Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The pursuit of happiness analysis
The pursuit of happiness analysis
The pursuit of happiness analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The pursuit of happiness analysis
Aristotle believes that ethics is about doing the things that make one an excellent and ultimately a happy (fulfilled) person. Kant claims that happiness is irrelevant in ethics and that the right thing to do is to determine what our duty is and to act on it. Both of these philosophies pose their flaws, but the question of what should we follow if we have no basis is raised. Although I strongly disagree with both philosophies, Kant’ s philosophy would work the best in an ideal world, while on the other hand, Aristotle’s philosophy wouldn’t work in an ideal or realistic world. Aristotle is a strong believer that reaching happiness is the ultimate goal of humans. He says, “Another belief which harmonizes with our account is that the happy man …show more content…
Kant does not believe reaching happiness is the main goal of life, but instead doing good with a sense of duty is. Kant says, “A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes… it is good only through its willing, i.e., it is good in itself” (Kant, First Section). Kant’s claim is very strong because it doesn’t allow for any adaptations. From this, he creates two imperatives, the hypothetical and the categorical. Following the categorical imperatives is what eventually will make one virtuous because they are universal laws or commands to being …show more content…
Since happiness can be defined differently by anyone, how can we be certain of a true happiness? Another question that can be raised is how many externalities are okay to have to help reach happiness? Even if Aristotle believes externalities shouldn’t be the driving factor to reaching happiness, if no one has a true definition of happiness it would be easier for fortunate people to use the externalities at their disposal to reach happiness. Like already mentioned, the less fortunate will be at a greater disadvantage to reaching happiness. It is very similar to how education works in this country. Those who are of a wealthier family can attend the best schools, have after school programs that help students and sometimes do not have to worry about finding a job once they graduate from college. On the other hand, those who come from a less wealthy family do not have these programs available in their communities; the schools are less funded and have a harder time even getting into college. Is a person from the wealthy family more virtuous than the person from the less wealthy family? Does their wealth affect their virtuous character or how virtuous they can be? These questions are all answers Aristotle’s philosophy cannot answer with a definite response in real-world applications. When looking at it from an ideal world perspective, both communities wouldn’t exist because everyone would be equal, but
Aristotle insists that our happiness depends on our wants, our desires, using reason to govern our irrational desires. This comes from our inner self, but in order to achieve such state we need to, in essence, act on our political animal that he describes. In book one, Aristotle lays down two provisions that happiness needs to be satisfied. He states happiness must be perfect and that it must be self-sufficient. Not by himself, as he describes as being solitary, but by the means of parents, siblings, spouse,
Aristotle believes that happiness rests within an absolutely final and self-sufficient end. The reasoning behind this theory is that every man is striving for some end, and every action he does must be due to this desire to reach this final end. He believes that in order for a man to be happy, he must live an active life of virtue, for this will in turn bring him closer to the final end. Although some may believe that these actions that the man chooses to take is what creates happiness, Aristotle believes that these actions are just a mere part of the striving toward the final end. I believe that Aristotle’s great-souled man is the highest virtue of character; His actions are never too extreme and he is appropriate in all his manners. The magnanimous person is within the intermediate state of character. “The deficient person is pusillanimous, and the person who goes to excess is vain” (§35). The magnanimous person surrounds himself with great things. The great things occurs when “he receives great honors from excellent pe...
The philosophers Kant and Aristotle both have their own theories on the source of virtuous action. Aristotle believes that the moral worth of an action lies in the agent's intent whereas Kant believes that if one's will is determined by inclination, neither does that individual have a good will nor does the action have any moral worth. Thus, in order for an action to have moral worth, according to Kant, one's will must be determined by categorical imperatives. Once this condition is satisfied, that person can be said to have a good will and the resulting action can potentially have moral worth. Kant and Aristotle's theories on the source of virtuous actions are highly similar as they both believe that intent is a crucial component of virtuous
As Socrates also believed, Aristotle thought that the life of the philosopher was the most pleasant and had the potential to bring the most happiness to oneself. Happiness is a state that is interpreted differently by each person. Aristotle describes happiness as a final end meaning that is not chosen as a means to something else. As health is the goodness, or completeness, of a person’s body, happiness is the goodness of a person’s soul. For that reason, one should not seek happiness in itself, but should seek deserving to be happy. This is the same as one not seeking health, but deserving the health by exercising and eating correctly.
He says, “it is impossible or not easy for someone without equipment to do what is noble: many things are done through instruments, as it were—through friends, wealth, and political power. Those who are bereft of some of these (for example, good birth, good children, or beauty) disfigure their blessedness, for a person who is altogether ugly in appearance, or of poor birth, or solitary and childless cannot really be characterized as happy; and he is perhaps still less happy, if he should have altogether bad children or friends or, though he didn’t have good ones, they are dead. Just as we said then, [happiness] seems to require some such external prosperity in addition” (NE 1099b5). This quote contradicts in many ways how Aristotle previously described happiness. Aristotle says happiness is self-sufficient, but needing money, friends and political power is not self-sufficient.
In fact, I don’t reach happiness in regards to money until I am able to make a purchase or pay my dues, making money a stepping stone to my happiness instead of the ultimate end. As quoted by Aristotle, “Wealth is clearly not the good we are looking for, since it is useful and for the sake of something else” (Nicomachean Ethics, 390). My opinion regarding money not being happiness, coincides with a large portion of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, in which Aristotle refutes the common opinions of what happiness is, he contends that happiness is not equitable to pleasure, wealth or honor. These “identifications” of happiness are not considered to be the highest end of an action. In each of these situations that the masses define as happiness, has a greater good to be achieved, therefore making them not true happiness. Aristotle supports his argument by using the example of honor, he contests that an individual pursues honor, to be recognized and convinced they are good, “people seek to be honored…for excellence” (Nicomachean Ethics, 390). Excellence is of greater value in the process of seeking honor, showing that honor, like wealth, is not the ultimate goal of actions, meaning it cannot be equated to
Aristotle and Kant have profoundly differing ethical viewpoints, specifically on what exactly defines virtue. Immediately I noticed a profound difference between the somewhat more modern take on ethics that Kant provides as compared to the possibly somewhat antiquated views of Aristotle.
As mentioned before, happiness is a very complex subject matter, for it means something different to each and every person. In Aristotle's opinion, one needs to have realized and lived up to their potentialities in order to be happy. He notes that since human beings have the unique gift of reason, they are required to fully develop this skill in order to be happy. Yet, we must stop a minute and ask ourselves, "Is this too much of a pretentious assertion?" How do we know that our full potential can only be met if we learn to use the gift of reason? Can we ever be sure that knowledge is not simply an inst...
Therefore, even with conflicts in Aristotle’s ethics it is superior and more realistic than Kant’s. Aristotle’s conception of happiness is achievable and could be pursued by anyone. Kant’s moral action by duty could not. In addition, Aristotle’s ethics could be continually followed, while Kant’s could not because moral actions could not continue to be moral. Overall, Aristotle has a well-rounded ethic philosophy that has few problems in it, but none that completely undermine it. Kant has several problems that undermine his philosophy.
Ethics is the good in an individual and should not be confused or interchanged with morality. As morality are the ways that an individual can obtain good by following the laws of one’s society and the commandments of one’s religion. Although there are many great philosophers whom have impacted the world, multiples of them have extremist views about society, and therefore Aristotle is the philosopher whom I consider has a similar perspective of ethics as myself. He discusses how the “good life” comes from happiness and continues to explain to attain the “good life” it must be done as a community. Even though Aristotle is one of the eldest philosophers, his ideas of ethics are still relevant in today’s society.
He states “ He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life ” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1101a10). To achieve happiness is to have good moral, or complete virtue. One must not only be virtue, but also act in accordance with virtue. The life of virtue is crucial for happiness. Happiness is the final goal or the end of our life.
The pursuit for happiness has been a quest for man throughout the ages. In his ethics, Aristotle argues that happiness is the only thing that the rational man desires for its own sake, thus, making it good and natural. Although he lists three types of life for man, enjoyment, statesman, and contemplative, it is the philosopher whom is happiest of all due to his understanding and appreciation of reason. Aristotle’s version of happiness is not perceived to include wealth, honor, or trivial
Happiness is the ultimate goal for everyone in life. Aristotle's definition of " happiness is happiness is the activity of the soul in accord with perfect virtue. To become a better person, we must practice virtuous acts regularly. After a while, these acts will become a habit and so the virtuous acts. part of our every day life and the person will be leading a virtuous life.
His philosophical theory was very simple and he wanted to teach people how to be happy. He stated “In all our activities there is an end, which we seek for its own sake, and everything else is a means to this end…Happiness is this ultimate end. It is the end we seek in all that we do.” What Aristotle means is that everything we do in our daily activities and actions is all leading up to the end result which is happiness. For example, I work and attend school full time and everything that I do is sub goals leading towards being a successful person which causes me to be happy. Aristotle says happiness is also found in our feelings. A personal example is I love my family and it makes me happy having people to care about and to support them. Sub goals on the way, such as making an A in a class or finishing college and getting a degree are self-awarding pleasures that create happiness. Those are a few examples that make me happy and doing well and succeeding is the key to happiness. For happiness to happen in general, people need to have a reason or virtue in our lives. That everyone has their strong suites about themselves and we need to express and share them with others to help others grow as well. What I understand from Aristotle’s theories of happiness is that our feelings and good actions and being able to control them is what makes us
Unlike Plato, Aristotle questions and concludes that virtue does not suffice happiness. His definition of happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance with the most perfect virtue. He believes one must be active and make full use of his/her rational capacities to function well. This perfecting of ones character was Aristotle?s key to happiness.