Aristotle Ultimate Human Good

Aristotle claims that the ultimate human good comes from not only by being a good person but practicing good acts to gain happiness and live to flourish in our lives. According to Aristotle, virtues are characteristics that allow a person to live well in communities. He argues that both social institutions and good character are needed to achieve well-being (Pojman, 2009). These virtues are reinforced by practice and by these social institutions. The institutions are there to help us to become the best person we can be. The political system is one of the social institutions that Aristotle believes we can use to reinforce or gain virtues that will allow us to gain the ultimate human good: happiness.

According to Aristotle there are three characteristics

Basically he is stating that the ultimate human good is motivated by our own self -serving ideals and what would make us the happiest in the end (Pojman, 2009).

Aristotle also argues that without certain aspects or people in life we are less likely to be happy. Although true happiness is found within a person, the addition of things and people that occur during one’s life course can contribute to their happiness and allow for a better ultimate human good (Kraut, 2014). He also argues that the loss of certain individuals in a person’s life can affect the outcome of their virtuous activities. In other words, the outcome could be “diminished or defective” because of an “inadequate supply of other goods” in their lives (Kraut,

She argues that a fetus is just a seed that has not developed into the object it may become. Thomson states that yes people have a right to life but by the same token people have the right to make decisions about their bodies (Thomson, 1971). She defends her argument on the basis of the right to control what happens to an individual’s body. Her argument consists of saying it is like being kidnapped and someone using organs of your body to sustain the life of another. Another argument she uses is that of two young boys being given a big box of chocolates to share and the oldest takes the entire box. The first argument is immoral because to kidnap someone is against the law her use of kidnapping already allows for questionable activity to occur. The second argument using the box of chocolates I am actually insulted that she would draw a comparison from a living human fetus to a box of chocolate and sugar being argued over because of greed (Thomson, 1971). Thomson also argues that with the current theory on abortion it could also said that you invited burglar into your home if you opened your windows. This argument is ludicrous, first Thomson loses the feasibility of the argument by allowing the person to be called a burglar. The fact she called the person entering the open window a name that is associated with the action of a crime nullifies her entire statement. We do not request or invite crime into our homes, against our