Therefore, if one carries out their function adequately, they are leading a good life. As such, living a life of perfect rational activity... ... middle of paper ... ...ppiness is multifaceted and can be described in so many other ways. Nevertheless, Aristotle would argue that happiness should be based on pleasure because men are rational being and as such they should not rely on indulging in their basal need for pleasure. This is because feelings can be deceiving but reason never fails. However, although it is true that happiness should not based on the feeling of pleasure alone, this does not imply that man should not allow himself to be overwhelmed by the state of feeling happy (emotion even when he has done the right thing.
Utilitarianism’s advocacy of happiness by any means is what concerns me about the theory. I believe that happiness is a great thing, but a thing that can only really come from inside an individual. In contrast, Deontology emphasizes a duty to respect other’s autonomy. I take this to mean that people are their own advocates—Deontology promotes fairness, justice, and equal opportunity at happiness rather than guaranteeing happiness itself. It isn’t society’s duty to ensure everyone’s happiness, but rather to ensure that all people are given the opportunity to be happy.
It is to make sure that the person is not in any sort of physical or mental pain. Having all three aspects of his happiness would keep a person from going into a depressed state and they would help satisfy the basic needs of a person so he or she would live life pain free. On the other hand, Nozick believes that there is more to happiness than what Epicurus’s version is. Nozick said “we also can show that more matters than pleasure or happiness by considering a life that has these but otherwise empty, a life of mindless pleasures or bovine contentment or frivolous amusements only, a happy life but a superficial one” (102). Nozick is talking about how it is better for people to have more to life than just a happy but unaware life.
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.
A final consequence was examined which showed that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for happiness, and that only a subset of the individuals who acquire virtue might acquire happiness. However, while this final consequence might seem problematic or counterintuitive, Aristotle offers that happiness is actually one of the most divine things and seems to suggest that our concept of ‘happiness’ in the context which makes this seem so troubling is not a fully conceived notion. That is, you can still lead a good or blessed life without happiness, but the most blessed life is a happy one. Works Cited Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics.
Experience shows that such a policy consi... ... middle of paper ... ...le relates that the healthy exercise of virtuous function in a well-rounded life exploring personal interests and friendships is the cause of which happiness is the unavoidable and fitting effect. In other words, if you pursue the cause you will create the effect, but if you pursue only the effect circumventing the cause, you will miss both effect and cause entirely. “Aristotle rejects the Epicurean principle of pleasure; because, though a proof that isolated tendencies are satisfied, it is no adequate criterion of the satisfaction of the self as a whole. He rejects the Stoic principle of conformity to law; because it fails to recognize the supreme worth of individuality”(Hyde, 175). Even after this comparison it is difficult to contend which of these three theories would be a valid philosophy today.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores virtues as necessary conditions for being happy. According to Aristotle the ‘best good’, happiness, is something that is complete and self-sufficient. Something is considered to be self-sufficient when through itself it creates a choice worthy, abundant life. Every other human action has some end; these ends are categorized as some type of good, either instrumental or non-instrumental. Instrumental goods, are goods that are not chosen for their own sake, but rather, for the sake of others.
In fact, they would not say that they will live in a happy life. It just something that people desired for its own sake. Aristotle claims that not real happiness but people just desired for its own. Human being tries everything to pursue the happiness, and believes that it will be completed. He concludes that virtues are soul’s habits by which one acts well for the sake of what is noble or
To clarify, neither school is declaring specific actions right or wrong; rather each is prescribing their own way of life in which happiness can be obtained (Sharples 82). In this paper, I will argue that the Stoic School succeeds because it accounts for the human desire to purse certain virtues without regard to pleasure or pain which is essential to happiness. For the Stoics, what is necessary to live a happy life does not derive itself from physical pleasure or mental peace, rather virtue (Sharples 100). When one acts virtuously, they act in accordance with their human nature, following the guidance of their reason. For the Stoics, this guidance from reason leads us to certain things which give us pleasure such as wisdom or even other virtues we may feel.
Happiness is choiceworthy in its own right and never because of something else therefore is complete. Lastly, Aristotle claims that a life of study is the best life for all humans, however, there should be a single good which constitutes the aim of each human being. He incorrectly reasons that just because the gods are involved in study, that humans should also take part in such activity. Forgetting all the previous things he said about virtues and habituation, Aristotle claims that only a life of study will bring happiness. While humans should all aim to achieve Aristotle’s view of eudaimonia or happiness, his beliefs of the best life are unrealistic.