Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

1144 Words3 Pages

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), son of a physician to the Macedonian ruler, was a Greek philosopher who studied virtually everything from logic to the sciences to ethics. He spent two decades under Plato’s tutelage in the Academy in Athens, then tutored abroad for twelve years, during which he taught Alexander the Great. He settled down afterwards in Athens and established his own school, the Lyceum. He stayed there until the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. caused an increase of anti-Macedonian sentiment, at which point he left the city and died shortly afterwards due to natural causes. Considered one of the most significant and influential figures of Western philosophy, he produced many written pieces, though most have not survived to this day. Many of those that have, however, are still being studied worldwide.

Nicomachean Ethics is one of his most well known works, and discusses Aristotle’s views on the purpose of human life. It is named after his son, Nicomachus. This work probably consists of texts or notes from his lectures, and is sep...

... middle of paper ...

...ust be happiness. Furthermore, he asserts that since we must start from our own experience, we must be brought up in fine habits to be more easily capable of fine things. Chapter five elaborates on this point, proposing that people reach their interpretations of happiness according to the kinds of lives they lead. Three kinds of lives are introduced. The first is of the many, who see happiness as pleasure, and this concept is dismissed as vulgar and only suitable for animals. Second is the cultivated, who are active in politics and see happiness as having honour. However, this too is dismissed as superficial, as being honoured depends on others opinions. The cause of honour, virtue, is considered as well, but also dismissed as possessing virtue does not equate to happiness. Third is the life of study, which is postponed, perhaps for another book in this work.

Open Document