Aristotle viewpoint on good focuses more on whatever makes you happy is good like “a sculptor and his sculpt and the goodness of the eye is seeing” but to these are positive things also Aristotle introduces a moral principle often referred to as the golden mean that can be used to determine virtuous action in give two extremes or vices the virtue of generosity lies between the vices of stinginess and extravagance I question Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ philosophy because if that be the case than happiness lies between misery and exuberance and Kant goes on and pushes the envelope a little further regarding the nature and origin of morality by adding goodwill or your motive behind your good by looking at what is in the heart of man that he would do good and perform all of these good deeds. Kant also argue that “an action has true moral worth only if it is motivated solely by good will, without regard to consequences or results” Kant’s summary is basically claiming that the moral worth of an action is determined by the nature of the intention that motivates the action and not by any external factor.
I believe Kant’s philosophy comes closer to classical Christianity more so than Aristotle because a man or woman may do good things like: attending church services regularly, giving tithes and offerings religiously and serving as an usher or singing in the choir but why is this person doing these things what is their motive behind their good and their good deeds? Is it to be seen or
Aristotle starts off in his essay explaining the definitions of Good, Primacy of Statecraft and the study of Ethics. He defines good as where all things are to be aimed, for example health. He then defines Statecraft as citizens of a state, a country, and of the world need to do good for their own good but more importantly for the good of the state. He also characterizes various types of good. Finally, the definition on study of Ethics. This talks about the pure excellence of justice that involves the disagreements and agreements of uncertainty and certainty. Aristotle also talks about happiness and where a certain
Only when these two aspects of the soul are engaged can one be closer to achieving happiness. Aristotle refutes elitist thinking by stating that all people have the capacity to reason within the soul. The good and bad characteristics in people come from the kinds of activities that they desire to undertake. Aristotle also generally defines the good life as simply doing what one wants to do, but happiness can only truly be achieved when one desires to do the correct things.
Aristotle argues that the most important thing in peoples lives is the virtue of happiness. He writes that one attains happiness by living a life of virtue - "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) A life of virtue implies a life of reasoning for the end goal of doing what is good. Human good is fulfilling and most desirable, therefore human good in life correlates with virtue.
Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn
Quiz 1: Aristotle 1. What does Aristotle argue that makes someone a “good” person? Aristotle considers a good person as one who is good at deliberation. He defines deliberation as the process of rational inquiry and rationality as the ability to act in accordance with virtue.
Aristotle is a dichotomist, which means that he believes that human beings consist of two major elements, the body and the soul. The body is the physical matter that one can see, where the soul is the feelings and desires one has; the things you cannot touch. Aristotle believes that we have three major elements of the soul which are pleasures, desires, and feelings. These elements are where we find our virtues. In book one of The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses that virtue is the highest human good. This being said, there are two qualifications that the highest good must have, “The good must be something final and self-sufficient,” (Aristotle, 10). By final Aristotle means that which is in desirable in itself, and not sought for the sake of something else. By self-sufficient Aristotle means something that does not depend on other’s bestowing it. Aristotle gives us the sense that he believes that politics is about the human good and one cannot begin to practice politics or political science well; unless one has the idea of what the good actually is. In book one; with many arguments to support his theory, he tells the reader that the good is intellectual and moral virtue. One of his arguments is he believes that you need a moderate amount of both health and wealth to be able to fully develop the virtue. He sees these two aspects as a form of equipment because if one is constantly ill or does not have a sufficient amount of money there will be many obstacles in reaching
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.
He is honored to be author of ‘The Nicomachean Ethics,’ which was in fact the 1st book ever written on the subject of ethics. The book is greatly influential, even in modern times. By an analysis of Aristotle’s literature, it can be observed that he primarily focused on preaching to be ‘virtuous’ rather than focusing on the theories of what ‘virtue’ is. According to him, in whatever way we choose to act, some action that is focused on achieving the desired end result or ‘good’ results comes from that person’s own perspective. Aristotle claimed that the maximum good which a person have desire to achieve is basically an end-point itself , a person’s action or struggles is for achieving that ‘end-point’, it may be regarded as a point of maximum satisfaction. Aristotle critically concluded that the happiness of a person satisfies these conditions completely, and hence the highest attainable good is regarded as happiness.
The philosophers Aristotle and Immanuel Kant express the sources of virtuous and dutiful actions in a similar, yet different way. Both philosophers agree that an action has moral worth, when it is preformed for its own sake. However, the difference contains a more significant meaning. Aristotle believes that pleasure can be included when preforming an action; while Kant believes that a duty is preforming the right action without the need of inclinations.
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).
As a result, both Aristotle and Kant have different takes as to what the good involves and the best way to achieve it. Aristotle uses the Doctrine of the Mean while Kant employs the categorical imperative. As mentioned before Kant begins the metaphysics of morals with an opening quote: “it is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be taken to be good without limitation or qualification” (GMM, Pg.9). To qualify something means it’s not simply good in all scenarios, but can be justified as a good in certain examples. We can take the example of money as a means of achieving something else, but one must have a good will when performing this act, which is governed by reason.
In Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the idea of moral virtue. Aristotle emphasized the importance of developing moral virtue as the way to achieve what is finally more important, human flourishing (eudaimonia). Aristotle makes the argument in Book II that moral virtue arises from habit—equating ethical character to a skill that is acquired through practice, such as learning a musical instrument. However in Book III, Aristotle argues that a person 's moral virtue is voluntary, as it results from many individual actions which are under his own control. Thus, Aristotle confronts us with an inherently problematic account of moral virtue.
The Constitution had many important purposes and ideas. One of those ideas was establishing justice: the act of the government creating fair laws, establishing freedom, liberty, and equality. It is very evident throughout the Constitution that this goal has been met. For example, Full Faith and Credit explains that states cannot discriminate against other citizens. The Constitution states, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public, Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other state” (Article 4 Section 1 Clause 1). This is an example of a fair law because it explains states have to respect the judicial ruling of other states. A common example of Full Faith and Credit is a driver’s license. If a random teenager gets a driver’s license in Illinois, Wisconsin has to respect that license, even though one has to be older to obtain a driver’s license. This is fair because Illinois ruled that this citizen is eligible for the right to drive. Another example of the Constitution establishing justice occurs in the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment is
A time where I learned a gender role was from my dad, he has taught me to take care of my brother and look out for him. Since I’m the older brother I have to protect from all the bad this world gives. No matter what happens I will always support my brother in whatever he does along with making sure he going in the right direction in life. One thing my dad told me when I was starting middle school is that if my brother ever got into a fight with another person that he wants me to jump in and help my brother out if he’s getting a beating. That's a role I would gladly accept because no one going to beat up on my little brother accept for me, I had no problem with that. Another thing he would always tell me would be that always stay close to your
William’s paper addresses the moral risk that is posed when people decide to intentionally remain ignorant to avoid a possible ethical crisis. She then elaborates on how this choice manifests itself in four different types of affected ignorance. She bases her belief that factory farming is wrong using deontology and utilitarianism because animals deserve respect as well as the ability to exist without pain that is atypical from a natural life. Her argument is that when we chose affected ignorance, we then become subject the possibility of “moral risk” if we identify that factory farming is morally wrong and continue to support it. I agree with her argument, but believe that it could be strengthened by developing the idea of how affected ignorance is a symptom of being weak willed.