Philosophical Analysis of Aristotle

Society has not changed much in the thousands of years since Aristotle first addressed ethics in Athens, Greece. Everyday situations and problems he discusses all relate to everyone in the present day. The rules of demeanor and clarifications on virtue that he suggests can all help people today attain a complete and satisfying realization of their duties as an equal member in society and ultimately discover the purpose of life.

     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.

Aristotle takes the key to morality to be the concept of “virtue,” which he argues to be activity in accordance with rational principles. He bases this argument on a concept of what is “natural” for man, but his discussion is clearly limited to a small class of Greek male citizens, whom he views as the

trange; that was the only word to describe it. Aristotle’s eyes widened as he quickly leaped off his bike, making his way towards the abnormality. The peculiar flower caught his interest; he had never seen anything like it. He wandered off into this field not too far from his house, on a quest for flowers. However, this was not what he expected. This flower was such a beauty, it did not belong on Earth. Excitement flickered in his eyes. Aristotle was still in the early stages of becoming a botanist, but he knew almost too much about plants. A gleeful laugh escaped his lips, and he wasted no time in uprooting the flower from its spot. His hands shook with delight as he placed the flower in the basket of his bike, that previously occupied the ground. His legs burned when he raced home, his smile shined brightly in the afternoon sunlight.

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

If, even with man’s best effort, nothing is achieved, any process of good will must be regarded as such (394). This marks a definite shift in philosophical thought; the consideration of good without any remark on the consequences of one’s actions and thoughts. Kant does not emphasize the creation of happiness as the goal of one’s choices, since happiness is a subjective marker open to corruption (396). Multiple actions can produce this result, while the same action can differ in its consequences. This uncertainty necessitates a different, more concrete definition of moral value.

An ethical issue that is debated in our society is the concern of driving while intoxicated. Although this was naturally not the case during Aristotle’s time, many of his ethical beliefs can be applied to refute this dilemma. I will prove the standing issue to be unethical through Aristotle’s discussion of virtue and his concept of voluntary/involuntary actions in the Nicomachean Ethics.

Aristotle wrote the first book ever written about ethics titles “The Nicomachean Ethics,” and it is still one of the greatest and most influential. Its purpose is to teach us to be virtuous rather than to understand what virtue is. (Aristotle, 2009)

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

Immanuel Kant became one of the most iconic, and potentially crucial philosopher since Aristotle himself. Like Aristotle and Aquinas, Kant also believed God exists and that he could have an impact on our lives if we let/wanted him to. But ethics mainly evolved around humans, more than God. Kant believed that ethics were acting out of a sense of duty. A good act could not happen unless the good act came from the person’s duty. Kant viewed normal things that today we find as good, like happiness, as bad because he saw the total view rather just what

Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.

Utilitarianism is the argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.

In order to compare these great philosophers, it is important that we first of all view their history from an individual perspective.

truths, and forms. He had no room in his views for imagination and what he saw