Introduction
Aristotle’s theories on ethics and how virtue ethics impact on social cohesion have been the subject of scrutiny since they were first conceived. While the argument for flourishing ethics as a viable alternative to other ethical theories seems compelling and beyond repute, there are some fundamental flaws in Aristotles reasoning when one examines his model of flourishing ethics within the context of the modern world. Aristotle’s theory hinges on the assumption that benefits attained by society through the actions of the individual, will also filter down to the individual and that the benefits attained by individuals will be equal. This theory does not allow for the motivations behind the decision-making process or the varying needs
…show more content…
These acts can be beneficial or destructive, depending on the effect of these acts or decisions made by the agent has on others. Aristotle comments that we need temperance to moderate our choices and behaviours to keep excesses in check (Reference). Without temperance moderating all other virtues, which include prudence, justice and virtue, the moral agent loses the ability to judge the mean and therefore the ability to judge an ethical decision can be compromised (Reference).
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics discussion examines the concept of balance, whereby a mean is achieved through practicing virtues. These virtues are practiced for the benefit of society and are borne of a social code where the morality of an individual’s actions is determined by others observing the action or virtue being practised. Aristotle’s view is that if and action or decision undertaken benefits the society, then ultimately the cumulative benefit will “trickle down” to each of the members within that society (Reference). Therefore, a happy and fulfilled society leads to happy and fulfilled individuals who will put the collective needs of society ahead of their
…show more content…
Not all people have the same needs or live within the same circumstances. What may be viewed as beneficial by one individual can be incredibly destructive to another (Reference). Although the actions taken may have come from the best of intentions, the resulting damage to others is still very real. Under Aristotle’s theory, the action is still considered ethical because it came from good intentions and is perceived as moral by others regardless of the outcome or the motivation which led to the action (Reference). This also leads issues when it comes to temperance.
Temperance, while outwardly a good moderator of decision making, can be very subjective to the personal needs and wants of the individual where most choices are driven from a point of personal reference. What may be excessive for one individual may be a basic requirement of life for others. It does not consider the natural bias of personal circumstances or the knowledge gained from past experiences. Also, temperance does not allow for decisions and actions borne from biological need or those made from the point of view of an immature mind
Examining the texts of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics” side by side, one is bound to find parallels between his reasoning with regard to the individual and to the state. In “Nicomachean Ethics” Aristotle discusses happiness, virtue, and the good life on an individual level and lays out necessary provisions for the good life of a person. He maintains that virtue is a necessary element of happiness: a man will be happy if he has virtues of justice, courage, and temperance, each constituting a balance between the extremes. But this requirement of virtue for the happy life goes beyond the individual level, as we see it in “Politics”. There, Aristotle claims that man is by nature a “political animal” , and for that reason he can only achieve the above-mentioned virtues as part of a state. And since the city is formed by many individuals, the virtue of the state is constituted by the individual virtues of its citizens. It is therefore clear that fulfillment of requirements for the happy life of an individual, namely being virtuous and self-sufficient, is equally necessary for the state as a whole in order to be happy. We thus see that the virtue of a state is directly linked to the virtue of an individual, and that therefore the means of achieving the former will run parallel with those of the latter.
Kraut, R 2014, ‘Aristotle's Ethics’, The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Summer Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
I chose to write about Aristotle and his beliefs about how the virtuous human being needs friends from Book VIII from Nicomachean Ethics. In this essay I will talk about the three different kinds of friendship that (Utility, Pleasure, and Goodness) that Aristotle claims exist. I will also discuss later in my paper why Aristotle believes that Goodness is the best type of friendship over Utility or Pleasure. In addition to that I will also talk about the similarities and differences that these three friendships share between one another. And lastly I will argue why I personally agree with Aristotle and his feelings on how friendship and virtue go hand in hand and depend on each other.
In consideration to Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s view of the great-souled man is that of an individual that represents happiness and obtains the five virtues: wisdom, justice, bravery, self-control, and the overall goodness within an individual (happiness). The magnanimous person is very complex and displays the proper virtues at the proper time, and in the proper way. In addition, the great-souled man accommodates to his surroundings where he is honorable but not boastful in his actions. Aristotle believes that it is only possible to attain happiness within a political organization because happiness represents living well without being concerned with others, they solely live for the truth and not approval.
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.
In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.
In the history of ethics there are three principal standards of conduct, each of which has been proposed as the highest good: happiness or pleasure; du...
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he thoroughly indicated a well-defined direction in order to achieve our true nature to which we seek happiness. For Aristotle, to be human means to be a rational animal who flourishes through reason to achieve the highest human good. To achieve happiness, one must li...
I for one accept that there are activities that by and large aren't right. Homicide, infidelity, and taking are all terrible practices. When perusing Aristotle's postulation I might have said that these things are innately terrible. In the wake of perusing Nicomachean Ethics I pondered the subject and acknowledged numerous illustrations of when "awful" practices are the correct thing to do or the main decision. The self-protection sample is one of these; an alternate fantastic case might be a mother taking bread to encourage her crew. From a Christian outlook I might want to say that there are innately awful practices, however in the wake of considering numerous cases of when a "terrible" conduct might be adequate, I concur with Aristotle's theory.
The term “ethics” discusses how one’s morality needs to take acknowledge that of the rest of the members of the group or community t...
How does Aristotle understand the human being through virtue ethics? In the first part I will explain his notions of the Telos which in his view equals happiness and the methods that he uses to determine what they are. In the second part I will explain his thinking towards knowledge and how it is based on sense perception, reason and reality. In the third part I will examine what Aristotle considers a being and where he distinguishes achievable human actions. In the fourth part I will demonstrate the four causes of his theory. In the final part I will discuss what a human being must do in order to achieve the telos in their life time.
Aristotle follows in the paths created by Socrates and Plato regarding ethics and agrees the “taking of virtues to be central to a well-lived life” (Kraut, 2014). In virtue ethics great emphasis is placed on the virtues or traits a good moral person should have, thus someone who has good moral character will act in moral ways (Edge & Groves, 2006). “Virtue ethics hold that if is not only important to do the right thing but equally to have the right disposition, motivation and traits for being good and doing right” (Edge & Groves, 2006, p.
In book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle proposes that the good for humans is to have and exercise the excellences of character. Nevertheless in book X he proposes that the highest human good is contemplation as it is akin to Godly behaviour. I will first explain how human good is having and exercising the excellences of character, and second how human good is having the ability to understand. The tension that arises is that first Aristotle gives two answers to the single question 'what is the human good', and second he asserts that contemplation is the better answer as opposed to excellence of character. Aristotle says that the best life for a human is to have and exercise excellence of character, but he undermines this in book X by claiming that understanding is the better good for humans. Therefore, he contradicts himself on what the best life for humans must be. I will propose that Aristotle does not hold that virtues are undermined by contemplation, but that we hope that contemplation is consistent with our virtues. As such, they act together towards human good. I will show that this does not resolve the tension. On behalf of Aristotle I will conclude that we must first understand a question before we apply the parts of our soul on the question to make a decision.
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.