Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle the function argument
Principals of Aristotle
Aristotle the function argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Function Argument
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics aims to find the supreme good, or “the highest end of human life” (Lec. Slide W02.2), which he calls eudaimonia. In order to achieve eudaimonia Aristotle argues that one must first find one’s function, what he calls ergon. This later became known as the function argument. This paper will explain eudaimonia, Aristotle’s function argument and its importance in achieving eudaimonia. I will then discuss one objection to the function argument referenced in Christine M. Korsgaard’s paper “Aristotle’s Function Argument”. She offers this objection by questioning Aristotle’s claim that the human function can be only one of three things. Aristotle argues that every human activity aims at a good,
…show more content…
something made for a specific purpose) or from nature has a specific ergon, or function. For example, the function of a lamp is to provide light, and for a plant to live. So, a good lamp, would be one that provides light well. Something is considered good, then, by how well it performs its function. But who is to say that, like plants, living is not a human function as well? Aristotle addresses this issue. He claims that if humans are different from, say, plants, then they must also have a differing function from plants. If deities are purely rational beings and animals are driven by instinct and emotion, humans share both these things and land in between the two. This makes humans distinct from other beings. Aristotle recognizes these shared traits and names the human soul in two parts: the non-rational, and the rational, which performs a “special function” (N.E. 1.7 1097a35) unique from plants and animals. The rational side of the soul – one that expresses reason which distinguishes humans from animals – is deemed higher than the non-rational. So, the human function is to express reason. More importantly, humans must express reason well, which involves managing the non-rational side. Aristotle states that, “For in the continent and the incontinent person we praise their reason, i.e. the of the soul that has reason, because it exhorts them correctly and towards what is best;
Ethical theories may be usefully divided into two main types, deontological or eudaimonist, on the basis of whether they take one or the other of these kinds of judgments as primary. (1) In the main, ancient ethical theories were eudaimonist in both form and content (in the kinds of judgments and terms they took as primary, and in the questions they spent the most time investigating). Most modern ethical theories have been deontological, again in both form and content. (2) Aristotle’s central question is: What is the good life for a human being? Kant and Mill’s central question is: What are our duties to our fellow human beings? My second main contention, which I cannot fully argue for here, is that neither type of theory trumps the other, nor should we attempt to subsume both types under some higher ethical synthesis.
In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Aristotle’s argument from Physics Book 2, chapter 8, 199a9. Aristotle in this chapter tries to make an analogy between nature and action to establish that both, nature and action, have an end.
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, Translated by Terence Irwin. Second Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 1999.
The justification of death in a Utilitarian or Aristotelian scenario rely on omissions from the norm or however seems fit the individual. the gray space between the rules of either theory allows for interpretations (misguided or educated guesses) and keeping facts only between the parties involved. Although Utilitarianism is a way to control the masses and allow for best possible performance out of the people following it, Aristotle’s Virtue Theory allows for the emotional understanding of a situation, as well as an individualized decision per scenario, without disrupting the norm.
Kraut, R 2014, ‘Aristotle's Ethics’, The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Summer Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
He raises artisans as examples; the functions of the flute-player and sculptor is to play the flute and sculpt, respectively. Body parts also apply, as the human eye’s function is to see, as the leg is to walk. He then assumes that for any of these functions, the “good” is to perform that function “well”. The flute-player’s good is to play the flute well, and the eye’s good is to have good vision. Aristotle then questions, if a sculptor and leg have functions, then why shouldn’t a human? This argument is weak in that it is purely an assumption. It relies on teleological philosophy, where everything is accepted to have a function. This also implies that Aristotle assumes that men were designed to have a single function, meaning some high being/entity crafted the human being. However, his words can also be questioning the human function in respect to the human body parts. If body parts each have their own function, then it would only make sense if the whole, or the human, to have a function to which the body parts function for. Although this argument seems better, it still doesn’t serve as a good explanation to why humans should have a function. This argument does not hold any much validity either, as a statement saying a (two-meter-tall) man has little cells, therefore he too is little would also be true in this context. The inference does not make any sense because nothing
The first reason that makes me believe that the views of Aristotle on metaphysics are accurate is the factual nature of the philosopher’s evidence. In essence, the thinker optimism regarding the nature of real forms existing on earth is practical. To illustrate this, no one should endeavor to prove the nature of human existence through abstract thinking such as “being preconceived” in an ideal world before humans appear on earth. Indeed, such thinking is at best, a fantasy, and proving such claims could be a daunting task, if not an impossible one. Conversely, I believe Aristotle is right in regard to the existence of forms, such as the human nature. To illustrate this, curious minds regarding the validity of a form of existence as whether
The distinction between inherent and instrumental values in ethics could, in my view, be said to represent a contemporary version of both the eudaimonistic distinction between virtues as instruments and forms of happiness as the goals or ends to be achieved through these instruments, and of the deontological distinction between duties and the summum bonum to be, at least ultimately or in an afterlife, achieved through them. The paper identifies and explores what appears to be a threefold relationship between inherent and instrumental values. First, their mutual inseparability is found to be based in the very concept of instrumentality. Second, their parallelism in the relevant respects is seen also to be rooted in their instrumental relation. Third, and very significant, the inherent and instrumental values are discovered to be reversible so that what were inherent values can often become instrumental and vice-versa. Finally, and most importantly, the value and richness of human life is perceived to be nothing else than the function of the richness in values in ethics as well as in other spheres of human life.
Interest is sparked in this area that Aristotle writes of because there is a natural need for Ethics in human life. John K. Roth states, “Aristotle assumes that all things, human beings included, have a good, a purpose or end, which it is their nature to fulfill”. This helps one understand Aristotle’s way of thinking, and provides insight to the basis of his theories. A common theory explored by Aristotle is the Ethics of Virtues, and how to practice them. A theory included in Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is the unity of all the virtues, and in order to be virtuous, one must exhibit all the virtues. One of these virtues being practical wisdom, or Phronesis.
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.
Aristotle. "Nicomachean Ethics I." Voices of Ancient Philosophy. Ed. Julia Annas. New York: Oxford, 2001. 319-327. Print.
Happiness is the goal of every human beings according to Aristotle, however what does happiness imply? It is in his attempt to define happiness and to find a way to attain it that Aristotle comes across the idea of virtue. It is thus necessary to explain the relationship between these two terms. I will start by defining the good and virtue and then clarify their close link with the argument of function, I will then go into more details in explaining the different ways in which they are closely related and finally I am going to give an account of the apparent contradiction in Book X which is a praise of the life of study.
Aristotle believes the only way to reach a state of happiness is through virtue. The virtue that is to be practiced is meant to guide our behaviors in society and to learn the meaning of moderation. Aristotle deems human happiness as more then attaining the pleasures of life but satisfying the human potentialities. Reaching such abilities could be seen by making logical choices and being able to choose the needs in life rather then the wants. At this point it shows that Aristotle contends that a society that includes citizens that he believes are of human excellence will reflect the same values upon it’s state.
In this paper, I am going to discuss Plato and Aristotle's viewpoints on inconsistency within the soul in accordance with virtue and vice. Aristotle identifies bad and good states of character. The bad includes vice, inconsistency, lack of moderation, and brutality. These are mirrored alongside their positive counterparts of virtue, superhuman virtue, moderation, and consistency. This can also be extrapolated to cover softness and its opposite of endurance and courage. The problem arises when considering inconsistency and incontinence between these paralleled vices and virtues. In this Paper, I will analyze and provide an account of how the philosophers Plato and Aristotle tackle questions regarding this inconsistency. The questions that arrive regarding this are as follows. How does inconsistency arise and manifest itself, and in what way does it delineate itself from vice.
...nt role in helping us remain active and virtuous. We can apply a broader application of this search for happiness by allowing lives other than that of study and contemplation to be pursued, as long as virtue and loving friendships are present. To arrive at this conclusion we postulated two of Aristotle’s premises (see Postulate 1 and Postulate 2); allowing these lead us to a worthwhile map of how one may reach eudaimonia, the Idea of Good which follows from the postulates. Overlaying a life of productivity for Aristotle’s requirement of study, we have achieved a valid argument, assuming the postulates, for a means of human flourishing. One should live one’s life with virtue, activity, and productivity.