What Is Good? Ethics And Morality

In this paper, I will reconstruct the arguments of Plato and Aristotle’s views on what is virtue and how the accounts apply to the case of justice. I will began with the earlier philosopher, Plato and how he relates virtue and justice and analyzing his reasoning supporting his relation. Next, will be the analyzation of Aristotle supporting reasons of virtue and how it accounts apply to justice. There are many similarities with Plato and Aristotle’s reasoning but I will be focusing on the disagreements amongst the two philosophers. The philosopher side I support is Aristotle's view that virtue is a mean between two extremes and thought of as a state or condition of the soul that happens from observations and common beliefs and not just reason alone.

Throughout this Book 1, the discussion digresses multiple times to explore the method by which the topic will be examined. Realising that concepts such as happiness are subjective, he establishes in the third Chapter that the fruits of the discussion will be satisfactory so long as it holds true universally. He also considers in Chapter four whether the discussion should originate from the principles, or from our experiences, and suggests that we should being from things known and immediate to us, which seems to be a logical choice as the discussions as a whole focus on what a man should do in order to act according to virtue in order to become good and attain happiness. In addition, the sixth Chapter is devoted to criticism of the theory of Forms. Since good can exist in so many different ways, but are undoubtedly good, Aristotle argues that there is no common idea governing it. He also denies the existence of separate Forms that are merely mimicked by what we perceive, since a thing and the Thing Itself has the same

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.

What exactly does the term “ethics” mean? When asking this question among several different groups of people, I’m sure all of their answers would be different in many ways, but would all draw the general theme that ethics is somewhat of a study of what is right and what is wrong. This is a mostly correct conclusion, except for the fact that it encompasses not only determining what is right and wrong, but attempting to systemize and defend those ethical positions which one holds. Almost all of the controversial headlines you see in the media today involve some sort of question of ethics. Abortion. Healthcare. (“Should we take money from the rich and give to the poor to pay for medical expenses?”) Gun laws. Euthanasia, etc. The topic I want

     With regards to Plato, I find that in The Republic, when discussing the just and unjust, we find ourselves between two evils. In the text, it asks what do we determine to be better, doing unjust things with no repercussions or to just things. In some way or another, we find ourselves at a cross road when faced with certain circumstances. Do we react unjust or just? What is it inside of us that tells us not to do the wrong and do the right thing or

Distinguished as one of the greatest reflective thinkers of all time, Plato was the innovator of many written philosophical dialogues. Accompanied by his teacher, Socrates and his most notorious disciple, Aristotle, Plato set the groundworks of Western philosophy and science amid dialogues such as Apology, Euthyphro, Republic and Laws. These dialogues provided some of the earliest handlings of political inquiries from a philosophical viewpoint. In the Euthyphro, Plato composes a dialogue that transpires in 399 BC, weeks before the hearing of Socrates, for which Socrates and Euthyphro try to determine an absolute meaning for the word “piety” also known as holiness. To enable the comprehension of the dialogue, this essay will restate the dialogue’s key claims through differentiating between the dialogue Euthyphro, which begins by probing for the definition of the good (a matter of epistemology) and the dilemma presented by Socrates within the dialogue (a matter of ontology). Furthermore, through recapitulating Euthyphros’ various endeavors in defining piety, the essay will contend that Plato utilizes diairesis in the dialogue (definition by division) to elucidate the nature of good. On this basis, the dialogue will exemplify the two conflicting views of religion made by both characters.

Plato may have developed his theory around the importance of goodness because he believed that there is a universal ‘goodness’ that everyone, including himself, should strive to reach. This relates to Plato’s elitist views that only philosophers can truly understand what is good and just as they are the only people who are not blinded by physical senses and the authorities’ opinions. Additionally, goodness is something that everyone attempts to achieve and so shows a strong moral foundation that would be readily accepted to aim for in our society. This can be represented by the Particulars in

ABSTRACT: The question of ethics relates to the good and its contrary, evil. What ethics does with its object is to seek to understand it, that is, not to produce either the concept of the good or the actions that fall under that concept. Thus, the question that follows is: What is the good?, or strictly speaking, what is the definition of the good? But the definition asked for, as any other definition, is necessarily related to the science of language. But language itself is a social phenomenon. Consequently, the definition of any concept implies the quest of the social roots of this concept. In this sense, the quest of the roots is prior to the quest of what is. Examples are taken from Plato’s Republic,

Since man is the only creature to have free will and a conscience, these must be central to a good life for a human.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

The battle of good and bad has been a debated topic for thousands of years, a fact evident in Plato’s dialogue, Crito. To become aware of the pretenses for this argument, it is significant to understand the meanings of the words good and bad. Good is a word referring to the virtue of an individual, a term meaning something is desired or pleasurable, or it can denote the moral right of a person or object. The term “bad” has negative connotations; it is everything good is not.

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).

In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, every point, every major idea, and every argument made, is all connected back to the concept that every action seeks an ultimate good. Aristotle felt that there is an intrinsic good that humans aim for and that there is this "good life" we all mean to have. However, what does it mean to be good? That means something different to everyone; we all inhabit many different roles in our day to day lives, whether we strive to be a good parent, a good sibling, a good student, a good citizen, or a good leader. All emphasize the importance of our own well-being, as well as that of others, and the greater community as a whole. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will

This essay will be examining the ethics of Plato (428-347 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C). I will firstly attempt to summarise the five fundamental concepts of Plato and Aristotle before providing my own opinion and view on their ethics. I will concentrate on their theories on the good life as a life of justice, censorship, knowledge and the good life.