Nina Monroe 16 April 2002 Philosophy: Ethics 6. What arguments are offered by Plato and Aristotle that the just life is happier that the unjust one? Do you find these convincing? Why or why not? The Happy Life “So don’t merely give us a theoretical argument that justice is stronger than injustice, but tell us what each itself does, because of its own powers, to someone who possesses it, and that makes injustice bad and justice good”.1 In this quote from Plato’s Republic, Adeimantus challenges Socrates to demonstrate that justice is good in itself, and ultimately, to prove that the just life is the happiest life for a human being.
Both Plato and Aristotle, two of antiquity’s greatest philosophers, concern themselves with the issue of human
…show more content…
Plato, through various Socratic dialogues, chooses to present his definition of justice in the context of a just state, later applying it to the case of a human. In the just state described by Socrates, each individual performs a certain function within society.2 It is in this principle of proper functioning of each part, from which Plato derives a definition of justice. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that Plato was highly critical of Athenian democracy, which encouraged its citizens to try many different professions throughout each of their lives. Plato found that a certain element of conflict or turmoil arises from conditions that promote various parts of a system to meddle with the other parts. Plato’s notion of justice clearly echoes his overall theory of a highest good, or the good in …show more content…
Also like Plato’s philosophy, the crucial link between the just life and the happy life in Aristotle’s teachings seems to have its basis in the idea of pleasure. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes good functioning of the soul, or just functioning of the soul, as doing something you are able to do well.8 When this is the case, your life is pleasurable, and pleasure makes your life happy. In assessing the arguments put forth by Plato and Aristotle, I feel that both are very sound and convincing. Clearly, proving that one type of life is happier than another type, is a complex task, and there are several objections one might bring against the theory that the just life is happier than the unjust life. For example, I could easily agree with the objection that some acts of injustice, such as stealing money, will be a source of happiness to a certain
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.
Grant, S., (2007). A defence of Aristotle on the good life. Richmond Journal of Philosophy (16) p. 1-8.
To understand Plato’s view of the nature of human beings one must also understand his view of the world and the soul in turn. Plato’s Republic is a Socratic dialogue, this excerpt from Book IX relays the second of a three-part argument aiming to prove that a man who leads a just life leads a happier and more fulfilled life than the unjust man.
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.”
Justice. What is justice? In this world where many people look out only for themselves, justice can be considered the happiness of oneself. But because selfish men do not always decide our standards in society, to find a definition, society should look at the opinions of many. Just as in the modern society to which we live, where everyone feels justice has a different meaning, the society of Plato also struggled with the same problem. In this paper, I will look into the Republic, one of the books of Plato that resides heavily on defining an answer to the meaning of Justice, and try to find an absolute definition. I will also give my opinion on what I personally think justice is.
Book 1 of Plato's Republic raises the question what is justice? Four views of justice are examined. The first is that justice is speaking the truth and paying one's debt. The second is that justice is helping one's friends and harming one's enemies. The third view of justice is that it is to the advantage of the stronger. The last view is that injustice is more profitable than justice.
Like other ancient philosophers, Plato maintains a virtue-based conception of ethics. Someones self worth is related to their morals and their morals come from what they take value in. If Plato's conception of happiness is elusive and his support for a morality of happiness seem depressing there are reasons for this. His conception of happiness differs vastly from most people. In Plato’s early works, his approach is largely negative: “Socratic questioning seems designed to undermine the traditional values rather than...
In Plato’s Republic, justice and the soul are examined in the views of the multiple characters as well as the Republic’s chief character, Socrates. As the arguments progress through the Republic, the effect of justice on the soul is analyzed, as the question of whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. Also, Plato’s theories of justice in the man, the state, and the philosopher king are clearly linked to the cardinal virtues, as Plato describes the structure of the ideal society and developing harmony between the social classes. Therefore, the statement “justice is the art which gives to each man what is good for his soul” has to be examined through the definitions of justice given in the Republic and the idea of the good
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 Socrates also believed, Aristotle thought that the life of the philosopher was the most pleasant and had the potential to bring the most happiness to oneself. Happiness is a state that is interpreted differently by each person. Aristotle describes happiness as a final end meaning that is not chosen as a means to something else. As health is the goodness, or completeness, of a person’s body, happiness is the goodness of a person’s soul. For that reason, one should not seek happiness in itself, but should seek deserving to be happy. This is the same as one not seeking health, but deserving the health by exercising and eating correctly.
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
Plato and Aristotle, both have similarities and differences in their ideas of which virtues are important and how they lead to happiness. For Plato, in his book "The Republic", happiness is achieved by adhering to a set of rules put into place by the state for each class. According to Aristotle 's "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle believed that all human activity is done to achieve happiness, which is considered the supreme good. Becoming wealthy, or famous, or seeking physical pleasure is only done to achieve happiness. Aristotle believed that happiness can only truly be achieved after death, because happiness is more of a temporary state, but while alive, virtue can be achieved by finding a mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency.
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.
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.
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...