Christian and Aristotelian Morals, are two different beliefs really that different?
Virtue is considered a good thing, but how can one word be a cause for discussion? Words can mean different things, and in the case of Jesus and Aristotle, are their teachings of virtue different? Two great philosophers, one great question: which virtue is the best for us, Jesus’ or Aristotle’s? I am going to explore both versions of virtue and compare the two.
Jesus taught that “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Christ , Matt 5: 8) What makes a single person “pure in heart” (Christ , Matt 5: 8)? According to Jesus there are several things that make us virtuous. We must be poor in spirit (Christ , Matt 5: 3). We must be meek (Christ ,
…show more content…
According to both Jesus and Aristotle, they both would say to some extent, yes, this is a virtuous act. If the third person jumped in to help the one being robbed, and the robber was injured in the hustle and killed, would the act of stopping a crime, which then led to a death, still be virtuous? This is where I would argue that the virtue all comes down to the mindset. What if the robber was stealing to provide for his or her family? Does that make the robber virtuous in the act of providing for the …show more content…
Is it better to have happiness in this life, or happiness in the Eternities. This is the great mystery, for if the Eternities do exist, and life after death does exist, then our mortal life on Earth shall be short, but if death is truly the end, then Aristotelian is the way to go. I find myself believing in both of these great Philosophers. Why can we not experience short and long term happiness? Do we obtain happiness by turning the other cheek? Not in this life. We cannot live happily in this life if we give our cloak and shirt to those who try to steal just our shirt. I argue that a lot of Jesus’ teachings were very open to interpretation, however a majority of Christians have chosen one single interpretation and left it to that. So although we are either aiming for the mean or the extreme, we balance those, and I believe we can obtain true
The value attributed to the first virtue, wisdom, whose essence lay in “the perception of truth and with ingenuity,” concerns the comprehension of the nature of justice (7). In fact, Cicero asserts, within the public sphere, “unless learning is accompanied by the virtue that consists...
To highlight such differences between Aristotle and Hobbes we must first discuss the definition of virtue laid out by each. According to Aristotle virtue is a “mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency”. From what we already know about Aristotle’s ...
Aristotle’s virtuous person and Kant’s moral worth have two different meanings. Kant and Aristotle, from different times, have different ways of looking at what makes people make the best decisions. Coming from different sides of ethics in Deontology and virtue ethics, they agree and disagree with each other as most other schools of ethical thought do as well. After stating both their positions, I will prove that Kant’s view of morality is more correct than Aristotle’s view of the person.
Aristotle further divided his thought on ethics into two categories, intellectual virtue and moral/social/political virtue. With respect to his views on moral virtue, Aristotle developed a doctrine that showed that virtue is staying in the mean, the doctrine of the mean. “The moral virtue is a mean…” (Aristotle 109). This doctrine claimed that having the right amount of a characteristic would be virtuous and most often is in between having too much or too little of ...
Klagge, JC 1989, Virtue: Aristotle or Kant? Virginia Tech Department of Philosophy, Web version accessed 14 May 2014.
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
Virtue theory is the best ethical theory because it emphasizes the morality of an individual in which their act is upon pure goodness and presents as a model to motivate others. Aristotle was a classical proponent of virtue theory who illustrates the development habitual acts out of moral goodness. Plato renders a brief list of cardinal virtues consisting of wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. This ethical theory prominently contradicts and links to other theories that personifies the ideal being. However, virtue theorists differ from their own expression of these qualities yet it sets a tone that reflects on the desire to express kindness toward others.
Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of that happiness as a path, a direction. Plato’s philosophy revolves around the attainment of eternal knowledge and achieving a metaphysical balance. Augustine also emphasizes one’s knowing the eternal, though his focus is upon living in humility before God. Both assert that human beings possess a natural desire for true happiness, and it is only through a path to something interminable that they will satisfy this desire.
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.
In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, Chapters 27 to 37, Thomas Aquinas in a very systematic fashion describes various pursuits of mankind that although they may be pleasurable they fail to meet the ultimate definition of happiness of which Aquinas speaks. He describes these various pursuits and then explains why they fail to meet the criteria required to be true happiness. To Aquinas the ultimate and most desirable kind of happiness is that which is found in the knowledge of God. These various pursuits’ progress from our most instinctive nature and progress towards more reason based assertions and pursuits.
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a state that makes something good, and in order for something to be good, it must fulfill its function well. The proper function of a human soul is to reason well. Aristotle says that there are two parts of the soul that correspond to different types of virtues: the appetitive part of the soul involves character virtues, while the rational part involves intellectual virtues. The character virtues allow one to deliberate and find the “golden mean” in a specific situation, while the intellectual virtues allow one to contemplate and seek the truth. A virtuous person is someone who maintains an appropriate balance of these two parts of the soul, which allows them to reason well in different types of situations.
When comparing Aristotle and Jesus, we should look at the different beliefs the two have about life, and virtue by asking questions such as; what are we all pursing in this life? Or, what exactly is virtue, and how does Aristotle’s and Jesus’s view compare to each other? Another question that presents its self when reading about these two is, what exactly makes somebody character truly virtuous or moral? Although there is no one for sure answer to these question, both Aristotle and Jesus devoted there life’s to study and teach about what they believed were the answers and it brings two very different but very interesting points of views on how Greek and Christian view the world.
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).
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...
For the purposes of this essay human virtue is defined as a trait or ability such that one who has that trait or ability would be considered excellent and thus virtuous by human standards. Additionally it is important to keep