Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is a good life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What is a good life
The goal of a good life is a concept that has been thrown around by religious and philosophical figures for centuries. Soldiers fighting amongst the ranks of the Spartan army visualized a good life being one in which they could lay down their lives to protect the ones they love. Some pleasure seekers saw a good life as one in which they could enjoy all the fruits of their labor without a regard for morality. However, before I can explicitly state this goal, it must be explained as to whether the goal of a good life is for one’s self or an overall good. The misconception, I have realized when trying to deduce what I believe the good life is, is that I forget that I am not like everyone else. My ideas, my morals are based off my upbringings and my prior disposition and therefore cannot be said to be universal. Philosophers, such as Aristotle, Kant, and Mill, attempt to come up with universal definitions but fall short to describe the opinions of the individuals that the world encompasses. Instead, the goal of a good life, for it to ever truly be achieved, must be one in which we have decided the goal for ourselves guided by moral goodness and a will to achieve it. My conception of the good life does not mean a life in which you achieve the maximum moral good but rather the life each individual desires above all else. That is why my definition of what it means to live a good life is not universal; it is based off what I believe and construe as the requirements to live a good life. A life lived well is one guided by virtue in which you promote the betterment and happiness of yourself and those around you. You must utilize virtue as a means to the end goal,
What is the meaning of a good life? How do we achieve the right to happiness? We live in a society full of suffering depressed people, terror, and mass murders.It is no wonder that there are so many monsters are in our society today.(The Making of a Monster 1)
From pursuing pleasure to avoiding pain, life seems to ultimately be about achieving happiness. However, how to define and obtain happiness has and continues to be a widely debated issue. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives his view on happiness. Aristotle focuses particularly on how reason, our rational capacity, should help us recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life.';(Cooley and Powell, 459) He refers to the soul as a part of the human body and what its role is in pursuing true happiness and reaching a desirable end. Aristotle defines good'; as that which everything aims.(Aristotle, 459) Humans have an insatiable need to achieve goodness and eventual happiness. Sometimes the end that people aim for is the activity they perform, and other times the end is something we attempt to achieve by means of that activity. Aristotle claims that there must be some end since everything cannot be means to something else.(Aristotle, 460) In this case, there would be nothing we would try to ultimately achieve and everything would be pointless. An ultimate end exists so that what we aim to achieve is attainable. Some people believe that the highest end is material and obvious (when a person is sick they seek health, and a poor person searches for wealth).
The idea of justice although obvious for philosophers like Locke, Rousseau, and John Rawls, proves itself to be a labyrinthine issue for Americans; nevertheless, ones thing is clear: the people are guaranteed the ability to pursue happiness. Sometimes searching for American equity juxtaposes the American Dream to the pursuit of happiness with a paralytic justice. However, justice in all forms plays a part through the governments duty; who does the government serve and protect? Despite this, opportunity continues to play a major role in correlation to the hopes and aspirations of many Americans; what freedoms to pursue happiness would Americans receive if they were striped of their rights?
In ancient greek philosophies such as platonic, aristotelian, stoic and epicurean, as well as in medieval christian philosophies, the answer to to the question “what makes a life go best?” is always a narrow answer. With little variation the only life that is good and worth living, to the aforementioned schools of thought, is the life which which is spent developing an understanding of nature and of metaphysics, or rather the life spent as a philosopher. However the position which is by far more popular today is that of pluralism. Pluralism is the concept that there are multiple ways to live that result in a life going best; Desire Satisfaction Theory attempts to offer a justification for pluralism.
I believe that this moral philosophy is the means by which we live. In general, any action done by a person is to produce some sort of pleasure. However, the fact that we cannot equate happiness and goodness means that we cannot use it as a means of judging pro...
“The Good Life” in Socrates mind isn 't’ just simply defined in this primary source, however, it is implied. It is clear Socrates believes that “The Good Life” isn’t about where one ended up, or how much material gain they inhabited through the course of their lives, it is about if they clung on to mortality and lived their lives doing what they believed was good. Socrates says, “A man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part
The same applies to ‘beneficial’ which could be interpreted to mean; pleasant, healthy, productive, useful, life-enhancing. How to define good in a moral sense has puzzled philosophers for thousands of years, but there has been two main approaches; a teleological and deontological approach. The teleological approach states that the moral action is the one that aims to fulfil the purpose of the agent. However, the teleological approach can assess how moral an action is on how well it achieves particular ends. Whereas the deontological approach believes that true morality is derived from a set of duties which exist in their own
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be
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.
However, we can wonder if the pleasures that derive from necessary natural desires are what actually brings us happiness, since having a family, friends, a good job and doing fun things seem to bring the most joy in life. Plato’s ideas on life are even more radical, since he claims that we should completely take difference from our bodily needs. Therefore it seems that we should only do what is necessary for us to stay a life and solely focus on the mind. Although both ways of dealing with (bodily)pleasure are quite radical and almost impossible to achieve, it does questions if current perceptions of ‘living the good life’ actually leads to what we are trying to achieve, which is commonly described as
In life, it certainly seems that for most people, happiness is the end goal. People do what they do for many reasons, but quite often their motives are simply fueled by their desire to be happy. However, happiness is attained in many different ways. As Aristotle points out, happiness is achieved through goodness, which is also very complicated. After all, life is not black and white, and our actions are not just good or bad. Rather, our actions can have ends that are intrinsically good or instrumentally good. If they are instrumentally good, then they will allow us to attain something that we can "trade" for something else that will bring us happiness. For example, if we win tickets at an arcade, they would be considered instrumentally good because although they don't bring us happiness, we can trade them in for a prize that does. On the other hand, some things are intrinsically good. We want these things simply because we want them; they bring us pleasure or security. When we obtain these things, we are satisfied with them and we experience happiness.
What is the meaning of life? What is the point of living if we all eventually die? Philosophers have come up with many different theories regarding this subject. However, there remains a lack of any agreed upon theory for the meaning of life. Thomas Nagel and Harry Frankfurt are two philosophers who have offered their opinions on this issue. In his book called What Does it All Mean?, Nagel distinguishes between meaning within a life and the meaning of life as a whole. The differences between the two create a discrepancy that does not provide a clear conclusion which attributes meaning to our lives. On the other hand, in his book called The Reasons of Love, Frankfurt argues that love is the key to a meaningful life. He describes the idea of self-love, the purest form of love that commits us to finding meaning in our lives. This paper discusses Nagel’s distinction between the two types of meaningfulness, Frankfurt’s analysis of the love-meaning connection, and my argument that Frankfurt’s point of view addresses Nagel’s meaning within a life but not meaning of life as a whole. Then, the paper concludes with my belief that the search for the meaning of life is the meaning of life itself.
...good life is, Aristotle still defines a good life in a way that is too specific to be applied to all instances of human behavior. Personally, I see Aristotle’s idea of a good life to be close to my own idea of what a good life is. However, with access to thousands of years of accumulated human knowledge, I recognize that what is best for me is likely not best for everyone, and others must find their own path to happiness on their own journey.
We might not have the same opinions, paths, and ways of living; but we all, millions of people around the world, share the same purpose of life: Being able to say “I am having a good life!” What we mean by “good life” is living in pure happiness and having a wonderful peace of mind. The difference between us is that each one of us chooses a different way in his pursuit of happiness. Some find it in stability with a big house, a family, and a good paying job. Some find it in adventure and wildness, travel, and taking risks. While others don’t really have specific criteria or an organized plan, they just believe that happiness comes with living each day as if it was the last, with no worries about the rest. Personally, I find it in trying to be the best version of myself, in staying true to my principles, and in the same time in being able to make my own decisions; which reminds me of what George Loewenstein said “Just because we figure out that X makes people happy and they're choosing Y, we don't want to impose X on them.”
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.”