Seeking to understand in this week’s reading, I have chosen to focus discussing how do we define good? This subject is broken down in the book ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’ by Aristotle. His teachings bring to light various interesting concepts and give an understanding how can we achieve a virtuous life, without giving it a setting a rule book. My focus is to review what is discussed in his explanations on what is means to achieve happiness. This is an aspect that is discussed in the first book ‘The Good for Man’.
Aristotle begins his books by stating “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.” (Aristotle, Chap.1). His focus is that as people we are inherently seeking good. This does not mean that our actions do not have consequences, but rather that seeking good is innate, and it is just something that if we can let flourish, will allow us to be better individuals or a virtuous person.
His meaning of good is consequently linked to the happiness. He mentions “there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say
…show more content…
It is not always out of what we are doing that this happens. This is evident by that person that is solely concerned with making money, just because you make money that does not constitute happiness. “The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else.” (Aristotle, Chap. 5). He is explaining to us that we can choose to make money, understanding that this is a means to and end it what is important. Otherwise, it is just a task, lacking any true meaning. It is not that making money is bad, but one must understand that what brings about the feeling of happiness in not the money
The way in which Aristotle begins Nicomachean Ethics is with the statement “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision seems to seek some good.” (Aristotle Bk.1, Ch.1). This is a fitting way to begin, as it addresses exactly what the entire book hopes to convey. While at this point in the novel, readers remain unaware what the good that he is referring to means, it becomes clearer and clearer as it progresses why this is such an apt beginning. The Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to the notion that all humans are attempting to seek the ultimate end, which Aristotle describes as happiness, or the Good. If, as he says, everything we do in life is to seek some good, then each action or decision we make brings us closer to the ultimate end.
Aristotle starts off in his essay explaining the definitions of Good, Primacy of Statecraft and the study of Ethics. He defines good as where all things are to be aimed, for example health. He then defines Statecraft as citizens of a state, a country, and of the world need to do good for their own good but more importantly for the good of the state. He also characterizes various types of good. Finally, the definition on study of Ethics. This talks about the pure excellence of justice that involves the disagreements and agreements of uncertainty and certainty. Aristotle also talks about happiness and where a certain
In Book 1, he defines the best and most sought after human good as happiness. After discussing and reinforcing his concept of happiness as the most desired and best good, and the goal of a human life, the discussion segues into an examination of virtue and the rest of the work.
The concept of living “the good life” means something different for everyone. There is a general understanding that living “the good life” is associated with unyielding happiness and lasting satisfaction. The exact meaning of this desired life was pondered by thinkers and philosophers for hundreds of years. They constructed principals of behavior, thought, and obligation that would categorize a person as “good”. Although some of these ancient philosophies about “the good life” had overlapping ideas, their concepts varied widely. This contrast of ideas can be examined through two major characters in two famous works: Aeneas in “The Aeneid” and Socrates in “The Apology”. Aeneas exemplifies the philosophy that the direct route to “the good life" is through faith, trust in the Gods, and family, while Socrates in “The Apology” emphasizes free will, and vast knowledge of life.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, at an absolute basic sense, aims at the title of this course: the good life. In an age where philosophy and ethics were not largely developed, Aristotle aims to provide a universal standard for human flourishing and happiness, or the good life. His main argument is that all of our actions and goals are aiming towards human flourishment, but that each action falls into a range of virtues, where excess is one extreme and deficiency is the other extreme. The virtue that we all strive for, he states, is in the middle of these. For example, temperance is a universal human virtue, with pleasures and pains as the excess and deficiency. He states that virtues can be developed and learned over time and through practice,
John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.
Aristotle is an ancient Greek philosopher who has played a part in subjects such as mathematics and ethics. As a known student of Plato, Aristotle’s knowledge on various topics immensely affected people’s philosophical views. For Aristotle, his definitions of human happiness and a good life consist of being virtuous all throughout life. Happiness comes from being an overall good person; this is “the best way to lead a life and give it meaning” (Psychology Today). According to Aristotle, happiness is a continuing achievement. “Happiness is more a question of behavior and of habit—of ‘virtue’—than of luck; a person who cultivates such behaviors and habits is able to bear his
Aristotle’s work, The Nicomachean Ethics, consists of numerous books pertaining to Aristotle’s Ethics—the ethics of the good life. The first book discloses Aristotle’s belief on moral philosophy and the correlation between virtue and happiness.
In this essay, I will provide an ethical analysis of Phil Connors’ character through the philosophical lenses of Aristotle and Plato, by demonstrating how Phil’s sour attitude at the beginning of the film turns virtuous by the end, through a self-imposed, major character shift. During the majority of Groundhog Day, Phil’s attitude toward his seemingly hopeless situation is portrayed as very outwardly cynical and condescending, thus leading him to experience pain in many forms. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics describes how virtue is acquired, similar to learning a craft (1103a32-33). He goes on to detail our personal interactions with others, saying that “a state of character results from the repetition of similar activities” (1103b14-22).
The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that
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.
From the beginning of their evolution, human beings have been searching for the meaning of happiness. While many may see this to be an inconsequential question, others have devoted entire lives to the search for happiness. One such person who devoted a great deal of thought to the question of man's happiness was the famous ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. In his book The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discussed the meaning of happiness and what it meant to live a good life. He asserted that the devise which has been invented to create what is good for man is called "politics;" and it "uses the rest of the sciences"¦so that this end must be the good for man." (Aristotle, I, ii) Aristotle also identified four general means by which people live their lives in order to gain happiness, but stated that only one was a means by which a person could actually attain it. According to Aristotle, it was not political power, wealth, or worldly pleasures by which a person could achieve real happiness, it was living a contemplative life.
Now happiness, more than anything else, seems complete without qualification. For we always choose it because of itself, never because of something else. Honor, pleasure, understanding, and every virtue
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
To Aristotle, ethics is not an exact science, it’s ruled by broad generalizations that work most of the time and are found with those of experience, the men of practical wisdom (Nicomachean Ethics, 1094b15-1095a10). We don’t need a focused study in the sciences to understand the good, all one needs is a proper understanding of how the external aspects of life: friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth operate in concert. No aspects of friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth ought to be practiced too much (excess) or too little (deficient); moral virtue is action performed between two extremes (Nic. Ethics, 1106b5-25). And it is by consultation that one may find the middle ground between excess and deficiency, The Golden Mean (Nic. Ethics, 1097b5-20; Nic. Ethics, 1104a10-25).