Essay on The Contradictions in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

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.

Happiness to Aristotle is to have virtuous activity of the soul and to have achieved the highest good in life (Book I, Chapt. 9, Para.3). To be a virtuous activity of the soul means to participate in honorable and noble activities and to truly be happy and caring when doing them. In Book I, Aristotle implies that someone who does a virtuous activity, but does not really care to do it, is not really being virtuous, whereas someone who does care is truly being noble. Aristotle implies an argument from eudemonia, or happiness, where in order to live a jubilant life, one must live well, but what exactly Aristotle means by this is to live contemplatively and virtuously. He becomes clearer about the behaviors in having a good

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

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,

As one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Aristotle was one of the greats. He altered history and the way our world views philosophy and ethics. One of his theories of ethics that he written in the form of 10 books was Nicomachean Ethics, this theory consisted of Aristotle’s perspective on the life of man and what makes a good life for man. Personally, I think his theory of ethics is a good outline of how to be an ethical and happy, I think Nicomachean ethics is a valid theory as it makes sense, and as a base line or starting point can be applied to many situations. Aristotle purposes that all human beings work toward a supreme happiness or good, this good is

In Book eight and nine of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the variations of friendships that are present in human nature. He further goes into detail on the terms and grounds on forming these friendships. I will be analyzing the different types of friendship discussed in Aristotle’s Ethics and answer the difficulties and obstacles present in trying to achieve the perfect friendship, the friendship based on goodness.

Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up" (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10). True friendships are a rarity in today's culture. In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, he delves into what a "true" or "complete" friendship should be. The friendship of David and Jonathan in the Old Testament lines up with Aristotle's criteria for an ideal and complete and n true friendship. David and Jonathan’s friendship meets Aristotle’s criteria that friends must be good and alike in virtue, they should be equal, and they must love each other for their own sake.

I chose to write about Aristotle and his beliefs about how the virtuous human being needs friends from Book VIII from Nicomachean Ethics. In this essay I will talk about the three different kinds of friendship that (Utility, Pleasure, and Goodness) that Aristotle claims exist. I will also discuss later in my paper why Aristotle believes that Goodness is the best type of friendship over Utility or Pleasure. In addition to that I will also talk about the similarities and differences that these three friendships share between one another. And lastly I will argue why I personally agree with Aristotle and his feelings on how friendship and virtue go hand in hand and depend on each other.

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics explores the idea of an ethical framework based on virtues, deliberation, and choice. The key to being virtuous is to strike a balance between the extremes on either side of a virtue. Arriving at what constitutes as a virtuous balance is achieved through the process of deliberation and then action. Sartre and the existentialists say that existence precedes essence; the good starts from human subjectivity rather than from known virtues. Through a person’s choices, they determine what is good. Though their theories of what constitutes the good may differ, choice is a key element of both ethical frameworks. The differences that each ethical framework has about what the good is are not mutually exclusive. In

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Ethics) is regarded as one of the, if not the greatest work concerning ethics in history. The word ethics derives from the Greek word ethos, which translates more properly as “character”, and it would seem that Aristotle’s concern in The Ethics, is what constitutes good character, and that goodness is of practical use; that merely knowing how to be a way is only half of what’s necessary, and that the known must be practiced. A related treatise, The Politics, is often regarded as the sequel to The Ethics, in part because Aristotle closes The Ethics by saying that his ethical inquiry has arranged the foundation for an inquiry into political questions. (Reeve. Page 194.) As such, Aristotle regarded ethics and politics as two separate but related fields, giving way to the idea that ethics surveys the good of the individual, while politics examines the good of the city-state (polis), but also that the good of the individual is secondary to the good of the city-state.

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.

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).

Undercover police officers (UPO) act in a way that can be considered wrong in civilian life. The UPO’s actions cause harm and setbacks to people 's lives (Miller, Blackler & Alexandra 2006). These acts inevitably require the UPO to act immorally, causing genuine dilemmas for the UPO (Miller, Blackler & Alexandra 2006). However, committing immoral acts is a fundamental part of the UPO’s ability to apprehend criminals who would otherwise go undetected, and remove drugs from the street (Bronitt & Roche 2001). This essay will address the ethical issues of performing immoral acts as a UPO by using Nicomacean virtue ethics (NV) to rationalise the role of an UPO in betraying friends, and by using rule utilitarianism (RU) to overcome the moral

After describing the source of virtues, Aristotle offers an explanation pertaining to the nature of “virtuous” actions and behaviors and the subsequent reasoning behind their categorization as such. Firstly, the individual in question must be fully aware the action and its anticipated outcome. The individual must then deliberately, and of by their free will and not out of habit choose to act virtuously. A virtuous outcome as a result of an accidental action does not constitute a virtuous act, as the intent and expectation was not to perform virtuously. Lastly, the action must be rooted from the individual’s “firm and immutable character.” The motivation behind their virtuous action must be a part of the person’s character, not simply the result of external forces (or supervision.)

Through books one to three in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between pain and happiness, clarifying the endless war that men face in the path of these two extremes. Man’s quest for pleasure is considered by the self-conscious and rational Aristotle; a viewpoint traditionally refuted in contemporary, secular environments.