Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato and Aristotle on ownership
Plato and Aristotle on ownership
Utilitarian theory and property rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plato and Aristotle on ownership
Finding self identity and its connection to ownership of objects is perceived differently through varied thought processes. Plato believed that owning objects was detrimental to one's character. Aristotle claimed ownership of objects developed moral character. More recently, philosopher Jean-Paul Sarte felt that ownership extended past material objects to intangibles such as develop skills. All above theories are supported by incredibly renowned and brilliant men. With that in mind, the conclusion can be drawn that ownership of objects does not correlate to one extreme to the other; rather it is a dynamic that varies upon the situation.
Plato's was correct when he stated that value of objects can be injure self identity. The pursuit of wealth has serious repercussions on the character of a human. Generally, greed is a common factor in the pursuit of money. The desire to continually build wealth often blinds the seeker to the light of morals and well being of others. These values are replaced by a false sense of fulfillment in material objects. The intangible joys of life are overlooked and leave the soul empty.
…show more content…
Usually this is a result of the gaining of ownership rather than the actual acquisition. To become the owner of an object one often has to work to gain it. In working for the object, such as a new car, morals and ethics are built. For many, this is most clearly demonstrated in teenage years. Here they first learn the value of a work ethic and understand the significance of other lessons learned along the way. Furthermore, the care of an object continues to build character. Respect, responsibility and even value of life can have direct correlations to ownership of
“I rather would be blind than then see this world in yellow, and bought and sold by kings that hammer roses into gold.” (King Midas Pg.462 Para.10) Many think that if they got what they wanted they would be happy, but if the world was all based on malterlistic things and everyone got what they wanted there would be chaos and no feelings just want and people would do crazy things to get what they want. Now a day’s people mistake malterlistic things for happiness. “The necklace”, “Ads may spur unhappy kids to embrace materialism”, And “Thrill of the chase” illustrates examples of materialism and show some base their happiness on it.
If I got lost in a desolate desert, I would survive because I value things that are essential and beneficial for survival. King Tut would have died if he got lost because he values items like gold and jewelry, whereas I bring the essentials. This is a good habit because money does not bring happiness into anyone’s life. It is the moments that they spend with their family that bring true happiness into their lives. When people value material possessions greater than their own or their family survival won’t live a happy life.
A well-known expression is that money can’t buy happiness, yet people fantasize of winning the lottery, living in their dream house, and possessing enough tangible objects to feel satisfied with their lives. Most are under the preconceived notion that the absence of wealth and power translates to hardship and despair. This, however, is not the case, because a self-effacing lifestyle is not an indication of a lower quality of life, and often is better than one of great fortune. People yearn to have the financial independence and capabilities of those in higher ranking positions, and are willing to abandon their morals and own personal well-being if it means being successful. It seems that by reaching a level of wealth in which money is no longer
Drawing from the eudaimonic view and from SDT, Kasser & Ryan (1993, 1996) related money and materialism to well-being. They predicted that people who place a strong value on wealth...
The article “High Incomes Don’t Bring You Happiness” verbatimly states, “Beyond $75,000, money is important for life evaluation, but does nothing for happiness, enjoyment, sadness, or stress” (Kenney 4). Those who spend prodigal amounts of money disdain plebeians because they claim that money is the foundation to living a great life. However, money only helps one meet certain needs and does not contribute in instigating true happiness within oneself. Happiness comes naturally by one’s actions and accomplishments. Although, money helps buy the commodities which satisfy one’s life, it is not the direct source for obtaining glee within a
According to Aristotle, ownership of tangible goods can help to develop one’s moral character. I agree with his philosophy. Owning an object or other goods helps one to discover certain virtues, such as responsibility or purpose in caring for what you own. All objects you own, you must acquire, either through purchasing or through gift. Depending on how you acquire the object, defines its value, either monetary or sentimental. These different values help to develop one’s sense of self, as one grows as a person and develops one’s moral character. By learning these important skills, such as responsibility and purpose, one has a better understanding of oneself.
Wealth and fame are not necessities that are needed to be happy with life. Fame and wealth are very sought after, because many people think those things and happiness go hand and hand. People are often mislead by this theory, money can make a person happy but it can also ruin every relationship they have and it can kill any ounce of joy they have. Wealth can be an idol that blinds people to the truly important things in life. When people solely focus on money to make them happy, they become emotionally and physically exhausted.
It is one sad existence, to live and die, without discovering, what could have been. The question is often asked, what is the meaning of life? Or even, what is the purpose? There is no clear answer, and yet there is a search in every moment, every breath, and every corner, for a minute hint. In a societal setting, identity is merely determined by the amount of tangible things owned. Society places the ideology on individuals that those who own the most tangible things are above others. An individual can trump all those societal values by owning the self. This brings equality to all, and levels the playing field. This has been true throughout history, however behind all of this, there are individuals learning to conquer themselves. It begs the question, what defines a person, the physical or the metaphysical? There is obviously a compelling relationship between ownership and the sense of self or identity. But, is it ownership that determines the sense of self or is it perhaps, that the sense of self determines ownership. The
“.everyone is bored, and devotes himself to cultivating habits. Our citizens work hard, but solely with the objective of getting rich. Their chief interest is in commerce, and their chief aim in life is, as they call it, ‘doing business’” (Camus 4). Citizens’ unawareness of life’s riches and pleasures shows their susceptibility to the oncoming plague.
To words meaning two different things have a way of relating to one another to create something new? Many things can be made to describe two simple words like ownership and identity. Ownership can be both tangible and intangible. When looking at how ownership relates to identity, people tend to look at aesthetic instead of how ownership builds moral character that leads to identity.
Ownership is the act, state, or right of possessing something. Many people believe taking ownership is parallel to taking responsibility. In some cases, taking responsibility can be rewarding, but in other cases, it can be very self centered. According to Aristotle, ownership of tangible objects leads to develop moral character, even though it is not stated whether those morals are good or bad. Plato exaggerates how disparaging ownership can be to one's character and life. The affect ownership obtains on moral character is intensely detrimental.
What is the relationship between ownership and self identity/development? This is a extremely complicated question. There are many theories trying to answer this question, such as, Plato 's claim the "owning objects is detrimental to a person 's character", whereas Aristotle argues that "ownership of tangible goods helps to develop moral character." To answer this question we must first ask, what is ownership? If this question is asked to friends, relatives, even strangers, we will receive many similar answers to this question. People will say something along the lines of, "the possession of an object" or "to be in control of something". However, we must then dive deeper into the question and ask ourselves, can we really possess an object if it can be taken
It’s claimed that it builds moral character and is denounced for its undesirable and detrimental effects – good or evil. It is, in fact, that ownership and its intricacy builds both individual self-comprehension and group identity. What comes to mind when someone asks you, “What do you think ownership and identity mean? How are they related to “them”? You like to think about possession of some physical item, right?
Instead they rely completely on money to be happy. People often do not appreciate what they have, and they feel like they deserve better, and they complain instead of making the best of what they have. It is not necessary to be rich to enjoy life. Often those who have everything tend to live miserably. People can become too attached to money to the point that they forget about enjoying life and caring for their family. The theme of materialism is shown throughout the story of “The Rocking Horse Winner” to explain how being too attached to money can ruin people’s lives.
However, as already seen, the relationship between income and general life satisfaction was mainly explained by whether material aspirations (such as buying luxury goods) could be fulfilled.” In other words, one’s concept of happiness can vary from nation to nation. For example, people living in poor nations and having a low income tend to be satisfied by having just enough to meet their necessities. While, on the other hand, people with higher income tend to be satisfied if they have enough to buy luxury goods. Being wealthy does not lead one to happiness; it can help some people to obtain happiness, but it can also lead others to have unwanted experiences.