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.
According to Aristotle, generosity is the mean virtue between wastefulness and ungenerosity. In broad terms, generosity is not ascribed to those who take wealth more seriously than what is right. Since generosity is relating to wealth and anything whose worth is measured by money, anything can be used either well or badly. Hence, in the virtue of generosity, whoever is the best user of something is the person who has the virtue concerned with it, which is the generous person. Whereas the possession of wealth is taking and keeping, using wealth consists of spending and giving, which is why “it is more proper to the generous person to give to the right people than to take from the right sources and not from the wrong sources” (1120a10). Since not taking is easier than giving, more thanks will be given to the giver. The generous person will also aim at the fine in his giving and will give correctly; “for he will give to the right people, the right amounts, at the right time, and all the other things that are implied by correct giving” (1120a25). As a result, it is not easy for the generous person to grow rich, since he is ready to spend and not take or keep,...
... middle of paper ...
...esult, the more directly one sees their personal efforts impact someone else, the more happiness one can gain from the experience of giving. Sometimes generosity requires pushing past a feeling of reluctance because people all instinctively want to keep good things for themselves, but once one is over this feeling, they will feel satisfaction in knowing that they have made a difference in someone else’s life. However, if one lives without generosity but is not selfish, they can still have pleasure from other virtues.
As presented by Aristotle, generosity is the intermediate of wastefulness and ungenerosity, wastefulness being the excess and ungenerosity being the deficiency. Ungenerosity is a greater evil than wastefulness and error in this direction is more common. It is always better to be wasteful than ungenerous but one should strive to reach the intermediate.
For instance, last year, I volunteered at an organization to take care of kids and help them with their homework. One day, I worked with a kid who was 5 years old. I helped him with his math homework and taught him how to add and subtract. I taught him patiently and carefully. After we were done, the kid learned how to add and subtract, and he told his mom what he learned. Then the kid’s mom came to me and said “Thank you” with a smile directed to me. At that time, I felt really happy, valuable, and helpful. This kind of happiness was different than the other happiness because this happiness came from helping others. When I feel happy, I am more willing to help. I am so proud that I made a good decision because I have found out the true significance of volunteering.
Judith Lichtenberg successfully conveys her moral theory with many questions regarding her topics of abstractness, the sense of futility and ineffectiveness, overestimating our generosity, distance, the relativity of well-being, the power of shame, and the drops in the bucket. Using these practical and philosophical ideas she explains why we as a people should search to discover the obstacles that are preventing us from giving more, rather than the finding our charitable obligations and the amounts we should be giving. She leads us to the ideal of motivation and tells us to pay less attention to obligation, because without X being moved to do an act, does it really matter what the act was if X never induces the action?
I chose to write about Aristotle and his beliefs about how the virtuous human being needs friends from Book VIII from Nicomachean Ethics. In this essay I will talk about the three different kinds of friendship that (Utility, Pleasure, and Goodness) that Aristotle claims exist. I will also discuss later in my paper why Aristotle believes that Goodness is the best type of friendship over Utility or Pleasure. In addition to that I will also talk about the similarities and differences that these three friendships share between one another. And lastly I will argue why I personally agree with Aristotle and his feelings on how friendship and virtue go hand in hand and depend on each other.
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...
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle works to foster a more precise understanding of complex ideas including justice and friendship. Of course, he assigns varying levels of importance to qualities depending on how necessary they are to becoming a happy and self-sufficient individual, which he sees as the ultimate aim for human beings. As such, he seems to create a hierarchical structure in which aspects that push an individual closer to happiness are effectively superior to those which do not. Yet, as he develops the ideas of friendship and justice more, dividing them into their constituent categories, the hierarchy between them begins to become more obscured, suggesting that, rather than the two existing in service of one or the other, the
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.
As previously stated, there is a balance to be maintained between selflessness and selfishness. Logically speaking, you would always want to help people, but overexerting yourself to try and help them solve their problems, won’t really help anyone. These ideas are expressed in Selflessness and the Loss of Self (Hampton, Jean, and Daniel Farnham). The Intrinsic Worth of Persons: Contractarianism in Moral and Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007.
Aristotle's ethics consist of a form of virtue ethics, in which the ethical action is that which properly complies with virtue(s) by finding the mean within each particular one. Aristotle outlines two types of virtues: moral/character virtues and intellectual virtues. Though similar to, and inspired by, Plato and Socrates’ ethics, Aristotle's ethical account differs in some areas.
My attention was also drawn to several questions in this podcast, which made me eager to find the answers to these questions. For example, one interesting question I heard was “when you do see generosity how do you know it’s really generous” (Levy, 2010). This question stood out to me because it is one particular question I don’t think about often and made me wonder whether people help someone out because they see it as a duty. However, I believe the best answer to this question is the portrayal of the concept of norm of reciprocity, which indicates “the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future” (Akert, Aronson, & Wilson, 2013, p.303). This is true because “generosity” happens when both persons are nice to each other and if an individual helps another person then it’s easy to assume that the person who was
Even forms of human beings preforming selfless acts derives from ones desire to help others, which in a way makes that person feel importance. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, better known as Mother Teresa, devoted her life to helping those in great need. To many these acts may appear as selfless and gallant acts that are not performed by anyone with any type of ego. Yet when taking a psychological look at why she performed such acts they may appear a somewhat more for herself. Every time anyone does anything, even when for someone else, they are doing it for some type of feeling that they experience. With the holiday season approaching, there will be a specific emphasis on giving unlike any other time of the year. We give yes to show gratitude for someone we love, but also to experience the joy in seeing someone enjoy something they them self-caused. Even while being selfless humans have the unique ability to still be doing something that involves caring for them self. This outlook toward the human condition completely debunks Wolf’s claim that “when caring about yourself you are living as if you are the center of the universe.” When choosing to do anything positive or negative, for others or for yourself, you are still taking your self-interest into consideration, making it
People perpetrate seemingly selfless acts almost daily. You see it all over the news; the man who saved that woman from a burning building, the mother who sacrificed herself to protect her children from the bomb blast. But how benevolent are these actions? Are these so-called “heroes” really sacrificing themselves to help others? Until recently, it was the common belief that altruism, or selfless and unconditional kindness, was limited primarily to the human race. However, within the last century, the works of several scientists, most prominently George Price, have provided substantial evidence concluding that altruism is nothing more than a survival technique, one that can be calculated with a simple equation.
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 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.
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.
It involves the mutual feeling and authentic way of giving generously. generosity has nothing to do with random actions however it can be an essential focus on existence. Generosity usually entails giving not just whatever, but typically giving those things that are beneficial to others. The things you can genuinely give regularly fluctuates it could possibly be time, money, motivation, assistance, etc. The outcomes of the situations as a rule anticipates to heighten the actual comfort of the recipient. Generosity isn’t just only in the region of assisting persons with less privileges than ourselves. It is roughly giving liberally, with no stipulations, and lacking a need for justification. Generosity isn’t just exclusively centered around someone’s financial position, but in its place, take in account of the individual 's wholesome purposes of looking in the open for the general public’s conjoint wellbeing and offerings from the heart and soul. Generosity ought to be a sign of the individual 's enthusiasm to lend a hand to others. For example, an individual who decides to consume their whole summer vacation and dedicates it to volunteering at a hospital to oversee and aid the disabled adolescents and adults could perhaps come about as wasteful and distasteful for a lot of people, on the other hand it can be seen as highly worthwhile and fulfilling to