Aristotle And The Philosophy Of Socrates And Aristotle

799 Words2 Pages

Aristotle disagrees with his teacher, Plato in numerous ways, one of which is based on the concept of the “good.” While Socrates and Plato both believe in a highest Form of the “good” Aristotle believes that the Good is that which all things aim. However, some aims are only good instrumentally, such as money, so the ultimate Good must be something that is good in and of itself. What is the means of reaching this Good however; what allows us to pursue the highest Good? It seems to Aristotle that science is the answer. Science charges the rationality in human beings in order to perpetuate the actions that will lead us to happiness and he further extends this to say that political science must be the highest science that can be wrought. Political science is the science of running a state and further this is the means with which we dictate all else; therefore it is the highest science because it pursues the highest goals in everything that we do. This science is that which determines all other subordinate ends and hence, is made to be the highest means of reaching the highest end. Statesmen and political figures work to attain a good life for all and therefore represent the good of all humankind. However, what then is the highest Good to which political science now aims? In Aristotelian terms, happiness is the best good that deals as an all-inclusive end, or goal. We pursue political science in order to master this goal. Following this logic; we say that there is a highest goal to which we all aim, this goal is that of the highest science. The highest science is political science and it seeks the happiness of all others; therefore happiness is the highest Good to which we aim.
However, happiness is subjective so Aristotle lays our va...

... middle of paper ...

...… This act must be regretted afterwards to constitute as involuntary. For example, if a person mistakenly kills his father thinking that he is an enemy and regrets the act after discovering the truth has performed an involuntary act. However, if this same action is performed unknowingly and not regrettably then it is not involuntary, but non-voluntary.
For an action to be moral and virtuous it must be voluntary. The doer who performs an act involuntarily does not necessarily have the virtue that is required for the act. For example, if someone accidentally interferes with a murder and subsequently saves an innocent life, that does not make him morally responsible for the act. He did not choose to save the innocent nor did he necessarily have the proper virtue that would give the courage, or desire for justice which are integral in morally performing such a deed.

Open Document