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.
Aristotle provides the teleological approach of how to live well in his collection of lectures, Nicomachean Ethics. In Book II of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents his definition of virtue in which it is "a kind of mean" (N.E. 129). According to Aristotle, moral virtue is a means to an end, happiness. By using Sophocles's Antigone, I will support Aristotle's theory of virtue in which he reasons it to be a state of character between two extremes. A virtue that remains relevant today as it did during Aristotle's era is that of courage. By using Aristotle's account on what represents the virtue of courage, I will demonstrate how it could be applied to the dilemma the characters of Antigone encounter. Even his definition of justice is
Nietzsche and Aristotle were two of the most significant philosopher of not only their time but their works has lasted throughout the centuries to influence even some today’s greatest minds. Their works however could not be any separated, Aristotle is a prominent figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre. He was a student of great thinkers such as Plato and Socrates. He believes that ethics is a process to finding the final end or the highest good. He states that although there are many “ends” in life those are usually only means to further ends, our ambitions and wants must have some final purpose. Aristotle believes that this highest end is that of Happiness. He introduces the concept moral virtue which is the ability to properly control desires to follow bad actions, and is the focus of morality. Centered on the core of Aristotle 's account of moral virtue is his doctrine of the mean. According to this doctrine, moral virtues are character traits which are at in-between more extreme character traits. While Nietzsche a German philosopher, essayist, and cultural critic. He believes that "Good" is originally designated only the right of those individuals with social and political power to live their lives by sheer force of will. But a "priestly" caste, motivated by their resentment of their natural superiors, generated a corrupt
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 highest human good” or “well-being”, but it is not simply a word with a definition but a concept that needs to be broken down and understood. In connection with happiness is morality. According to Aristotle, only certain actions have genuine moral worth, which is heavily based upon reason. To live a moral life and achieve happiness one must achieve human excellence through moral and intellectual virtue. To make the connection between morality and happiness, we must understand these concepts in accordance with Aristotle.
In book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle highlights human activity and good and the idea of happiness. He shows that every human activity is some way in fact good with finishes (goals) that may be higher than one another. He relates this idea of good to political science. You can only create a narrow view of good since everyone needs and views differ. The overall good is said to be happiness but its definition is one that can differ based on a person. His idea is that we should focus on not the mental aspect of good but the one that can be achieved and can be worked for daily. Happiness can be seen to be the overall good, as most ”good” including intelligence or wealth stem from in fact being happy as it is what a person may aim for to
1. According to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, happiness is known as eudaimonia, and is an Intrinsic Good. For Aristotle, humans reach their supreme goal of eudaimonia through intellectual and moral virtues. When one can habitually and favorably find the mean between extreme actions in any situation, moral virtue is reached. Intellectual virtue is reached through phronesis, or when an individual uses his or her mind to choose a “right” decision. The cultivation of habit is necessary for Aristotle because when choosing the situational mean is deep-rooted inside of an individual, he or she will always be emotionally pleased with doing the right thing. This deep-rooted habit forms its foundation during childhood, via rules and constant guidance from adults. If one choses the mean when he or she would rather act otherwise, choosing the mean is not yet a habit, thus eudemonia has not been reached. Aristotle says that this behavior is essentially pretending; like an actor wearing a mask. It does not matter how long or hard an individual practices the mean of extremes, if one does not find pleasure in doing what is right, the supreme goal has not yet been met.
My girlfriend is pregnant. I have never felt so lost, without purpose, so blind and unable to see a clear path. Right now I am at the point where the action causes a reaction and I am living with the result. I do not know what took over me, but as some might put it love was a hard mistake. I have to explain everything, from the first moment I felt these emotions to the instant my seed was leaving my body into the being I adored and wanted a physical connection more than anything in the world. I find it extremely hard to sit down and tell someone my deepest feelings and hardships without knowing the person, but I feel this is a way to invoke these emotions in a way that they will never come out again. There is no doubt in what I did and did
life presumes that the individual therefore is not living the standard life being considered comfortable or normal in society. As previously stated there is no normal way to live life, as it is relative to the individual. While the jobless individual in the moment may not be satisfied with his current situation, he however may still have good relationships with family, friends, or coworkers that are there to help. The individual also did not choose to be jobless and we can also not assume that because of his lack of money that he does not have good morals and has made the right decisions prior to getting laid off. From this analysis we can see that a poor individual can still live a good life and by titling someone as poor does not necessarily mean they can not be happy or understand moral values.
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.
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.
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’.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores the virtues as necessities to be happy. A virtuous person is a person devoted to virtuous actions and who derives the pleasure of behaving with virtue. Aristotle distinguishes two types of human virtue, intellectual and moral. The virtues of thought and learning and the inclusion of virtues such as wisdom and prudence; The virtues of the character include bravery and charity, which are acquired by habituation and requiring external products to develop. As a result, not all people can gain the green character because not all people possess the goods and resources necessary to develop this provision. Moreover, all virtuous persons are not happy: virtue is a condition of happiness. In this article I will construct a brief exposition of these concepts, reconstruct the process of acquiring virtues and demonstrate that mere light reality is not enough to happiness.
Aristotle was a highly respected and well-known Greek philosopher, who studied both science and ethics in abundant detail. When someone famous like that writes his thoughts down on paper, and has great advice for you in your life, you tend to pay attention. In Aristotle’s papers, the Nicomachean Ethics: he defines virtue as “states of character acquired through habituation, through acting repeatedly in the way that a virtuous person would act, until virtuous action becomes second nature” (Aristotle, 1999). I love the way he defines it as being habitual, because we learn it. We don’t just have it from the start. Virtue is something that is taught to us over time. It is something that we need to maintain in order to keep. What virtues do I have in my life and how do I know if they are authentic?