The concept of human good has perplexed many great thinkers alike for centuries. The main hurdle that prevents philosophers from coming up with a concrete definition for the term human good, is the struggle in diagnosing the highest good. Traditionally, happiness has been labeled as the highest human good, however it was the past definition of happiness that Aristotle strays from when he attempts to redefine human good. In the past, even before Aristotle, happiness was defined as just being virtuous. Looking back at a time when the question was endlessly pondered, the same conclusion was drawn. A virtuous life even with little cultivation, is a happy life, and that is that. In Aristotle’s prominent work, “Nicomachean Ethics”, Aristotle combines the realms of virtue and human function to achieve a better understanding of human good.
Aristotle then dives deeper into his
…show more content…
Aristotle uses a plant as an example. Every plant acts only to achieve its Eudaimonia, which is to survive and reproduce. This end for the plant is complete no matter how shallow compared to that of the human sphere. The difference lies within the lifestyle of said being. The plant for example is unable to choose the path to reaching the most complete end, its survival instincts are what drive its actions. The idea of will or choice has no role at all in helping the plant meet a complete end. Even as you move a step up, into a life characterized by sense perception. This lifestyle would be common to every animal, and Aristotle holds that, “there must remain a certain active life of that which possesses reason; and what possesses reason includes what is obedient to reason, on one hand, and what possesses it and thinks on the other” (Aristotle 13). This precept that Aristotle introduces to his definition of human good is what provides a distinction from anything outside of the human
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.
The Nicomachean Ethics, written by Aristotle, represents his most important contribution within the field of Ethics; it is a collection of ten books, covering a variety of interesting topics, throughout the collection.
From examining ends and goods, Aristotle formulates eudaimonia. He questions “what is the highest of all the goods achievable in action?” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 616). Aristotle argues that the majority of people agree that the highest good is achieving happiness, however, they disagree over what happiness actually is, for example, some claim t...
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the ultimate human goal or end is happiness. Aristotle then describes steps required for humans to obtain the ultimate happiness. He also states that activity is an important requirement of happiness. A virtuous person takes pleasure in doing virtuous things. He then goes on to say that living a life of virtue is something pleasurable in itself. The role of virtue to Aristotle is an important one, with out it, it seems humans cannot obtain happiness. Virtue is the connection one has to happiness and how they should obtain it. My goal in this paper is to connect Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics to my own reasoning of self-ethics. I strongly agree with Aristotle’s goal of happiness and conclude to his idea of virtues, which are virtuous states of character that affect our decision making in life.
Happiness is often viewed as a subjective state of mind in which one may say they are happy when they are on vacation with friends, spending time with their family, or having a cold beer on the weekend while basking in the sun. However, Aristotle and the Stoics define happiness much differently. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as “something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action” (NE 1097b20). In this paper, I will compare and contrast Aristotle and the Stoics’ view on human happiness. Aristotle argues that bodily and external goods are necessary to happiness, while Epictetus argues they are not.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he discusses the principles of virtue, choices and a desire for an end. In the 5th chapter of book 3, Aristotle gives a possible argument of someone who objects to his beliefs “But someone might argue as follows: ‘All Men seek what appears good to them, but they have no control over how things appear to them; the end appears different to different men” (1114b). Based on the objector’s generalization, he or she believes that all men strive to find the ultimate good, but they don't have the freedom or the wisdom to see things for what they truly are.
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.
Aristotle’s Strength is his belief in moderation (Book480). Aristotle believes the ultimate goal in life is to be happy and people will do what makes them happy. He defined the highest good as “eudaimonia” (Chaffee 477). To a...
Aristotle believes the only way to reach a state of happiness is through virtue. The virtue that is to be practiced is meant to guide our behaviors in society and to learn the meaning of moderation. Aristotle deems human happiness as more then attaining the pleasures of life but satisfying the human potentialities. Reaching such abilities could be seen by making logical choices and being able to choose the needs in life rather then the wants. At this point it shows that Aristotle contends that a society that includes citizens that he believes are of human excellence will reflect the same values upon it’s state.
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.
Happiness is the goal of every human beings according to Aristotle, however what does happiness imply? It is in his attempt to define happiness and to find a way to attain it that Aristotle comes across the idea of virtue. It is thus necessary to explain the relationship between these two terms. I will start by defining the good and virtue and then clarify their close link with the argument of function, I will then go into more details in explaining the different ways in which they are closely related and finally I am going to give an account of the apparent contradiction in Book X which is a praise of the life of study.
Aristotle once stated that, “But if happiness be the exercise of virtue, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the exercise of the highest virtue; and that will be the virtue or excellence of the best part of us.” (481) It is through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that we are able to gain insight into ancient Greece’s moral and ethical thoughts. Aristotle argues his theory on what happiness and virtue are and how man should achieve them.
Aristotle describes three types of life in his search for human flourishing: lives of gratification, politics, and contemplation. He contends that there is a single Idea of Good that all men seek, and he finds that happiness, or eudaimonia, best fits his criteria. Aristotle investigates the human purpose to find how happiness is best achieved, and finds that a life of activity and contemplation satisfies our purpose, achieving the most complete happiness in us. Aristotle is correct regarding the necessity of activity, but restricts the theory to only the life of study. We will reject this restriction, and instead allow any life of virtue and productivity to substitute for Aristotle’s life of study. One primary means of remaining active to achieve happiness includes loving friendships, which only happen to the virtuous. Thus human flourishing is living a life of virtue, activity, and productivity.
According to Aristotle, the good life is the happy life, as he believes happiness is an end in itself. In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops a theory of the good life, also known as eudaimonia, for humans. Eudaimonia is perhaps best translated as flourishing or living well and doing well. Therefore, when Aristotle addresses the good life as the happy life, he does not mean that the good life is simply one of feeling happy or amused. Rather, the good life for a person is the active life of functioning well in those ways that are essential and unique to humans. Aristotle invites the fact that if we have happiness, we do not need any other things making it an intrinsic value. In contrast, things such as money or power are extrinsic valuables as they are all means to an end. Usually, opinions vary as to the nature and conditions of happiness. Aristotle argues that although ‘pleasurable amusements’ satisfy his formal criteria for the good, since they are chosen for their own sake and are complete in themselves, nonetheless, they do not make up the good life since, “it would be absurd if our end were amusement, and we laboured and suffered all our lives for the sake of amusing ourselves.”