. According to Aristotle’s definition of happiness, in order to flourish or live well one must be morally virtuous. Aristotle says, “Virtue, then, is a state that decides consisting in a mean, the mean relative to us…It is a mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency” (1107a 1-2). Aristotle suggests that virtue of magnificence is necessary to live a happy life. Aristotle describes magnificence as dependent on wealth. Specifically, he says that “magnificence is expenditure that is fitting in its large scale” (112b 2). A magnificent person with his extraordinary means supports public work necessary for practice. He spends large amounts for the benefit of public. He is thinking of better ways in achieving the best noble results rather than looking at what he is spending. A stingy person is a wealthy person and does not support practices. He will always try to keep the cost of expenditure as low as he can. The vulgar person is a wealthy person who spends beyond what is right and does what appears to be practice but does it for personal benefit. He spends little where he ought to spend much and much where he ought to spend little. Magnificent person strives to help not just an individual but the community as a whole. Examples of greater spending include spending on religious offerings, buildings and equipping a chorus, entertaining the city, and weddings. 2. According to Kant, Categorical imperative is a set of guidance on the formation of the laws. It is a moral command with all the moral instructions on how to act. There are imperfect duties that people should do an action if the maxim is such that can be willed into universal law and thus is moral. These duties can be fulfilled in a manner that you w... ... middle of paper ... ...cording to me is helping someone in need without expecting anything in return. Giving away wealth or being generous can be challenging because it often requires the receiver to act as fully modest. The wealthy give away the wealth either for their benefit or they are required to do so. Moreover, the wealthy also get control over the poor’s life in giving away wealth. The poor do not get to pick charitable actions for their own well being; instead the wealthy decide it for them. The purpose of money is to convert production into consumption. A generous person pursues the idea of spending everything he makes from his own consumption. A generous person could be out of money, but he is not because he has the virtue of liberality. He knows how much to spend. A poor person can be generous and he will try to give away the right amount at the right time from what he has.
Kant made a distinction between two types of duties which are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are rules or duties people ought to observe if certain ends are to be achieved. Hypothetical imperatives are sometimes called “if-then” imperatives, which are condit...
Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain this, he goes into depth on the difference between hypothetical imperatives and Categorical Imperative, two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and a few examples. According to Kant, there are two types on imperatives, categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. The Categorical Imperative is based on relation and not by means, which hypothetical imperatives are based on.
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Aristotle believes that happiness rests within an absolutely final and self-sufficient end. The reasoning behind this theory is that every man is striving for some end, and every action he does must be due to this desire to reach this final end. He believes that in order for a man to be happy, he must live an active life of virtue, for this will in turn bring him closer to the final end. Although some may believe that these actions that the man chooses to take is what creates happiness, Aristotle believes that these actions are just a mere part of the striving toward the final end. I believe that Aristotle’s great-souled man is the highest virtue of character; His actions are never too extreme and he is appropriate in all his manners. The magnanimous person is within the intermediate state of character. “The deficient person is pusillanimous, and the person who goes to excess is vain” (§35). The magnanimous person surrounds himself with great things. The great things occurs when “he receives great honors from excellent pe...
Is virtue all we need? Virtue epistemology is the theory that all of the things we believe are done so through an ethical process. They play an important role, in that our own personal experiences and intellectual facets are what drive this process. The fundamental idea of virtue epistemology is that knowledge is a form of a more general phenomenon, namely success through abilities. Which is turn means: knowledge is a cognitive achievement through cognitive abilities (perception, memory, experience, etc.). Knowledge doesn’t need to be anything beyond a justified true belief.
To achieve complete happiness, Aristotle says that we need three kinds of goods. The first of these goods is that of the soul, which is moral character and practical wisdom. Aristotle explains that in order to maintain the soul, we must also have external and bodily goods. He says we need external goods such as friends, food, and some money; without these, we are not able to flourish. Furthermore we need goods of the body, which are the basic supplies for health, strength, and beauty. According to Aristotle, if we have all these we are able to live our life to the fullest, which means to live well and to do things well (NE 1098b20). Particular to this paper I will focus on why Aristotle thinks external goods are necessary for happiness. Aristotle says, “He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life” (NE 1101a15). It is Aristotle’s explicit view that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for happiness. He views external and bodily goods as instruments deemed necessary to live a virtuous life. He says, “it is impossible or not easy for someone without equipment to do what is noble: many things are done through instruments, as it were—through friends, wealth, and political power. Those who are bereft of some of these (for example, good birth, good children, or beauty) disfigure their blessedness, for a person who is altogether ugly in appearance, or of poor birth, or solitary and childless cannot really be characterized as happy; and he is perhaps still less happy, if he should have altogether bad children or friends or, though he didn’t have good ones, they are dead. Just as we said then, [happiness] seems to require some such external prosperity in addition” (NE 1099b5). This quote contradicts in many ways with how Aristotle previously described happiness. Aristotle says happiness is
Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.
In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.
According to Aristotle, generosity is the mean virtue between wastefulness and ungenerosity. In broad terms, generosity is not ascribed to those who take wealth more seriously than what is right. Since generosity is relating to wealth and anything whose worth is measured by money, anything can be used either well or badly. Hence, in the virtue of generosity, whoever is the best user of something is the person who has the virtue concerned with it, which is the generous person. Whereas the possession of wealth is taking and keeping, using wealth consists of spending and giving, which is why “it is more proper to the generous person to give to the right people than to take from the right sources and not from the wrong sources” (1120a10). Since not taking is easier than giving, more thanks will be given to the giver. The generous person will also aim at the fine in his giving and will give correctly; “for he will give to the right people, the right amounts, at the right time, and all the other things that are implied by correct giving” (1120a25). As a result, it is not easy for the generous person to grow rich, since he is ready to spend and not take or keep,...
It is easier for wealthy people to pay for their needs, such as health care and dental care. If any abrupt situation approaches dealing with their health, a wealthy person will be financially stable to pay and fix it. According to an article, "Happiness Around The World: Is There More To It Than Money?" by Bozionelos, Nikos, and Ioannis Nikolaou, “One would expect that money is more important when it helps meet basic needs, and this should be especially true in poorer nations. However, as already seen, the relationship between income and general life satisfaction was mainly explained by whether material aspirations (such as buying luxury goods) could be fulfilled.” In other words, one’s concept of happiness can vary from nation to nation. For example, people living in poor nations and having a low income tend to be satisfied by having just enough to meet their necessities. While, on the other hand, people with higher income tend to be satisfied if they have enough to buy luxury goods. Being wealthy does not lead one to happiness; it can help some people to obtain happiness, but it can also lead others to have unwanted experiences. Having a minimum amount of money is necessary to be happy. Having the minimum amount of money to pay bills, have medical assistance, buy groceries, and clothing is considered as the basics needed for one to be happy. Money is a tool that can help a person obtain objects that can help him or her to have a comfortable life. However, money should not become the reason why a person is happy. Happiness comes within a person as a human being and money will never replace a friend, nor a loved
The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is defined by Kant to "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Good moral actions are those of which are motivated by maxims which can be consistently willed that it’s generalized form be a universal law of nature. These maxims are otherwise known as universal maxims. Maxims can then be put through the Categorical Imerative test to determine their universalisability and thus the premissability of the maxim. To test a maxim we must ask ourselves whether we can consistently will for a maxim to be obeyed by everyone all the time....
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.
In the present world we’re often taught key principles in order to live a flourishing life. Young children especially are often reared in school to become successful, and be the best they can be; and be a good person. We pose the question what does it mean to be a good person? According to Jacques Thiroux & Keith Krasemann mentions, when individuals apply these virtuous behaviors into their daily lives it promotes a decent human being (Thiroux & Krasemann, pg 78). This paper will examine the argument how having virtues can promote a balance in today’s society, and how this virtue ethics can also pose a problem.
Moral ethics is the belief that all human beings are born to know right from wrong. We come into this world as good people, but the temptations and challenges in life influence our mind set to as it will. Every person on Earth chooses if they’re to follow through with their life of good or go down the path of bad. “A person’s moral ethics” (unknown.)
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...