My grandmother always says, “You kids better stop fooling around, you are the future”. In Swenson’s article titled “The Dignity of Human Life”, He takes a more religious approach and argues that the true meaning of life is for one to be happy, and to achieve happiness one has to get to know themselves through their values through an ethical conscious. He starts off with “As a preparation for an existence, in the present, the youth of a nation are trained in various skills and along devious lines, according to their capacities and circumstances…But, in addition to this, which we may call a preparation for the external life, a something else is urgently needed” (Swenson 17). Swenson expresses that as we age, we are trained to contribute to life, …show more content…
He continues on saying “A view of life” is not something you can learn in school, at the library, or something which is acquired within a short time period, rather it is an individual’s knowledge of themselves as a person, of his or her own capabilities and aspirations (Swenson 17). In the eyes of Swenson, everyone yearns to be happy, and if you are not happy, then you have failed in life. Swenson talks about Aristotle’s belief in that true happiness comes from not only virtue, but also from goods and friends (Swenson 20). Swenson does not agree with Aristotle’s views on happiness and comes up with four reasons to justify his decision. The first one is, one who is self who is dependent on external objects and relies on them to bring happiness to one’s self is “self-captive to the diverse world of its desires”(Swenson 20). Which means you are not an independent person, you rely on objects to bring you happiness, and when that object is scarce, you are unhappy. Secondly, happiness found through materialistic things is uncertain. “This happiness is subject to the law of uncertainty, to the qualification of an unyielding, mysterious perhaps” (Swenson
He believes that someone can 't just decide whether they were happy or not, but rather that there were certain virtues that if preformed would enable somebody to be happy. Virtues acts such as courage, temperance, wittiness, modesty, patience and friendliness are a few of these virtues. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines virtue as “a characteristic involving choice, and that it consists in observing the mean relative to us, a mean which is defined by a rational principle, such as a man of practical wisdom would use to determine
As any individual can imagine, there is a lot of suffering and pain in most, if not all hospital settings. At times, no amount of medication or experimental treatment can change an individual’s mind on the quality of their life, such that the only way to end their suffering is to die, hence physician assisted suicide. Defined as a patient taking their own life with the help of a physician, this assisted suicide practice is highly controversial and illegal in most but California, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. Putting the law aside, the morality of the practice itself is still questioned.
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.
Millions of years of evolution have taken us from a single cell to a genetically unique animal we now call humans. This progression and advancement has taken us from beings with no language or sense of thought, to what is now an extremely advanced human race, exploring the world as we know it. In Human Dignity, Francis Fukuyama explains the concepts of what makes an animal human. This can be a very hard concept to grasp and even Fukuyama cannot give a clear answer. Fukuyama agrees that there is not solely one characteristic that makes an animal human, it a group of elements, which he calls Factor X. These elements are what should ultimately give animals the right to be treated with dignity, honor, and respect. If animals can develop an advanced
He agrees that to be happy is to be satisfied with one’s overall life. However, he thinks that in order to make good judgements we need to have some sort of life plan. He those reaches the conclusion that “to be satisfied with life as a whole, then, we must carefully survey our desires and values and evaluate which are most important to us, which then forms the basis of our selection of a life plan and the standard for judging whether our life is going well” (THO, 152). Such a life plan would be founded on a structure of commitments, of three types. The first is unconditional. Those are commitments that are central to life and will not be sacrificed. They are deep and long-standing, and if dishonored have a huge effect on your psychology. The second type is defeasible commitments. Those can be over ridden. Like concentration camp survivors doing what they needed to survive despite the fact that you would not do certain things under “normal” circumstances. The last is loose commitments those we can break and feel less guilty about. Like being on time to class or a doctor’s appointment. Some internal defects might be a life plan that is impossible. Or something that is only temporary and last a certain amount of time. While some external defect could be that life plan could step out of social or moral norms. This relates the idea that happiness is objective in that there is
In his piece, “Human Dignity”, Francis Fukuyama explores the perception of human dignity in today's society. This perception is defined by what Fukuyama calls “Factor X”. This piece draws attention to how human dignity has been affected recently and its decline as we go into the future. Using the input given by the Dalai Lama in his piece, “Ethics and New Genetics”, the implementing of factor X and human dignity on future generations will be explored. Through the use of the pieces, “Human Dignity and Human Reproductive Cloning by Steven Malby, Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues by Isaac Rabino, and Gender Differences in the Perception of Genetic Engineering Applied to Human Reproduction by Carol L. Napolitano and Oladele A. Ogunseitan, the decline on the amount of human dignity found in today's society as well as the regression in Factor X that can be found today compared to times past. Society's twist on ethics as a result of pop culture and an increase in genetic engineering has caused for the decline in the amount of dignity shown by the members of society and the regression of Factor X to take hold in today's society.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s elucidation of happiness is based on a ground of ethics because happiness to him is coveted for happiness alone. The life of fame and fortune is not the life for Aristotle. Happiness is synonymous for living well. To live well is to live with virtue. Virtue presents humans with identification for morals, and for Aristotle, we choose to have “right” morals. Aristotle defines humans by nature to be dishonored when making a wrong decision. Thus, if one choses to act upon pleasure, like John Stuart Mill states, for happiness, one may choose the wrong means of doing so. Happiness is a choice made rationally among many pickings to reach this state of mind. Happiness should not be a way to “win” in the end but a way to develop a well-behaved, principled reputation.
A society that is ruled by liberty contains morals, morals that come with rights that must be respected in order to preserve integrity. In his article “A Right to do Wrong”, Ethics, vol. 92 (1981), pp. 21-39, Jeremy Waldron argues that if people in a society take moral rights seriously they must accept an individuals “right to do wrong” from a moral perspective. Having a choice to do wrong from a moral point of view creates diversity in a society which lead’s to development in the society as a whole. Waldron offers a paradox to explain his position on individuals having a moral right to act in ways that might be seen as wrong from a moral point of view. I will explain and outline Jeremy Waldron’s position on the idea of individuals having the moral right to do wrong, and I will also evaluate Jeremy Waldron’s position and demonstrate if there is really such a moral right using my views that will be enhanced by John Stewart Mill views.
As most people would agree, the 20th century contained some of the bloodiest and most gruesome events ever recorded in history. Why do words such as Hiroshima, Rwanda, The Final Solution, A Great Leap Forward, The Great Purge and so many more spark such vivid images of blood, torture and murder in our minds? And despite those horrific images, what is it that causes us humans time and time again to commit such crimes against humanity? Those are the kinds of questions Jonathan Glover, a critically acclaimed ethics philosopher, tries to answer in the book he had spent over ten years writing, Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. Through Humanity Glover tries to answer those questions in a way which will give a solution as how we can prevent ourselves from ever repeating those crimes in the future.
The definition of happiness has long been disputed. According to Aristotle, happiness is the highest good and the ultimate end goal—for it is self-reliant. This idea contradicted other common beliefs and philosophical theories. Aristotle opens his work by describing the various theories, neutrally examines each idea, and discloses how he thinks the theory is wrong and why his idea of happiness is more accurate.
To achieve complete happiness, Aristotle says that we need three kinds of goods. The first of these goods is that of the soul, which is moral character and practical wisdom. Aristotle explains that in order to maintain the soul, we must also have external and bodily goods. He says we need external goods such as friends, food, and some money; without these, we are not able to flourish. Furthermore we need goods of the body, which are the basic supplies for health, strength, and beauty. According to Aristotle, if we have all these we are able to live our life to the fullest, which means to live well and to do things well (NE 1098b20). Particular to this paper I will focus on why Aristotle thinks external goods are necessary for happiness. Aristotle says, “He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life” (NE 1101a15). It is Aristotle’s explicit view that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for happiness. He views external and bodily goods as instruments deemed necessary to live a virtuous life. He says, “it is impossible or not easy for someone without equipment to do what is noble: many things are done through instruments, as it were—through friends, wealth, and political power. Those who are bereft of some of these (for example, good birth, good children, or beauty) disfigure their blessedness, for a person who is altogether ugly in appearance, or of poor birth, or solitary and childless cannot really be characterized as happy; and he is perhaps still less happy, if he should have altogether bad children or friends or, though he didn’t have good ones, they are dead. Just as we said then, [happiness] seems to require some such external prosperity in addition” (NE 1099b5). This quote contradicts in many ways with how Aristotle previously described happiness. Aristotle says happiness is
His philosophical theory was very simple and he wanted to teach people how to be happy. He stated “In all our activities there is an end, which we seek for its own sake, and everything else is a means to this end…Happiness is this ultimate end. It is the end we seek in all that we do.” What Aristotle means is that everything we do in our daily activities and actions is all leading up to the end result which is happiness. For example, I work and attend school full time and everything that I do is sub goals leading towards being a successful person which causes me to be happy. Aristotle says happiness is also found in our feelings. A personal example is I love my family and it makes me happy having people to care about and to support them. Sub goals on the way, such as making an A in a class or finishing college and getting a degree are self-awarding pleasures that create happiness. Those are a few examples that make me happy and doing well and succeeding is the key to happiness. For happiness to happen in general, people need to have a reason or virtue in our lives. That everyone has their strong suites about themselves and we need to express and share them with others to help others grow as well. What I understand from Aristotle’s theories of happiness is that our feelings and good actions and being able to control them is what makes us
1.) Aristotle begins by claiming that the highest good is happiness (198, 1095a20). In order to achieve this happiness, one must live by acting well. The highest good also needs to be complete within itself, Aristotle claims that, “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification, since we always…choose it because of itself, never because of something else (204, 1097b1). Therefore, Aristotle is claiming that we choose things and other virtues for the end goal of happiness. Aristotle goes on to define happiness as a self-sufficient life that actively tries to pursue reason (205, 1098a5). For a human, happiness is the soul pursuing reason and trying to apply this reason in every single facet of life (206, 1098a10). So, a virtuous life must contain happiness, which Aristotle defines as the soul using reason. Next, Aristotle explains that there are certain types of goods and that “the goods of the soul are said to be goods to the fullest extent…” (207, 1098b15). A person who is truly virtuous will live a life that nourishes their soul. Aristotle is saying “that the happy person lives well and does well…the end
Aristotle rejects the idea of universal happiness by explaining how Plato does not incorporate the large number of variants. Aristotle believes that good is not a single, common universal, because what it is to be good is particular to the essence of the individual. One might also argue that other common factors associated with happiness were wealth, pleasure, knowledge, and honor. Aristotle disagrees and found each of these limited to the notion of the good of man. Some benefits that may motivate them to seek better opportunities within their career may be the thought of money bringing happiness and also they will practice living the good life. Developing a good character requires a strong effort of will to do the right thing, even in difficult situations. The general idea that happiness is a result of the wealth is skewed from reality. Wealth is a means to happiness, not actual happiness, one who is wealthy, but is unable to actually use the money is not happy. Aristotle feels the good for man is something that is not dependent on anything else, so being wealthy is not something desirable. Happiness is not pleasurable sensations that can be gained or lost, it is what we seek when acting and is a condition of a person over a lifetime, not at one
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...