In this paper, I will examine contrasting views in the field of normative ethics and applied ethics. I will first analyze Aristotle in his writings on virtue ethics and W.D. Ross’s arguments for deontological ethics. I will then proceed to the field of applied ethics, and analyze the positions of John Noonan and Mary Warren on the issue of abortion. Aristotle, in his selections from Nicomachean Ethics, argues that eudaimonia is the supreme goal of every human being in life. Eudaimonia, or well-being and happiness, is the end result of just actions. Happiness is an activity and not a state of emotion. In the selection explaining goodness as an end, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every investigation, and likewise every action and decision, seems to aim at some good; hence the good as been well described as that at which everything aims” (Pojman 249). He believes that goodness and happiness provide a sense of completeness because we choose it for ourselves, and not for anybody else. Every activity is performed to achieve some end that will provide happiness. The highest ends which we endeavor must be the supreme good. Aristotle posits that human beings strive to achieve happiness because the highest good is a sufficient end that produces happiness. To define actions that bring happiness, things that function well are deemed good. A sculptor, or a craftsman, can be good if they perform their functions with efficiency. Happiness is achieved if the supreme Good is acting in accordance with the proper functions and virtues. Aristotle writes, “… the human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue” (Pojman 252). A human being with the proper virtues can live a good life, and is more inclined to achieve euda...
... middle of paper ...
...n fetus is a member of humanity and should have moral rights. I believe Warren’s argument is flawed. She argues that traits should be the deciding factor in determining personhood but if the aliens were devoid of reason and consciousness but had the potential to reason, I still believe they should be considered humans. I agree with Noonan that a fetus should be given human rights. One would feel as much anger and grief toward the death of a fetus as one would toward the loss of an older man or woman. Even if a fetus is not visible, it is still a developing person able to feel pain and responsive to touch. While I agree that a woman’s right to life and ability to make decisions are important, killing an unborn fetus is absolutely immoral.
Works Cited
Pojman, Louis P. Ed. Moral Philosophy: A Reader. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2003.
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.
For Aristotle, happiness is defined as “an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence... (Aristotle 1102a). This means that actions exercised through, and guided by, human virtues turns out to be a good that is an “... activity of soul in conformity to excellence...” (Aristotle 1098b). Therefore, the characteristic allowing a person to perform well is virtue. To further explain this concept you can use the example of
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. "7,8,9,10." In The elements of moral philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. 97-145.
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.”
In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the ultimate human goal or end is happiness. Aristotle then describes steps required for humans to obtain the ultimate happiness. He also states that activity is an important requirement of happiness. A virtuous person takes pleasure in doing virtuous things. He then goes on to say that living a life of virtue is something pleasurable in itself. The role of virtue to Aristotle is an important one, with out it, it seems humans cannot obtain happiness. Virtue is the connection one has to happiness and how they should obtain it. My goal in this paper is to connect Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics to my own reasoning of self-ethics. I strongly agree with Aristotle’s goal of happiness and conclude to his idea of virtues, which are virtuous states of character that affect our decision making in life.
From examining ends and goods, Aristotle formulates eudaimonia. He questions “what is the highest of all the goods achievable in action?” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 616). Aristotle argues that the majority of people agree that the highest good is achieving happiness, however, they disagree over what happiness actually is, for example, some claim t...
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.
Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.
Happiness is the goal of every human beings according to Aristotle, however what does happiness imply? It is in his attempt to define happiness and to find a way to attain it that Aristotle comes across the idea of virtue. It is thus necessary to explain the relationship between these two terms. I will start by defining the good and virtue and then clarify their close link with the argument of function, I will then go into more details in explaining the different ways in which they are closely related and finally I am going to give an account of the apparent contradiction in Book X which is a praise of the life of study.
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
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
Arthur, John, and Scalet, Steven, eds. Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Eighth Edition, 2009.
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be
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...