In his \textit{\NE}, Book IV, Aristotle provides an in depth analysis on the virtues an vices regarding material goods, the vices for which include extravagance and stinginess, and the virtue, generosity. By application of the Doctrine of the mean, the vices represent the excesses and deficiencies in giving respectively, while the virtue of generosity represents the mean of the two vices, or, more generally, the mean of all elements concerning material goods. \ari characterises a generous person as one who gives to the right person, at the right time, for the right reasons and does not take from the wrong sources, at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons. The accepted contemporary definition for generosity generally refers to being altruistic, …show more content…
Note that \ari defines material goods as being everything whose value can be measured in money. This same definition will be used here, implying that the domain of material goods would include services, not just tangible items. Thus, the extent of which an individual values money is, in part, proportional to their value of material goods. Recalling \ari's definition for generosity, a relationship can be drawn on how a generous individual might value money given how they value material goods. The generous individual should value money as he does material goods, which is to be reasonably detached from it. \\ It is important, now, to understand what it means to be reasonably detached and how extreme detachment or attachment contribute to the related vices, extravagance and stinginess respectively. To be reasonably detached from the value of money is to view money's value, and by extension, that of material goods, for it's ability to aid in survival and raise quality of life. \ari clearly states that the generous individual chooses to give material goods to others for these properties, so much so that the generous individual might be inclined not to look out for
Even forms of human beings preforming selfless acts derives from ones desire to help others, which in a way makes that person feel importance. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, better known as Mother Teresa, devoted her life to helping those in great need. To many these acts may appear as selfless and gallant acts that are not performed by anyone with any type of ego. Yet when taking a psychological look at why she performed such acts they may appear a somewhat more for herself. Every time anyone does anything, even when for someone else, they are doing it for some type of feeling that they experience. With the holiday season approaching, there will be a specific emphasis on giving unlike any other time of the year. We give yes to show gratitude for someone we love, but also to experience the joy in seeing someone enjoy something they them self-caused. Even while being selfless humans have the unique ability to still be doing something that involves caring for them self. This outlook toward the human condition completely debunks Wolf’s claim that “when caring about yourself you are living as if you are the center of the universe.” When choosing to do anything positive or negative, for others or for yourself, you are still taking your self-interest into consideration, making it
Judith Lichtenberg successfully conveys her moral theory with many questions regarding her topics of abstractness, the sense of futility and ineffectiveness, overestimating our generosity, distance, the relativity of well-being, the power of shame, and the drops in the bucket. Using these practical and philosophical ideas she explains why we as a people should search to discover the obstacles that are preventing us from giving more, rather than the finding our charitable obligations and the amounts we should be giving. She leads us to the ideal of motivation and tells us to pay less attention to obligation, because without X being moved to do an act, does it really matter what the act was if X never induces the action?
17, No. 3, p. 252-259. Urmson, J.O., (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics (Blackwell), ch.1. Wilkes, K.V., (1978). The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics. Mind 87; repr.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
“Proper society did not think about making money, only about spending it.”, said Barbara W. Tuchman. This quote shows our real world, and the people that spend money, but they forget about the value of money. Nowadays people want more that they have. They forget how many things they have, and how much money they spend. Most people when they see other people having something better, and in that moment they want to have it also. Also, people forget how hard they got that money, but how easily and quickly they spend it. In the article “The treadmill of consumption” by Roberts, he says that people are willing to go into debt to buy certain products and brands. That is right that people can do crazy things to buy certain goods.
Act utilitarianism is essentially getting the best possible solution to benefit to greatest number of people. This theory that states the majority rules and takes everyone’s feelings into consideration. With act utilitarianism, there 's a measurement unit called the Hedonic Calculus which interprets the level of happiness and sadness. The approach act utilitarianism takes is to benefit more people than harm them. However, if the act harms more people than pursue their best interest then it 's considered wrong. Although this idea is quite multiplex it can distinguish what is right from wrong. In this particular theory, the critical thinking process consist of serval steps which involve identifying the ethical decision to be made, list all the various actions that could occur, list all the people who are affected by these decisions, and determine the total sum happiness and unhappiness with the results. With these steps, it can be determined what is the most superior possible outcome
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle works to foster a more precise understanding of complex ideas including justice and friendship. Of course, he assigns varying levels of importance to qualities depending on how necessary they are to becoming a happy and self-sufficient individual, which he sees as the ultimate aim for human beings. As such, he seems to create a hierarchical structure in which aspects that push an individual closer to happiness are effectively superior to those which do not. Yet, as he develops the ideas of friendship and justice more, dividing them into their constituent categories, the hierarchy between them begins to become more obscured, suggesting that, rather than the two existing in service of one or the other, the
The definition of generosity is the quality of being kind and generous. Dr. Seuss is a writer of many children books three which are Horton Hears a Who, The Lorax, and Thidwick the Big Hearted Moose. Of Dr. Seuss's three characters, Horton in Horton Hears a Who, is the most generous because he shows the most habit of mind, heart, and work. He shows this because he is persistent, shows civility, and equity.
The fundamentals behind growing as a human allow you to understand the true meaning of owning. As a child, we had a belief that the toys are parents bought for us were truly “ours”. Although as we age, we begin to realize the worth of money and how the things around us were not ours at all. The exhausting work it takes, the endless hours, the insignificant wage and it all leads to a squandered bank account. In the end, we realize how much the world revolves around currency. Through this idea of having the possession of money or of not, we finally grasp this cruel idea. In Plato’s ideology, some possessions can be detrimental to character, products can make a person greedy, but just like a person can crave money, people can also desire to do good with money. Rather than working for greed, people will work for others and volunteer their time. This is where Aristotle's theory of developing moral character shines through. Since these people already believe they have enough wealth, they will pass it on to those who do not ‒ the birth of supply side
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.
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,...
In order to obtain the virtue of courage, one must act courageously repeatedly. Through habituation, then, the person will become courageous. If the person is too courageous, however, they will develop the vice of arrogance. On the other hand, if the person is not courageous enough they will develop of vice of cowardice. At the same time, we may feel an enhanced pleasure from praise when acting courageous, so when determining our actions, we must be mindful that we do not become arrogant, Similarly, these idea can also be illustrated with generosity. In order to develop the virtue of generosity, the person must act generously periodically. Eventually, generosity will become a habit and therefore a virtue. However, if the person is too generous they may become reckless, whereas if they are not generous enough they could become stingy. On the same tract, the pleasure of giving may lead people toward reckless giving, while the pleasure of being wealthy may lead to people becoming
One of the author’s point about materialism and excesses is not to be greedy. There is no point to be greedy because one can loses as much as it makes and no one can use possess of its wealth after death. The key is to have just enough because wealth can create problem. His recommendation to life is do what you have to do.
..., a person who earns $25,000 is happier than a person who makes $125,000 and an employee who makes $500,000 is only slightly happier than someone who makes $55,000. Lastly, there are more important things in life that and make you happy, for example, friends. They don’t come with a price tag, and if they do, you definitely need new friends. Money won’t make you happy since good times can’t be bought. You don’t need a fancy vacation to have a good time; it’s just a matter of who you spend it with. Over the years, humans have blown the value of money way out of proportion. People make it seem like if you’re not filthy rich, then you won’t live a good life but it’s not true. You can lack money and yet still live a perfect, happy life.
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.”