Many believe the two are interchangeable when speaking about morals and ethics, when the two in no way mean the same thing. Morals are subjective beliefs that belong to an individual, they are one’s own beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong. Ethics on the other hand are the rules that society creates and teaches regarding proper and improper, right and wrong, social behavior. Morals are internal, ethics are external, and they have been the unwritten rules of society as old as mankind, which govern proper social conduct based on the greater good of the popular belief. Philosophers have tussled over the nature of the concepts of morality and virtue, where they stem from as well as their true meanings. Some philosophers believe that our moral and ethical beliefs stem from what we are taught by society based on rational acceptance of proper decisions, whereas others oppose saying that our morals and ethical beliefs belong to our soul alone and it is learned from within, rather than being taught by one’s society. One of Aristotle’s most influential works, Nicomachean Ethics, lays claim that there is an actual, material definition of what happiness is and ways one may possibly attain the greatest good in life, which is ultimately to be happy. Furthermore, Aristotle distinguishes that there is a difference between higher and lower pleasures that one ought to seek in life. He believed that the highest good one has the possibility of achieving is grasping true virtue. In Aristotle’s eyes, there are different types of virtue; intellectual virtue is learned from the teachings of society, whereas moral virtue is discovered as result of our habits. Aristotle taught that virtue was the perfect balance of weight between the good and th... ... middle of paper ... ...d, different cultures live completely separate lives and each society is not the same as the next. Different lifestyles would mean that there are different cultural views and norms depending what type of society you live in when building your moral standards. Furthermore I believe that there is a distinguishable line between right and wrong and a rational being need not the rules of society to help govern decisions, but it is necessary for society to have standards of morals and ethics so that one’s actions can ultimately be justifiable. Works Cited Aristotle. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. New York: Peripatetic, 1984. Print. Ayer, Alfred J. "Critique of ethics and theology." Essays on Moral Realism (1988). Ayer, AJ. Language, Logic, and Truth. New York: Dover, 1952, 102-113. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Yale University Press, 2002.
...it is necessary to examine human virtue. Something is considered to have reason in two senses: that which has reason in itself and that which listens to reason. These two senses are the origin of the distinction between intellectual and ethical virtues, respectively. The understanding of virtue and happiness is justified in the ideal that happiness is to be found in pleasure, others that it is to be found in honor, and others that it is to be found in contemplation. Happiness is not found in living for pleasure because such a life is slavish. Nor is it found in seeking honor because honor depends not on the person but on what others think of him. In order to be successful in an organization it is key to find a balance between two extremes that is an end within itself, that’s why Aristotle strongly believes that happiness is acquired through political organization.
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.”
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.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that virtue and happiness come from achieving the moral mean. The moral mean is the midpoint between deficiency and excess in any particular behavior. For example, the moral mean of recklessness and cowardice is courage. In matters of ple...
Over many years people have seemed to develop their thinking concerning morality based on resulting in interactions with individuals and social institutions. Different societies have their own cultures that have different ideas about how humans are to behave. Societies
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.
Humans have notably different ethical standards which dictate what is or isn’t correct. Those standards are shared and followed by a group of people. For example, the concept of killing is not unknown. The typical response is to punish the one who commits that “crime,” even if that person was “right” to do so. However, killing may not seem like a crime to some people. Rather, to them killing is necessary for protection. Given that there are many cultures in the world, one can assume that each of those cultures is not like the other. They must all have their own ethical standards. In addition, it is suggested that a person refrains from assuming that one’s ethical standards are superior or inferior to another person’s standards. Cultural Relativism
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.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism is the idea that moral and ethical systems varying from culture to culture, are all equally credible and no one system is morally greater than any other. Cultural relativism is based on the concept that there is no “ultimate” standard of good and evil, so the judgement of what is seen as moral, or immoral, is simply a product of one’s society and/or culture. The general consensus of this view is that there is no ethical position that may be considered “right” or “wrong” in terms of society and culture (Cultural Relativism). In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is not an adequate view of morality by providing evidence of its most common logical problems and faulty reasoning.
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
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.
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
...be true that human societies have moral systems that they pass down through the generations.
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...