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.” John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini... ... middle of paper ... ...g the other consequences and harms of the decision made. In conclusion, Aristotle’s elucidation of happiness is based on a ground of ethics because happiness to him is coveted for happiness alone.
Humans possess this type of soul, and are able to be rational, and to instill rationality into their lives when dealing with their appetites, which are the objects and actions humans are attracted to. Aristotle believed that the ultimate goal in life is happiness, and people should live their lives in order to be happy. According to him, the soul doesn’t survive after death, so people should strive to be happy while they are alive. Since we haven’t direct knowledge of soul we try to understand to become truly virtuous. In Aristotle’s quest to understand virtue, he works rationally trying to rationalize the irrational.
It will always be the same and will always be good in Plato’s day an... ... middle of paper ... ...ned either by excess or deficiency. For example, too much bravery is too rash but too little bravery is being cowardly. He said we should look for a moral mean or average between each virtuous trait. This is not always easy but it is necessary to become a virtuous person. In conclusion, Aristotle disagreed with Socrates and Plato as he denied that humans are naturally drawn towards “the good”.
However, key differences in each of their writings is how virtue is acquired. Plato held the socratic belief that knowledge is virtue is in and of itself. That knowing what is the good thing to do will lead you to doing the good action. Through knowledge and wisdom is how all other virtues become clear in terms of right and wrong. Finally, Plato believed that virtue was sufficient in order to achieve happiness.
Many philosophers, writers, and religious figures have speculated on what “the good life” truly is. Among these figures are the philosopher Plato and St. Paul. Plato’s best individual life is one of method and technique. The more established opinion of the good life and the life of ethical virtue is that they are two different concepts; that the life of ethical virtue at times stands in the way of contentment and therefore the good life. Plato’s intellectual approach to the good life departs from the more common dependence on experience to acquire the knowledge involved in living a good life and finding happiness.
This argument, as presented in Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, also asserts that a life in accordance with justice is the happy, or good, life. Thus, tracing each philosopher’s theory of the happy life necessitates a discussion of their definitions of justice. Here too, the two philosophers show a great degree of agreement. Although the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle contain major differences in their fundamental principles, both thinkers take similar stances on the relationship between justice and happiness. Plato, through various Socratic dialogues, chooses to present his definition of justice in the context of a just state, later applying it to the case of a human.
Aristotle was a great believer in virtues and the meaning of virtue to him meant being able to fulfil one's functions. Virtue ethics is not so much interested in the question 'What should I do?' but rather in the question 'what sort of person should I become?' It has more to do with character and the nature of what it is to be human, than with the rights and wrongs of actions. Instead of concentrating on what is the right thing to do, virtue ethics asks how you can be a better person.
Every activity aims at some good and is subordinate to some other activity. The good of the ruling activity is more choiceworthy. The highest good will be that for the sake of which we engage in any activity, and that is the topic of ethics. Aristotle then comments on Plato's theory of the good. Plato claimed there was a "universally present" characteristic in al... ... middle of paper ... ...o in that, a degree of goodness can be expected.
He stresses that a model citizen illustrates the moral virtues of intelligence, and courage.# Developing this type of character as Aristotle states as “ human excellence” is an action of the soul for he believes it is the soul that is the bases of human individuality.# The idea becomes parallel on a political level for the citizens are the bases of a state. Aristotle believes the only way to reach a state of happiness is through virtue. The virtue that is to be practiced is meant to guide our behaviors in society and to learn the meaning of moderation. Aristotle deems human happiness as more then attaining the pleasures of life but satisfying the human potentialities. Reaching such abilities could be seen by making logical choices and being able to choose the needs in life rather then the wants.
To be good is good but it has to be done for the right reason. Aristotle and Kant are two famous philosophers who have different ethical theories. The theory’s of virtue and duties rest not only on laws and obligations but from what comes from the inside. Morality comes from inner strength, character and how we live our life to the best end. Aristole 384-322 b.c.e.