both philosophers both have the underlying idea that morality stems from goodness and doing the right thing, even though they both have different