Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay discussing the strength and waekness about aristotle virtue theory
Aristotle doctrine of virtue
Aristotle s virtue theory simple
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Contrary to Aristotle’s view that supreme happiness is related to earthly living, Augustine argues that supreme happiness is not truly found until one seeks eternal life with God. While both mostly agree on the definitions of the virtues, differences arise when one looks at their views on the ends that those virtues should be directed towards. In this essay, I will discuss both Aristotle and Augustine’s ideas of virtues and what each thinks humans should do in order to truly find and achieve the supreme good of happiness. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle lays a foundation of goods and supreme goods. “Every art”, he says, “and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared” (Aristotle, 46). The chief good is that “which we desire for its own sake” (Aristotle, 47). The chief good for humans is happiness, which people equate with many different things. The reason why happiness is the chief good is because it is sufficient in itself. Aristotle says “the general run of men…identify living well and doing well with being happy” (Aristotle 48). For example, it is thought that if one is happy with their job, they are more inclined to do a good job because they are content. As Aristotle continues on he defines the supreme good in yet another way, saying, “…Human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue” (Aristotle, 55). For Aristotle, a rational human being is also a happy and virtuous one as well. Rationality distinguishes humans from animals. At this point, it is suggested that one’s life can only be examined as a whole and not as he or she lives. “One swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day”, says A... ... middle of paper ... ... two ways, and some must be good in themselves, the others by reason of these. Let us separate, then, things good in themselves from things useful” (Aristotle, 52). Aristotle has multiple ways in which he looks at good and goodness, so a single form theory disagrees with Aristotle’s fundamentals of virtue. Despite these differences between the two writers, neither theory really proves to be right or wrong. Christians tend to side with Augustine and his views, but there is no real absolute here. There are those who say that they try to be good, rational and virtuous within themselves in their earthly life to garner a spot in heaven, and there are those who live according to what they feel God wants them to do. Regardless of their many differences, however, Aristotle and Augustine both prove to us with that there is more than one right way to live a virtuous life.
We pursue different goals in our life i.e. wealth, knowledge, honor etc. All these goals could be called good, but in “raising this question—what is the good? —Aristotle is not looking for a list of items that are good.” His aim is to establish a standard for the good that could be called the highest good, in other words he is looking for the form of the good. In his first book in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes that the Good is something “for whose sake everything else is done.” This shows that he considers the good as the first principle for all our actions. He mentions, “happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of the action.” So he identifies happiness as the highest good to which all others goals are subordinated. “From this, we could identify three characteristics of the highest good: “it is desirable for itself, it is...
Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.
Happiness is defined as a “state of being happy”. This concept of happiness seems rather simple to the ordinary person. According to Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, happiness is not merely a state. In fact, there is a lot more substance within the dimension of happiness that one must acquire and comprehend to achieve. While Aristotle defines happiness as the final end and self sufficient (8), Kant does not. Instead, Kant emphasizes the kingdom of ends, in which all are subject to the categorical imperative as rational autonomous beings with the intention of universalizing one’s maxim, not happiness. This paper will explore Aristotle’s definition of happiness in comparison to Kant’s.
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.
... nature and our striving towards the “good,” by means of moderate actions is everyday life. Knowing this practical type of reason, we can now examine the theoretical type of reason, intellectual virtue. Happiness is an activity, it is not a passive state for Aristotle. It is our potential which allows us to be motivated by the concept of the “Unmoved Mover,” towards a state of perfection or perfect happiness. In order to achieve this state, a human, according to Aristotle, must partake in an activity which is both sought for intrinsic purposes and is in itself perfect. Intellectual virtue is this activity. It is a theoretical principle which each person knows “a priori;” it is the act of doing what is most natural for all humans to do, to reason. It is our nature according to Aristotle, to reason, and it follows that if we achieve the perfectness or excellence (arete) in our nature, we achieve perfect happiness. Specifically, for Aristotle, the best way to come close to achieving the perfect “good” is to act as a seeker of truth.
From pursuing pleasure to avoiding pain, life seems to ultimately be about achieving happiness. However, how to define and obtain happiness has and continues to be a widely debated issue. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives his view on happiness. Aristotle focuses particularly on how reason, our rational capacity, should help us recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life.';(Cooley and Powell, 459) He refers to the soul as a part of the human body and what its role is in pursuing true happiness and reaching a desirable end. Aristotle defines good'; as that which everything aims.(Aristotle, 459) Humans have an insatiable need to achieve goodness and eventual happiness. Sometimes the end that people aim for is the activity they perform, and other times the end is something we attempt to achieve by means of that activity. Aristotle claims that there must be some end since everything cannot be means to something else.(Aristotle, 460) In this case, there would be nothing we would try to ultimately achieve and everything would be pointless. An ultimate end exists so that what we aim to achieve is attainable. Some people believe that the highest end is material and obvious (when a person is sick they seek health, and a poor person searches for wealth).
Aristotle is the one who laid down the foundation for virtue-based ethical viewpoint. His theory is called nicomachean ethics and states that virtues are characteristics that allow people to live
Aristotle was on the right path, but he made his argument too specific, and as a result made virtue something that it is not.
In this paper I will discuss Aristotle’s claim that happiness is a kind of activity and not a momentary pleasure. Some people might worry that Aristotle is wrong in making this claim by presuming that happiness is a state of mind rather than a constant pursuit in which a person must actively strive for throughout the entirety of ones life. I will argue that Aristotle is correct when he declares that happiness is a kind of activity that we strive for and ultimately attain throughout the entirety of our lives rather than just a feeling or state that we happen to have at any given moment. First I will explain Aristotle’s view on happiness and then I will offer some objections to Aristotle’s claim that happiness is an activity. Finally, I will respond to these objections in order to defend Aristotle’s position that happiness is found in pursuing virtuous activity and engaging in activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.
Also, the life of study, which is the best life according to Aristotle, is not the only type of life that will bring about happiness. The best life of someone who is ill versus someone who is poor will be different in terms of what it consists of and the happiness it will bring. Aristotle believes that eudaimonia or happiness is the ultimate good and that the best life is guided by rational contemplation; while it is true to say that happiness is the supreme good, Aristotle incorrectly argues that the best life is a life of study and provides an objective account of the good life which does not hold for all. While happiness is the ultimate good, Aristotle establishes the best life and incorrectly claims that the life of study is the best life for everyone, but it is crucial to first determine how Aristotle connects eudaimonia with human function and virtue. Aristotle believes that by asking what the good for human’s is, people will be better able to achieve good if one develops a fuller understanding of what it is to flourish.... ...
Aristotle believed that to be a good person you had to have intellectual and moral virtues and that good people learned goodness from the people they interacted with. Also Aristotle believed that all beings has an inherent goal that they try to reach; for humans it is complete development of talents and morals. One problem with virtue ethics is that there is no way to morally make decisions in complex situation; the best way to handle a difficult decision is to ask one’s self what one’s idol would
In conclusion, Aristotle disagreed with Socrates and Plato as he denied that humans are naturally drawn towards “the good”. He said that you can be a good person if you choose to do the right thing, if you choose to be virtuous. He categorised and defined sciences and therefore defined what virtue and ethics is and how to be virtuous. He also came up with the idea of the “moral mean”, for example, too much bravery is too rash but too little bravery is being cowardly. The most important thing he says is that you cannot just simply know what the right thing to do is; you have to do that right thing.
Furthermore, examining Aristotle’s understanding of happiness and virtue, along with the distinctions he makes between intellectual and moral virtues will provide insight into why individuals may act a certain way. Aristotle defines “happiness” as flourishing or living well as a good in itself. He believes that when an individual makes a decision, it is for
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...
He explained virtue as a means of doing the right thing no matter the time or place, towards the right people. When it comes to virtue, we learn it through experience and not through instructions. Aristotle argues that when someone behaves in right manner, they are in a state called, “Golden Mean” hence, they are in a state of virtue and understand the means between two extremes, which was noted by Aristotle as “Vices”. These extremes were illustrated from the far left side as a deficiency and on the far right as excess. For instance, if we take a look at being courageous we stand in the middle as being virtuous. But if we are too scared or cowering in fear then we stand on the far left side of the bar as being too deficient. Similarly, if we are on the far side of the bar then we are shown to be reckless. However, Aristotle argues that to be courageous, one must know how to assess the certain situation and find the right approach to the given