Outlined within the very first chapter of Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle is his view on what happiness is as, the means by which it is acquired, but does his reasoning determined as true? Whether his view is true or not depends on the definition and support he has given as well as the reasonability towards people in a general form. For this we look to Aristotle’s view of ‘good’ and ‘the highest good’ which he associates to the various pieces to create ‘happiness’ or ‘living well’. Does this make the connections, variations, and overall generic definitions by Aristotle make his understanding true or false?
Admittedly it is written that there are numerous meanings for ‘good’ as a term. The ‘good’ is quoted in the book to be defined as “that at which all things aim”. Therefore it is reasonable to say that any aim is considered ‘good’? Therefore what is ‘good’ may also be harmful or have negative effects making the actions of good with problematic results or endings. Thus it could be said that no matter the outcome, the process, or the casualties of the good it is still good. Can this be true?
For this we must consider the other factors attributed to good. That being achievement, recognition, and pleasure. All must being considered in connection from ‘good’ to ‘the highest good’. To explain the difference the following quote explains;
“Good things are commonly divided into three classes: (1) external goods, (2) goods of the soul, and (3) goods of the body. Of these, we call the goods pertaining to the soul goods in the highest and fullest sense. But in speaking of ‘soul,’ we refer to our soul’s actions and activities.”
The above quote explains that the motives or reasoning for the ‘good’ done factors into the level of ‘goodness’ o...
... middle of paper ...
... varying opinions on the matter, but to be fair it was written; ‘many view are held about it’.
In conclusion it would seem that, yes, the understanding that Aristotle has of ‘happiness’ could be considered to be true. If you take it in a general view is plausible that the definition that “happiness as a kind of good life and well-being” would be a realist view towards the general public. This is based on the ‘good’, the ‘highest good’, and the ‘rational principle’ accepted on a regular basis that supports Aristotle’s definition of ‘happiness’. Thus it makes his understanding also probable, relative, and or true.
Works Cited
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, (Indianapolis, NY: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc., 1962)
Book One. Print.
Plato, Trans. Grube, G.M.A., and Revised; Reeve, C.D.C., Plato Republic. (Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Inc., 1992). Print.
The definition of “good” is not as black-and-white as approval and disapproval according to Aquinas. He defines “good” as more “enticing” or “desirable”. The most universal type of goodness is the idea that everything is good as everything is being.
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.
Phillip Pullman, a British author, once wrote, “I stopped believing there was a power of good and a power of evil that were outside us. And I came to believe that good and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are”(goodreads.com). Pullman’s quotation on the actions of man being the source of good and evil closely relate to morality, principles regarding the distinction of right and wrong or a person’s values. The question of what human morality truly is has been pondered by philosophers, common folk, and writers for thousands of years. However, sometimes a person’s ethics are unclear; he or she are not wholly good or bad but, rather, morally ambiguous.
The following analysis deals with the nature and source of evil and whether, given our innate motives and moral obligation, we willingly choose to succumb to our desires or are slaves of our passion. From this argument, I intend to show that our human nature requires that we play into our desires in order to affirm our free will. This is not to say that our desires are necessarily evil, but quite the opposite. In some sense, whatever people actually want has some relative value to them, and that all wanted things contain some good. But given that there are so many such goods and a whole spectrum of varying arrangements among them, that there is no way we can conceive anything as embodying an overall good just because it is to some degree wanted by one or a group of persons. In this light, there arises conflict which can only be resolved by a priority system defined by a code, maybe of moral foundations, which allows us to analyze the complexities of human motivation. I do not intend to set down the boundaries of such a notion, nor do I want to answer whether it benefits one to lead a morally good life, but rather want to find out how the constructs of good and evil affect our freedom to choose.
Further, Aristotle parallels the highest good with happiness: “As far as its name goes, most people virtually agree [about what the good is] … (and) call it happiness”(1.4.1095a17-19). In order for happiness to fit Aristotle’s definition of the good it must be “unconditionally complete” meaning “choiceworthy in itself”(1.7.1097a34) and “self-sufficient” meaning “lacking nothing”(1.7.1097b15). To be the highest good happiness will need to be the “mos...
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.
As mentioned before, happiness is a very complex subject matter, for it means something different to each and every person. In Aristotle's opinion, one needs to have realized and lived up to their potentialities in order to be happy. He notes that since human beings have the unique gift of reason, they are required to fully develop this skill in order to be happy. Yet, we must stop a minute and ask ourselves, "Is this too much of a pretentious assertion?" How do we know that our full potential can only be met if we learn to use the gift of reason? Can we ever be sure that knowledge is not simply an inst...
To start, according to Aristotle, the end of every action aims at a good (1094a1-10). He goes on to say that the highest good is the most complete, that it is good in itself and is not chosen to gain something else. Aristotle believes that the highest good that every action aims for is happiness, because it is self-sufficient (1097b1-10). For example, why does a person want a high paying job? So they can earn money. Why does a person want money? So they can get things. Why does a person want to get things? So they can become happy, or believe that it would give them happiness. Aristotle comes to this conclusion by taking into account the opinions of people, realizing that almost everyone is trying to obtain happiness (1095a10-20). In addition, Aristotle believes the means for achieving happiness are through the excellence of one's being. The term Aristotle uses here is aretê, or virtue. Essentially, virtue is the excellence of something, in this case moral action (1095b20-30). Virtue leads to happiness because it "seems to be more durable even than the kinds of knowledge" (1100b10-20). Earlier, Aristotle came to the conclusion that happiness is something that is not changed easily. If ...
... an action is performed, it has a determined relevance for future actions and entities so we have to make sure that our actions are the right ones. That is to say, not just any action, is an ethical action. An ethical action requires Goodness. By performing an action which can be described as good, my individual good action is linked with all good actions. It has been defined by the notion of Goodness, and contributes to the definition of Goodness. We have, then, a reciprocal relation between the good for the individual and the common good grounded in Whiteheadian metaphysics.
1.) Aristotle begins by claiming that the highest good is happiness (198, 1095a20). In order to achieve this happiness, one must live by acting well. The highest good also needs to be complete within itself, Aristotle claims that, “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification, since we always…choose it because of itself, never because of something else (204, 1097b1). Therefore, Aristotle is claiming that we choose things and other virtues for the end goal of happiness. Aristotle goes on to define happiness as a self-sufficient life that actively tries to pursue reason (205, 1098a5). For a human, happiness is the soul pursuing reason and trying to apply this reason in every single facet of life (206, 1098a10). So, a virtuous life must contain happiness, which Aristotle defines as the soul using reason. Next, Aristotle explains that there are certain types of goods and that “the goods of the soul are said to be goods to the fullest extent…” (207, 1098b15). A person who is truly virtuous will live a life that nourishes their soul. Aristotle is saying “that the happy person lives well and does well…the end
The pursuit for happiness has been a quest for man throughout the ages. In his ethics, Aristotle argues that happiness is the only thing that the rational man desires for its own sake, thus, making it good and natural. Although he lists three types of life for man, enjoyment, statesman, and contemplative, it is the philosopher whom is happiest of all due to his understanding and appreciation of reason. Aristotle’s version of happiness is not perceived to include wealth, honor, or trivial
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. Developing a good character requires a strong effort of will to do the right thing, even in difficult situations. The general idea that happiness is a result of the wealth is skewed from reality. Wealth is a means to happiness, not actual happiness, one who is wealthy, but is unable to actually use the money is not happy. Aristotle feels the good for man is something that is not dependent on anything else, so being wealthy is not something desirable. Happiness is not pleasurable sensations that can be gained or lost, it is what we seek when acting and is a condition of a person over a lifetime, not at one
The same applies to ‘beneficial’ which could be interpreted to mean; pleasant, healthy, productive, useful, life-enhancing. How to define good in a moral sense has puzzled philosophers for thousands of years, but there has been two main approaches; a teleological and deontological approach. The teleological approach states that the moral action is the one that aims to fulfil the purpose of the agent. However, the teleological approach can assess how moral an action is on how well it achieves particular ends. Whereas the deontological approach believes that true morality is derived from a set of duties which exist in their own
His philosophical theory was very simple and he wanted to teach people how to be happy. He stated “In all our activities there is an end, which we seek for its own sake, and everything else is a means to this end…Happiness is this ultimate end. It is the end we seek in all that we do.” What Aristotle means is that everything we do in our daily activities and actions is all leading up to the end result which is happiness. For example, I work and attend school full time and everything that I do is sub goals leading towards being a successful person which causes me to be happy. Aristotle says happiness is also found in our feelings. A personal example is I love my family and it makes me happy having people to care about and to support them. Sub goals on the way, such as making an A in a class or finishing college and getting a degree are self-awarding pleasures that create happiness. Those are a few examples that make me happy and doing well and succeeding is the key to happiness. For happiness to happen in general, people need to have a reason or virtue in our lives. That everyone has their strong suites about themselves and we need to express and share them with others to help others grow as well. What I understand from Aristotle’s theories of happiness is that our feelings and good actions and being able to control them is what makes us
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...