In comparing the ethical theories of the Epicureans, Aristotle, and the Stoics it’s found that they possess three separate ideas. These ideas are different in their individual beliefs; yet attempt to accomplish the same goals of creating an inner peace and sense of well being in their followers. Generally these three disciplines had distinctly separate ideas on how to set about accomplishing these goals; the Epicureans felt that the pursuit of pleasure was the correct path to enlightenment, while the Stoics had the idea that the conformation to strict laws regarding virtue was the proper path, and as for Aristotle, he held the middle ground in this debate of the minds, feeling that moderation was the key to complete happiness.
Epicurus' ethics was a form of egoistic hedonism, meaning that the only thing essentially valuable is one's own pleasure. Anything else that has value is valuable merely as a means to securing pleasure for oneself. Epicurus associated this theory to a refined and individual view of the nature of pleasure, which lead him to recommend a virtuous, moderately frugal life as the best means to securing pleasure. His ethical theories find a foundation in the Aristotelian commonplace that the highest good is what is valued for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else. Epicurus also agreed with Aristotle that happiness is the highest good. However, he disagreed with Aristotle by identifying happiness with pleasure. Epicurus gave two reasons for this. The main reason was that pleasure is the only thing that people do having value just for its own sake; that is, Epicurus' ethical hedonism is based upon his psychological hedonism. Everything we do, he claimed, we do for the sake of ultimately gaining pleasure for ourselves. This is supposedly confirmed by observing the obvious behavior of infants, who instinctively pursue pleasure and shun pain. The truth in this is also found in the behavior of adults, but in adults it is more difficult to see that this truth, since they have much more complicated beliefs about what will bring them pleasure. This hedonism was widely denounced in the ancient world as undermining traditional morality. "The trouble with Epicureanism is its assumption that the self is a bundle of natural appetites and passions, and that the end of life is their gratification. 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. As they all have their seemingly strong points, there are still intrinsic weaknesses that would not hold up under the scrutiny of contemporary philosophers.
Bibliography
Hardie, W.F.R. Aristotle’s Ethical Theory. Great Britain: Oxford UP, 1968.
Hyde, William. The Five Great Philosophies of Life. New York: Macmillan, 1945.
Long, A.A. Hellenistic Philosophy. New York: Scribner’s, 1974.
Epicurean ethical theory consistently operates under the presumption that hedonism, or pleasure, is the greatest good. For the Epicureans, an individual in a state of ataraxia, or complete freedom from mental disturbance, has achieved the most complete and pleasurable life, the greatest good for a human being. The concept of ataraxia, however, differs in many ways from what most would characterize as hedonism. Consequently, Epicurus is able to construct a great many controversial (and perhaps counterintuitive) views on particularly delicate subjects like death, the gods, friendship, and society. I find the issue of death to be one of the most glaring holes in all of Epicurean ethics. How are we to reconcile an ethical doctrine of hedonism with the issue of death? The manner in which Epicurus defines his hedonism sheds an alternative light on the world, a light which illuminates a much more accepting image of death than other generic notions of hedonism.
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
Credit structure was another factor; farmers were indebt owing land mortgage and crop prices too low to ever help pay of the due. Small & large banks in trouble as in 1920’s customers defaulted on loans that suffered because of the market crash.
The speculation and the resulting stock market crash acted as the trigger for the already unstable United States economy. Due to the maldistribution of wealth and the unstable economy of the 1920’s, the nation headed into a decade of trouble. In response to its economic difficulties, the United States set up even higher trade barriers with other nations, causing more trouble within the nation. Many of the working class lost their jobs, and since these people did not have savings, they were in big trouble. Unemployment grew to 13 million by 1932 as the country quickly spiraled into a catastrophe. The Great Depression had begun due to the maldistribution of wealth, a bad economy based on over confidence, and the irresponsible erratic of the “bull” stock market.
The Great depression was the worst times in American history. During the great depression, the economy was very bad and many people couldn’t afford food or houses. There were many people who couldn’t finds jobs in this time and life was very hard for millions of American people.
Inevitably business began to become greatly affected by the Great Depression. Since the stock market crashed they lost a large some on their capital. They had to cut back things like the products that had to be sold and the hours and wages of employees and even had to lay off their workers. Without consumer spending, the country saw many companies close.
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 Nichomeachean Ethics, Aristotle attempts to define happiness, which brings forth many other questions that lead to the ultimate question: What is the meaning of life? While all of Aristotle’s ideas are both interesting and important, I’ll only mention those that are relevant to the character analysis. Similar to flow; optimal experience, Aristotle draws a fine line between activities or goals that are either means, ends, or both means and ends while claiming that the ultimate end is that which is the means is an end in itself. In addition, Aristotle evaluates pleasure, and concludes that pleasures in themselves are activities. There are several types of pleasures, but for the purpose of this paper, only two pleasures are worth mentioning: conditional and unconditional.
Bankruptcy is where an individual or in this case a corporation claims that is not able to pay its lenders and/or creditors any more. By doing this the filer gains protection from its lenders while reorganizing itself to stay in business. Bankruptcy is defined by the Congress under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, in which the Congress revised in 2005 called Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). This act addresses the increased number of bankruptcy filing, loopholes and incentives that allowed for abuse and the financial ability of debtors.
The Nicomachean Ethics, written by Aristotle, represents his most important contribution within the field of Ethics; it is a collection of ten books, covering a variety of interesting topics, throughout the collection. Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings. Without pretending to exhaust with too many references, it would be rather useful to focus on the most criticized part of the philosopher’s attempt, which is also the very starting point of his masterpiece, identified as eudaimonia (happiness, well being) and ergon (function), in Aristotelian terms.
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
Food advertisements, supermarket displays, and restaurant menus increasingly highlight foods, particularly bread, as being gluten-free. Gluten consists of two proteins, gliadin and glutamine, which combine and help produce light and fluffy bread (Lord, 2012). Wheat is bred for its high gluten content which serves efficiently well for all bakers and chefs. Today, gluten is becoming a problem in society since allergic reactions to the protein have increased. Bread is a worldwide staple food and gluten is a predominant aspect within the dough mixture. Gluten free bread is basically fixed as it was thousands of years ago without the fermentation of yeast and the mixture of sourdough.
However, we can wonder if the pleasures that derive from necessary natural desires are what actually brings us happiness, since having a family, friends, a good job and doing fun things seem to bring the most joy in life. Plato’s ideas on life are even more radical, since he claims that we should completely take difference from our bodily needs. Therefore it seems that we should only do what is necessary for us to stay a life and solely focus on the mind. Although both ways of dealing with (bodily)pleasure are quite radical and almost impossible to achieve, it does questions if current perceptions of ‘living the good life’ actually leads to what we are trying to achieve, which is commonly described as
Since the creation of mankind, humans all over the world have fallen in love and believe that they have found “the one.” People get married and realize that it is not always “happily ever after.” A large percentage of couples are unable to maintain their relationship, because of this, they choose divorce. Many spouses, believe that this is the best solution to deal with problems between each other. However, many people think carefully before getting entangled into marriage. Nevertheless, divorce rates still continue to increase to this very day. It certainly looks as if divorces occur more now than they did 20 years ago. There are three causes of divorce: changing of a woman’s household status, financial situations, and lack of communication.
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...