Aristotle and the Book of Nicomanchean Ethics

1511 Words7 Pages
Aristotle and the Book of Nicomanchean Ethics In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the ultimate human goal or end is happiness. Aristotle describes the steps required for humans to obtain happiness. Aristotle states that activity is an important requirement of happiness. He states that a happy person cannot be inactive. He then goes on to say that living a life of virtue is something pleasurable in itself. The virtuous person takes pleasure in doing virtuous things. The role of virtue is an important one for Aristotle. Without virtue, it seems one cannot obtain happiness. Virtue acts as a linking factor to happiness. Aristotle states that the human function is the life activity of the part of the soul that has reason. He extends this further by stating that some sort of activity of the past of the soul that has reason has to be according to virtue. This will create a good man. For Aristotle, in order to be happy, humans must perform their function well in accordance with virtue. In Book II, Aristotle makes a distinction between two types of virtues; those which are considered ethical and those which are considered intellectual. Ethical virtues deal with actions of courage, generosity, and moderation. Intellectual virtues deal with wisdom and contemplation. Ethical virtues are created through habitual actions. Aristotle says that humans are not born with a natural capacity for virtue. He believes that education and cultivation as youth by one’s parents are pivotal in setting up humans’ ability in making virtuous acts habitual. He feels that humans have to perform virtuous actions as much as possible and through this humans can make a step in becoming virtuous. Aristotle also states that ethical virtues have to be attended by pleasure. He believes that humans cannot be pained when committing a virtuous action. If a human is pained by an action then it is not considered virtuous. Aristotle goes on to create a distinction between virtuous actions and virtuous character. In a sense, it is a relationship of seeming versus being. Seeming versus being where a virtuous act may seem to be virtuous when it in reality is not. Whereas, a virtuous character actually is virtuous and as a result, actions done by one of virtuous character result in those actions being considered virtuous. An act is not considered virtuous unless it is done by a virt... ... middle of paper ... ...y are not virtuous and therefore their action is not considered virtuous. This simply is not true. It seems that the action should define the act not the person. In a big way aiming at the mean makes people better, but it is not the only thing that exists. In other words, by striving for perfection people often do very well and even their best. This can be considered virtuous. Virtuosity is not as a narrow goal as Aristotle spells it out to be. Aristotle in essence equates virtuosity with a grade of 100, but the majority of people do not receive 100’s all the time. They strive for 100’s, but in doing so they score 82. This is not 100, but it is still considered good and in a sense would be considered virtuous. Concluding, in America today virtue exists on a scale of maybe 70-100, resulting in degrees of virtue, but all encompassing the status of virtue. If virtuosity was held to the strict standards of Aristotle, humans would never act virtuously. Although still a minority, people of virtuous character exist more than as would be spelled out by Aristotle. Aristotle was on the right path, but he made his argument too specific, and as a result made virtue something that it is not.

More about Aristotle and the Book of Nicomanchean Ethics

Open Document