My moral philosophy is what you put in you get back. For example, I put into my life my thoughts, my beliefs and my behaviors. What I get back from this is my reality that my thoughts, beliefs and behaviors have created. In my philosophy like Aristotle, I believe in Aristotle’s views on happiness and human flourishing with his philosophy. (Aristotle 4) I also believe in some of Kant’s philosophy through his concept of its our duty to live up to our highest moral capacity. (Kant 3) I believe it will make the world a better place in the sense that if everyone decides to “put in” good things then the world will be a better place. The negative to that is that if someone decides to “put in” negative things then they will receive negative results. Most people will strive for positive results so we will end up with a better world because more people will put in positive things trying to achieve better things. In relation to our first assignment discussing Cephu’s story he decided to try and cheat by setting traps in other places which was prohibited among the tribe. Cephu was eventually caught and punished due to him cheating the system. He used my moral philosophy in a negative way such as he “put in” a cheating effort and “got back” a negative result for cheating. If Cephu had used my moral philosophy in a positive way, he would have gotten a positive result in the since that he would have never been punished because he would have been following the rules of the tribe in the
In The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that there are three types of friendships. The three friendships being that of utility, pleasure, and virtue. First, in Sections 1-3, I will explain Aristotle’s claims of the three types of friendship. After that, in Section 4, I will examine Aristotle’s argument that there are two friendships that are not as lasting as the other friendship. Then, in Section 5, I will analyze whether or not the friendship of virtue can occur between only virtuous people. Next, in Section 6, I will evaluate whether or not true friendship is the friendship of virtue like Aristotle claims. Lastly, in Section 7, I will object to Aristotle’s claims.
In the work, Nicomachean Ethics, the philosopher Aristotle creates a guideline for those who are serious about pursuing happiness. Aristotle's recommendations for finding happiness are not accepted today without some struggle and careful examination. In Aristotle's time, slaves, women and children were not truly considered human; so in many cases the philosopher is directing his words towards free males only. It is necessary to understand that by overlooking this discrimination and applying it to all people, one can discover the timeless wisdom of Aristotle.
Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of that happiness as a path, a direction. Plato’s philosophy revolves around the attainment of eternal knowledge and achieving a metaphysical balance. Augustine also emphasizes one’s knowing the eternal, though his focus is upon living in humility before God. Both assert that human beings possess a natural desire
What is the purpose of a human being? “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence” (Nicomachean Ethics). When one thinks about happiness, these words said by Aristotle allow us to understand its significance. Through Aristotle’s teachings, he made it clear that the point of life is to be happy. Aristotle uses the word happiness as having to do with a person’s life as a whole, and not as the constant desire of wanting to experience pleasure (Aristotle’s Ethics). People tend view happiness as an emotion that is not long lasting, while it is really about accumulating the good experienced an entire lifetime. To Aristotle, happiness is about flourishing, virtues, focusing on our well-being, and self-sufficiency.
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.
Is there really one definition for what it means to be truly happy? A simple joy such as a piece of candy may bring happiness to one; whereas something much larger might be the determining factor for another’s happiness. The definition of happiness is one of the most debated questions among many different philosophers and people through out the ages. Aristotle and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers who had similar ideas regarding the definition of happiness, but argued different theories on what constitutes happiness and what is required to be truly happy.
Socrates lived his entire life in Athens, Greece when he was advocating his philosophical views on life. He asked the fellow Athenians hard questions about truth and justice. Compared to the rest of the Greeks, Socrates had a quite different perspective on how humans should live their lives. Specifically on how happiness is obtained. While the rest of Athens believed that happiness is a gift only given to the lucky ones by the Gods, Socrates’ idea was that happiness was attainable through effort and rationality. To the Greeks this idea that anyone could obtain happiness for themselves was considered punishable for the fact that it was overreaching pride. However, Socrates claimed that people must turn away from focusing on the body and physical things, but instead focus more on our souls. Socrates’ philosophy was that once a person obtains actual happiness that they will produce a divine-like state of
Happiness is all around the world, it is a very genuine and important thing, and everyone wants to be happy. Being happy is what makes life worth living, and it makes life a lot better in every way possible. What makes people happy though? Are bodily and external goods necessary to happiness? I would say no because by which they can make you happy, they are not necessary for human happiness. It’s not what things you buy, the pain, the suffering, or enjoyment your body might get. Human happiness comes from somewhere else within the human. Comparing and contrasting Aristotle’s and the Stoics’ view of human happiness will help give a better clear and logical understanding on what really happiness is and why I believe that bodily
The pursuit of happiness is a timeless and ageless endeavor. Since the beginning of time people have searched far and wide for the source of happiness. Even the greatest minds attempt to discover the basis of all human contentment. The father of philosophy, Socrates, was one of those few that might have unearthed the key to human happiness. His understanding shaped the way that the western world sees pleasure, joy, and happiness. His views on how to obtain them are still alive today.
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.
Aristotle is one of the greatest thinkers in the history of western philosophy, and is most notably known for expressing his view of happiness in Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle develops a theory of how to live the good life and reach eudaimonia (happiness). Eudaimonia has been translated into, living a happy and virtuous life. Aristotle’s definition of the good life as the happy life, consist of balancing virtues (arête), the mean, external goods, political science, and voluntary action.
We should not adopt Socrates’ objective conception of happiness because happiness is more intuitive—there isn’t just one way a person can be happy. As a human being, we are different from other species in that we have the capacity to surpass instinct and desire to make cognizant and ethical choices. This is not to say that instinct and desire does not shape human behavior, but what does is being able to act against these urges simply because we know that the act is “wrong.” That, in itself, is regulating the human behavior unobserved. To Socrates, this is what it means to fully be human. Suppose Socrates said, “the unexamined life is not worth living for full rational beings,” he would mean that those who do not make conscious, ethical choices
In our society today, we are mostly challenged by two questions: ‘is it right to do this or that? And ‘how should I be living in society?’(Bessant, 2009). Similar questions were greatly discussed in the history by our ancestors in their philosophical discussions. The most ancient and long-lasting literature on moral principles and ethics were described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. He had an excellent command on various subjects ranging from sciences to mathematics and philosophy. He was also a student of a famous philosopher. His most important study on ethics, personal morality and virtues is ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’, which has been greatly influencing works of literature in ethics and heavily read for centuries, is believed to be
There are certain truths of the world that cannot be ignored or overlooked. Many philosophers have spent countless years discussing, debating and evaluating such truths. One such influential philosopher is Socrates. Born in Athens in 469 B.C.E, he spent most of his time at the marketplace and other public places engaging in dialogues about truths of life. Among many other things, he discussed virtue and happiness and how closely they are related. According to Socrates, virtue is absolutely necessary for perfect happiness because virtue brings a type of happiness that other things could never bring. In this paper, I will explain the aforementioned idea of Socrates on virtue and happiness and through evidence from Plato's Apology which is
Throughout this course, we have learned about many philosophers that have been influential in the topic of Happiness. However to me, Aristotle and Epicurus have been the most interesting philosophers to me personally so far. Epicurus viewed happiness or eudaimonia as a static pleasure and believed that pleasure was the greatest good, however to attain this pleasure, you would have to attain tranquility, freedom from fear, and absence of bodily pain. As for Aristotle, he viewed happiness as the best good and the ultimate good and claims that happiness is achieved only by living a virtuous life. "our definition is in harmony with those who say that happiness is virtue, or a particular virtue; because an activity in accordance with virtue implies virtue. Indeed, we may go further and assert that anyone who does not delight in fine actions is not even a good man."(Aristotle). These points are what I believe best explain and evaluate how happiness or eudaimonia are understood by Epicurus and Aristotle.