Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Virtue of generosity aristotle
Aristotle's ethical principle
What is the importance of generosity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Virtue of generosity aristotle
Aristotle’s discussion of generosity is quite simple, yet interesting to read about. In Nicomachean Ethics he describes generosity as the mean of wealth where wastefulness and selfishness are the excess and deficiency of the mean. Aristotle argues that generosity can involve giving money to people who need it or refusing money from those who cannot afford to give it. This means that virtuous generosity involves giving or refusing money in the right way, to or from the right people, at the right time, and in the right amount. He says that a man who exhibits generosity in a virtuous way will do so pleasurably; or at the very least painlessly because virtues are meant to be pleasurable. According to Aristotle, wastefulness and “ungenerosity”
are considered the excess and the deficiency. He claims that ungenerous, or in more common terns selfish, people are the ones who take their wealth too seriously and do nothing with their money. The wasteful person is a bit more complex; Aristotle says that wastefulness is more than just spending money on frivolous things, it involves giving more than is necessary or in the wrong way and it can simply be someone who spends his or her money in a negative or self-destructive way. This is evident as he says “for someone who causes his own destruction [lays waste’ to himself, and so] is wasteful,” (Aristotle, pg. 49).
In Aristotle 's Nicomachean Ethics, the basic idea of virtue ethics is established. The most important points are that every action and decision that humans make is aimed at achieving the good or as Aristotle 's writes, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at the good... (Aristotle 1094a). Aristotle further explains that this good aimed for is happiness.
Through books one to three in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between pain and happiness, clarifying the endless war that men face in the path of these two extremes. Man’s quest for pleasure is considered by the self-conscious and rational Aristotle; a viewpoint traditionally refuted in contemporary, secular environments.
Generosity is also a moral virtue. When you are generous, you are either giving too much, which makes you profligate, or you are giving too little, which would consider you a stingy person. Moral virtues lead you to happiness because of their intermediate state, that is, by reasoning.
Aristotle presents his view of the mutual desire for good in others, or Friendship in his work, The Nicomachean Ethics. He asserts that friendship comes in three types, Virtue Friendship, Use Friendship, and Pleasure Friendship. He distinguishes Virtue Friendship as the perfect friendship, leaving Use Friendship and Pleasure friendship as deficient friendships. C.S. Lewis presents his view of friendship, which is motivated by appreciation love, in his book The Four Loves in a manner seeming to correspond to Aristotle’s concept of Virtue Friendship. Lewis also presents his perception of Companionship, which seems to correspond to Aristotle’s notion of Use and Pleasure Friendships. Lewis presents a more modern and seemingly accurate rehabilitation
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.
Aristotle believes that happiness rests within an absolutely final and self-sufficient end. The reasoning behind this theory is that every man is striving for some end, and every action he does must be due to this desire to reach this final end. He believes that in order for a man to be happy, he must live an active life of virtue, for this will in turn bring him closer to the final end. Although some may believe that these actions that the man chooses to take is what creates happiness, Aristotle believes that these actions are just a mere part of the striving toward the final end. I believe that Aristotle’s great-souled man is the highest virtue of character; His actions are never too extreme and he is appropriate in all his manners. The magnanimous person is within the intermediate state of character. “The deficient person is pusillanimous, and the person who goes to excess is vain” (§35). The magnanimous person surrounds himself with great things. The great things occurs when “he receives great honors from excellent pe...
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.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics we are given the Greek term Eudaimonia, its definition being a contented sate of being happy, healthy and prosperous. For Aristotle, Eudaimonia or happiness is our ultimate goal. Aristotle states that most people see happiness as something physical and this way of thinking is faulted because we do not have the appropriate image of a good life. He goes on to tell us that our view is faulted because most people are not virtuous. The reason for the deficiency in virtue found in society is that people are not thought virtue correctly from a young age. Aristotle believes that people can only reach their ultimate goal of happiness by living a virtuous life and making the right decisions. The quote given to us states
In the writings of Aristotle, seen in Nicomachean Ethics, it is evident that Aristotle believes that friendship is necessary for a virtuous and therefore happy life. I believe that this is accurate due to the similar conditions necessary for a complete friendship and a happy life. It is also evident that friendship is useful in achieving a happy life because friendship can make performing virtuous actions easier. His interpretation can be misunderstood and mistakes in practice can be made, so we will need to discuss these follies as well, in order to understand all the effects of friendship on achieving a happy life.
He feels that humans have to perform virtuous actions as much as possible and through this humans can make a step in becoming virtuous. Aristotle also states that ethical virtues have to be attended to by pleasure. He believes that humans cannot be pained when committing a virtuous action. If a human is pained by an action, then it is not considered virtuous. Aristotle goes on to create a distinction between virtuous actions and virtuous character.
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.
Aristotle wrote on many subjects in his lifetime but one of the virtues that he examines more extensively is friendship. Aristotle believes that there are three different kinds of friendship: utility, pleasure, and virtuous friendships. He also argues that a real friendship should be highly valued because it is a complete virtue and he believes it to be greater than honor and justice. Aristotle suggests that human’s love of utility and pleasure is the only reason why the first two types of friendships exist. Aristotle also argues that humans only set up these types of relationships for personal gain. But when he speaks of the virtuous friendships, Aristotle states that it is one of the greatest attainments one can achieve.
In Barry H. Corey’s book, Love Kindness, the underestimated, devalued virtue of kindness is explored. Kindness is a powerful, gentle strength that is often underestimated and devalued. Living a life of kindness is not for the meek or the prideful for this is a humbling, bold, and whimsical way of being. Love and kindness are difficult to separate because kindness is a result of love in its most authentic state. Love and kindness are the keys to moments of vulnerability. In that moment of authentic love and kindness barriers are demolished and people are reached in their brokenness.
In Nicomachean Ethics, generosity is the third virtue Aristotle examines. He directly addresses the idea of generosity to be the mean of wealth, meaning anything whose worth is measured by money. As presented by Aristotle, generosity is the intermediate of wastefulness and ungenerosity, wastefulness being the excess and ungenerosity being the deficiency. This virtue however, does not come naturally; generosity can arise through habit and takes experience as well as time. While generosity appears to be an important virtue, it is not the most essential virtue to one’s well being.
For something to be both morally relevant and invariably relevant, it means that the subject, in this case generosity, cannot change in its importance. This means that if we give a value system to acts, a certain act will always have the same value points. To put this into more concrete terms, if generosity has a value of positive points, it must always have positive points if it is invariable relevant. For something to be morally relevant, it has to be important in determining whether an action is moral or not. As an example, take Cans Around the Oval. If I were to donate food to the program, I would be generous; I would have +100 points. But what would happen if the food I donated was expired, taking this further, what would happen