Probably one of the most controversial issues in philosophy is the search for Truth. The Truth in ethics and morality are particularly important, because it determines the way of life one would choose to live for individual; for society as a whole, it is the foundation of human civilization and it is the basis for laws and orders. I believe that the Doctrine of Golden Mean developed by Aristotle has provided a plausible guide to moral goodness, for him the golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency, this idea was first published in his book The Nicomachean Ethics. In my opinion, the middle path of moderation is achievable for any one; one can live his or her life through moderation and it can be accomplished by developing virtue as a habit. …show more content…
For example, if one is not generous at all, he or she would be selfish or stingy; on the other hand, if one is too generous, then he or she will become extravagant. Therefore, by following the middle path, one would be generous enough to know how to give and care about others, also being aware of how much and when to give out. Furthermore, the golden mean does not necessarily suggest a fixed amount according to Aristotle, he explains that, “By the mean of a thing I mean what is equally distant from either extreme, which is one and the same for everyone; by the mean relative to us what is neither too much nor too little, and this is not the same for everyone”. Some people mistaken the golden mean as a fixed arithmetic mean. However, the golden mean should be different for everyone, since each person has distinctive features and the circumstances they are being placed in are
Of Aristotle’s three modes of rhetoric, Audre Lorde’s essay is comprised largely by logos complemented by pathos and the least by ethos. Ethos is obvious when she describes herself in terms of social groups, giving credibility to herself to justify her assertions. In her words, Lorde is a “forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple.” She explains at the beginning of her essay that she has been identified as an active member of these socially taboo groups and thus has the right to demand attention to her claims. Logos is seen throughout her essay, often following a bold statement. Her arguments not only consist of reasoning but also personal experiences and real-life occurrences, such as Lorde’s question of the lacking representation of poetry by Back women and the horrifying female circumcision supported by Jomo Kenyatta in Africa. Lorde’s use of logos is very effective because it gives the reader a relatable narrative to better understand her bold conclusions. The third mode of Aristotle’s rhetoric is pathos, which Lorde uses to a slightly lesser degree than logos but just as effectively. Examples of Lorde’s use of pathos are her descriptive language, metaphors and lists.
In what follows, I shall consider Aristotle's’ argument of the polis, or the city-state, as presented in his Politics I.2, and expound on the philosophical implications of this particular thesis; namely, a thesis which claims that the city-state exists by nature, and correspondingly, that a human being is ‘by nature a political animal’. Along the way, I shall present two objections leveled against each claim. The first pertains to the invalidity of the argument on ends; specifically, I shall protest that when a thing’s process of coming to be is completed, even if we regard this as an end, this does not necessarily confer that such an end is a natural end, for artificial processes too, like natural processes, share the potential to arrive at ends. The second pertains to the ‘part-whole’ argument, which in a sense takes from the argument of function. Here, I shall discuss that it is not quite clear whether the claim that human beings - as parts of the whole - are necessarily political animals, and so the view that the state is ‘prior by nature’ is uncertain. After that, I will present two Aristotelian responses against these objections; and judge whether or not these appear succeed. I conclude that he is correct in asserting that the city-state exists by nature, and correspondingly, that a human being is a political animal.
Humans, throughout recorded history, have searched for a proper way of living which would lead them to ultimate happiness; the Nicomachean Ethics, a compilation of lecture notes on the subject written by Greek philosopher Aristotle, is one of the most celebrated philosophical works dedicated to this study of the way. As he describes it, happiness can only be achieved by acting in conformity with virtues, virtues being established by a particular culture’s ideal person operating at their top capacity. In our current society the duplicity of standards in relation to virtue makes it difficult for anyone to attain. To discover true happiness, man must first discover himself.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that virtue and happiness come from achieving the moral mean. The moral mean is the midpoint between deficiency and excess in any particular behavior. For example, the moral mean of recklessness and cowardice is courage. In matters of ple...
Aristotle's and Kant's ideas of the means and ends of moral ethics are in sharp contrast. Both have strengths and weaknesses in their arguments, but Aristotle's is superior to Kant's because it is more realistic. I will first give the basis of both philosophies, Aristotle first, Kant second. Next, I will expand and question points of both philosophies, Aristotle's end, and Kant's means. Lastly, I will explain the reasoning behind why I favor Aristotle's ethics over Kant's. Both philosophies appeals to reason, but they come to different conclusions.
... find the balance, once you find the balance you achieving the main goal in life and obtaining happiness. According to Aristotle, there is a right answer or an objectively correct mean for everyone when you take it into account his or her situation. All in all Aristotle’s reasoning are very legitimate, for humans finding a balance is a way of life for most of us, we are trying to achieve good and most definitely trying to expand and look for ways towards more happiness in life.
Aristotle’s “doctrine of the mean,” I believe, may shed some light on the nature of moral virtues (virtues of character). The doctrine of the mean can tell us some things about moral virtues, but I would also that the doctrine of the mean ultimately creates a rather unhelpful and overly simplistic concept of morality. More than anything, I think the doctrine of the mean tells us more about Aristotle than the nature of moral virtues. First, we should define the terms we are discussing. When Aristotle talked about “moral virtue,” he considered it a state of character— character as opposed to “virtues of intellect” (which Aristotle also talked about). The doctrine of the mean is Aristotle’s analytical model for determining how people can best
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.
In this essay we will discuss and analyze Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean. This topic area can be found in Book II, page 888, 6—15, through 890, 25. The purpose for Aristotle touching on this subject matter was to discern the states of character which are virtuous from those which are not. By this, I mean he is attempting to categorize which virtues are causal of a human “to be in a good state and to perform their functions well”(888—15). In order to keep this paper orderly and comprehensible, we will work in chronological order through Aristotle’s variety of premises and conclusions which lead to his main idea which is ––––––––––––.
For Aristotle the doctrine of the mean is a way to categorize (one of his favorite activities) moral virtue; however, there are some exceptions, as Aristotle noted, leaving a gap that must be filled. The doctrine is very helpful and does work, but one must beware the exceptions and carefully contemplate for himself whether these things are so.
It was Aristotle’s belief that everything, including humans, had a telos or goal in life. The end result or goal was said to be happiness or “eudaimonia”. He explained that eudaimonia was different for each person, and that each had a different idea of what it meant. Further, he said that people must do things in moderation, but at the same time do enough. The theory, of “the golden mean of moderation” was the basis to Aristotle's idea of the human telos and concluded that living a virtuous life must be the same for all people. Aristotle maintained that the natural human goal to be happy could only be achieved once each individual determined his/her goal. A person’s telos is would usually be what that individual alone can do best. Aristotle described the humans as "rational animals" whose telos was to reason. Accordingly, Aristotle thought that in order for humans to be happy, they would have to be able to reason, and to be governed by reason. If a person had difficulty behaving morally or with ethics, he was thought to be “imperfect”. Moral virtue, a principle of happiness, was the ability to evade extremes in behavior and further to find the mean between it and adequacy. Aristotle’s idea of an ideal state was one where the populous was able to practice eth...
According to Aristotle, generosity is the mean virtue between wastefulness and ungenerosity. In broad terms, generosity is not ascribed to those who take wealth more seriously than what is right. Since generosity is relating to wealth and anything whose worth is measured by money, anything can be used either well or badly. Hence, in the virtue of generosity, whoever is the best user of something is the person who has the virtue concerned with it, which is the generous person. Whereas the possession of wealth is taking and keeping, using wealth consists of spending and giving, which is why “it is more proper to the generous person to give to the right people than to take from the right sources and not from the wrong sources” (1120a10). Since not taking is easier than giving, more thanks will be given to the giver. The generous person will also aim at the fine in his giving and will give correctly; “for he will give to the right people, the right amounts, at the right time, and all the other things that are implied by correct giving” (1120a25). As a result, it is not easy for the generous person to grow rich, since he is ready to spend and not take or keep,...
The Golden Mean The Golden Mean is a novel that is told in first person by a famous philosopher named Aristotle. The novel begins with the arrival of Aristotle, Callisthenes, and Pythias in Pella, Macedonia. They expect to stay only a few days before continuing on to Athens, however, they are obliged to settle for several years when the king wants a tutor for his son. Phillip the second’s son’s name is Alexander, who Aristotle tutors. This leads to the main focus of the story.
Aristotle mentions in his books several times that contemplation is a very important activity. But why? In order to understand this statement, the concept of contemplation has to be understood first. According to the modern dictionary contemplation is: “the action of looking thoughtfully at something for a long time.” (Merrian-Webster 1986).
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.”