Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle's notion on ethics
Plato and Aristotle on morality
Socrates morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle's notion on ethics
While each of us likes to think that we are strong one hundred percent of the time in our moral decision-making, we all fall short in some way. This exercise asks us to evaluate where we are strong in our moral decision-making and where we are weak. The early Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that there is a link between our morality and happiness, so it is not only morally right to make compassionate, just, fair, and careful decisions in our daily lives; it will give us a greater sense of well being and help us to know ‘the good life’. Moral philosophers, including Aristotle teach us that we are happier when we place our moral values over non-moral values, such as materialism. For this assignment I have analyzed my moral decision-making based on the moral theories listed in chapter nine of our textbook1 in order to find where I am strong or weak. In order to do this, I ask myself the following questions: Is my morality …show more content…
I would like to learn to make more courageous decisions instead of acting quickly in a panic. Courage is a characteristic of a virtuous person, and a trait that I would very much like to develop in myself. This would involve taking time to stop and think about a moral dilemma, and resolve the dilemma in a systematic fashion. The textbook1 for this class suggests a way to do this on page 293. The author, Judith A. Boss suggests that I should first describe the facts of the situation then list the relevant moral principles and concerns. The next step is to list and evaluate possible courses of action. From that list I will find and carry out one plan of action. I believe that if I stop and think about my decisions, I can act more morally while not in the throes of a panic attack. It will take patience and self discipline, but I must stop and think about decisions and following these guidelines in our textbook is a good place to
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.
There are two basic kinds of ethical judgments. The first have to do with duty and obligation. For example: "Thou shalt not kill, lie, or steal." "You just keep your promises." These judgments often uphold minimal standards of onduct and (partly for that reason) assert or imply a moral ‘ought.’ The second kind of judgment focuses on human excellence and the nature of the good life. These judgments employ as their most general terms "happiness," "excellence," and perhaps "flourishing" (in addition to "the good life"). For example: "Happiness requires activity and not mere passive consumption." "The good life includes pleasure, friendship, intellectual development and physical health." I take these to be the two general types of ethical judgment, and all particular ethical judgments to be examples of these. The main contention of this paper is that we must carefully distinguish these two types of judgments, and not try to understand the one as a special case of the other.
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...
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 this essay I shall explore the question of moral responsibility and free will, by looking at, and comparing, ideas that stem from a Kantian philosophical position, and those that stem from a naturalist philosophical position. I will also consider the implications that follow from each position, when considering the issue of punishment. Furthermore, I will show that although Kantian and naturalist philosophers typically differ in some aspects, such as their concept of the source of free will, they find themselves in much the same position when it comes to determining when moral responsibility is applicable. However, when we turn to applying moral philosophy to the important practical issue of punishment, the Kantian position becomes incoherent as soon as we consider the possibility that free will does not exist. Conversely, a naturalist position, particularly one of the consequentialist tradition, remains capable of answering such an important normative question, regardless of whether its notion of free will turns out to be correct or incorrect. Ultimately then, I will suggest that it is the naturalist philosopher who is in the better position to tackle the normative question of punishment, that arises in applied moral philosophy.
Having an abortion is a moral choice. The essay “A Moral Choice” by Mary Gordan discusses many issues concerning abortion, the author clearly favors pro-choice. The debate about when a fetus is alive (437) is a concern as to when it is acceptable to get an abortion. As well as the morality of abortion judged in the media, religion, society, and by self. The women who get abortions are critiqued as cold and technological (441). These normal everyday women have made this moral decision for centuries. Although society needs to be realistic our world is over populated and some women are not designed to have children. How do women make this moral decision?
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
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.
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
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.
One of the desirability of virtue ethics is the elasticity to measure each situation independently, searching for action guidance in bearing in mind what a naturally virtuous person would do. This would be clarified and informed by the pertinent facts and personal ethical sensitivities of that situation. This permits and heartens creative resolutions to very difficult problems, which may be harder to disc...
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...
As one ponders on how to live a good life, many ideas come to mind. Whether this may be wealth, family, or beauty, the early philosopher’s theories need to be taken into consideration. Those early philosophers include Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and The Epicureans. These four committed their lives towards bettering life, and are the basis of most philosophical theories. It is evident that these four need to be read, understood, and discussed to better understand one’s life. They always pondered on the thought of how to have a perfect life and society. When one makes their own theory, based upon these early philosophers, not only do they need to establish a strong belief system, it is required to practice this too. Plato had the most basic of theories, being that only virtue was needed in life to be happy and nothing else. For Aristotle, he used Plato’s foundation and added that external goods, such as wealth, respect, friends, and beauty were all necessary. Without one of these, Aristotle believes that one cannot live a happy life. For the Stoics, they settled on a balanced approached between virtue and external goods, saying that virtue is necessary, yet external goods are preferred too. The Epicureans largely argue the Stoics view, and present that pleasure (tranquility) is the goal of every life, but virtues and friends are required for this. Each theory has many critics, even with Aristotle being a critic of his own theory. None seems perfect, yet all fit today’s modern society. I found that I agree with the Stoics theory the most, and find that any external good is fine as long as virtue is the basis of that person’s life.
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.
A moral theory should be one’s guide when deciding whether an action is either good or bad, wrong or right. There are many types of moral theories to choose from, but we will only focus on two: utilitarianism and ancient hedonism. These theories meet in their pursuit of something greater, for hedonism it’s personal pleasure while for utilitarianism it is happiness for the greater number of people. In this work, the differences and the similarities of utilitarianism and hedonism will be pointed out after explaining them separately.