The Ethical Theories Of Aristotle Vs. His Contemporary

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

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 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.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents the reader with a guide to living a good life. He claims the “highest good” is happiness, and the way to obtain it is through the use of reason. In order to better comprehend Aristotle’s ideas regarding happiness, we will explain his conception of eudaimonia and excellence through rational activity. Then, we will examine this concept of rational activity in relation to the aristotelian concept of self-sufficiency. At the end of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle offers a seemingly divergent point of view. However, we will argue that these final reflections on happiness describe the best way to experience a good life.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In order to explain the fundamentals of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, one must acknowledge his primary motive in this study, which is to understand what it means to live well. Unlike

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics is engrossed in this story through and through. The “highest good”, while it may not be applicable to the people hurt by the hurricane, can be seen in the actions of J.J. as well as Mark Cuban. The fact that they were able to put this complex of a mission together on such short notice is not only an attribute to their virtues and rationality but can also be herald to their ability to complete such a task so well; functionality. To simply donate a few dollars would have been an example of completing one's function to support the relief but to use privately owned property, donate, and start a fundraiser that is now raking in aid and money to help the city rebuild is to go above and beyond normal functionality. The virtue

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.

With such a variety of ideas, Aristotle said it best that “…there is a very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness… which is the highest good achievable …but with regard to what happiness is they differ…” (Martin, Solomon and Vaught 54). The years have yielded many ideas of ethics; however, four major principles of moral living that are considered the most suitable for all.

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 that concern there is no more important problem than the age-old one which was first discussed systematically here, in Greece, more than two thousand years ago.