Aristotle and Hobbes have different views on what is good, which results in contrasting moral theories. These philosophers both have different views on what is good, how to act, and how to be. The way in which Aristotle defines happiness, is opposed in the views and beliefs of Hobbes. Aristotle believed that there was a final good and opposing him was the belief that Hobbes had which was that there was no final good. They both believed that being moral wasn’t only good for you but also good for others. Although both philosophers believe that you have to be moral in order to be good, their definitions of both happiness and moral virtue differ.
Aristotle’s goal in, “The Nicomachean Ethics,” is to argue that there is such thing as a chief good
He stated, “So virtue is a provisional disposition… virtue is a mean; but in respect of what is right and what is right and best, it is an extreme (Aristotle, 42).” Here Aristotle explains that moral virtue is determined by reason and that it avoids the states of too much, excess, or too little, deficiency. He believes that our soul is the principle of living because it is inside of us. Therefore, for Aristotle the soul was morally which is where we are given the right reason. He believes that, “there are two parts of the soul, one rational and one irrational (Aristotle, 145).” The rational part, which is how he believe we should do our actions upon, consists of possessing reason, part that can think and command, and intellectual virtues, which are virtues that come from time and experience. Courage is a moral virtue. When having courage, you either have too much fear, which makes you a coward, or you have too little fear, where you’d be considered rash or fool hardy. Generosity is also a moral virtue. When you are generous, you are either giving too much, which makes you profligate, or you are giving too little which would consider you as a stingy person. Moral virtues lead you to happiness because of their intermediate state that is by
The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.
Hobbes' theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke's theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other. Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than John Locke?s theory though. Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness.
Aristotle further divided his thought on ethics into two categories, intellectual virtue and moral/social/political virtue. With respect to his views on moral virtue, Aristotle developed a doctrine that showed that virtue is staying in the mean, the doctrine of the mean. “The moral virtue is a mean…” (Aristotle 109). This doctrine claimed that having the right amount of a characteristic would be virtuous and most often is in between having too much or too little of ...
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.
Aristotle begins his ethical account by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and every choice, is thought to aim for some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (line 1094a1). Though some things might produce higher good than others, Aristotle looks for the highest good, which he says we must “desire for its own sake” and our actions are not decided on some other goal beyond this good itself (line 1094a20-25).[1] This highest good is then realized to be happiness (line 1095a16-20).
...Aristotle’s conclusion relates human good, activity of soul and excellence. It is this expression of virtue through action that allows happiness to be obtained. Such dependence on virtue sets the scene for Aristotle to examine virtue more closely. He will elaborate on the two parts of reasoning well (virtue). The first part of reasoning well is having the right desires to aim oneself at the right good and not just the apparent good. The second part of reasoning well is knowing how to get to this proper desire. This will be further elaborated in book two where Aristotle will explore what it means to reason well and what is means to be virtuous.
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a state that makes something good, and in order for something to be good, it must fulfill its function well. The proper function of a human soul is to reason well. Aristotle says that there are two parts of the soul that correspond to different types of virtues: the appetitive part of the soul involves character virtues, while the rational part involves intellectual virtues. The character virtues allow one to deliberate and find the “golden mean” in a specific situation, while the intellectual virtues allow one to contemplate and seek the truth. A virtuous person is someone who maintains an appropriate balance of these two parts of the soul, which allows them to reason well in different types of situations.
The identification of the soul parts as the contributors and main elements for the function of the most important human activity (reasoning), marks the inevitable psychological asset of Aristotle’s thinking; specifically, the classification of human virtues derives from the analysis of the soul’s types, attributing to human beings the ability of reasoning which distinguishes human beings from the rest of ‘natural bodies.’ Indeed, reason exists in two parts of the soul, namely the rational and the appetitive (desires or passions), and so it expresses within two different virtues, the moral and intellectual ones. Moral virtues satisfy the impulses of the appetitive part and the intellectual virtues hav...
Aristotle quoted in his book, The Nicomachean Ethics, “These virtues are formed in man by his own doing, the actions…The good of man is a working of the soul in the way of excellence in a complete life.” This quote reveals that unlike Hobbes, Aristotle believes that man can achieve happiness through his actions throughout his life, rather than having power to gain what they think is happiness. I agree with Aristotle that happiness is achieved over a lifetime of work of the soul and virtue. Hobbes on the other hand disagrees or rather, counters, Aristotle and converses about happiness being achieved by having as much power in your life as you can. In the following paragraphs, will be an explanation of how Hobbes and Aristotle believe people
Part I: “One isn’t necessarily born with courage, but one is born with potential. Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can’t be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest,” stated by Maya Angelou. In other words, this statement is implying that one needs to be willingly optimistic in life in order to obtain virtue throughout life. For example virtues can warrant good karma because the good is being reward. The Ancient Greek term virtues come from the decisions, particularly based on finding the good within one’s self that will naturally form principles. Throughout Greek philosopher Aristotle’s work “Nicomachean Ethics” he explains and focuses on what exactly is virtue.
Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.
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
...rts of the soul in order to find the function of human beings which is activity in accordance with reason. It is first in this function that men ought to be virtuous. It is thanks to the same distinction that Aristotle gives the different types of virtues. However while Aristotle dedicates most of his piece to the practical, active aspects of virtue it is necessary to keep in mind the virtues of the life of study which is reintroduced in the chapters 7 and 8 of book X. Thus what appears as a contradiction in these chapters is in fact a reminder and a justification of the honourable and divine aspect of the life of study which is necessary to reach complete happiness.
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
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...