Aristotle: The Ultimate End Goal

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the human good is the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. Aristotle concludes this from an invalid argument. On the one hand I do agree that the activity expressing virtue is a requirement for the human good. But on the other hand, I insist that the human good is a state and not an action. By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts.

Justice is a good virtue because it gives people control on what they follow regarding in the manner of law. Courage as a virtue, allows people to achieve gaat thing in risky situations. Forensic speakers look into “wrong doing” and have determined what are the cause of the crimes and have separated them into two categories, “involuntary” and “voluntary”. Involuntary is composed of three things chance, nature, and compulsion. Voluntary is composed of habit, reasoning, anger, and appetite.

David Dalfonso Prof. Thomas Teufel Philosophy 1500 BMWA October 22, 2015 In the Republic, by Plato an ancient philosopher. Gluacon presents an argument concerning “the nature and origin of justice.” Gluacon uses the four premises to expand on “justice.”

In Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle brings up the idea that in order to discover the human good we must first develop a certain understanding and identify the function of a human being. Aristotle’s function argument is brought up through his belief that the human function is rational activity, meaning that our good as human beings is rational activity performed fine because this is what leads to living well. The good Aristotle tries to get across can be seen in many different forms depending on how it is viewed, because of the idea that the main function of anything is to reach a final end, the final end is considered the good. “The end of medicine is health, that of shipbuilding, a ship, that of military science, victory…” (Nicomachean,

In an attempt to amass an overall consensus of justice being desirable as a benefit to the health of the soul, and the necessity placed on maintaining its ideals as a virtue (as expressed by Socrates to resolve Thrasymachus 's definition); Glaucon extends his argument of justice to include the concept of the Three Kinds of Goods. As explained, all goods can be divided into three classes: as a mere means such as physical labor, as an end akin to joy, and as both a means and an end comparable to maintaining knowledge (book ii). Although an advocate for the belief that justice is coveted both as a means and an end, Glaucon alludes that most individuals classify justice under the first group: justice is no more than a mere means. He continues to elaborate on the idea that justice is viewed as a necessary evil, and that it is only maintained in order

According to Aristotle’s writing called, Nicomachean Ethics, all actions performed by humans aim to gain happiness, happiness is the ultimate end, and that happiness is greatly determined by moral and intellectual virtues. However, I will discuss how some believe that his doctrine of the mean lacks the direction of how one achieves equilibrium of the virtues. In addition, I will explain how Aristotle’s ethics, in fact, does give sufficient advice of how a person can live virtuously. Firstly, Aristotle

Epicurus states that humans cannot be unjust to animals because to be unjust we would need to have a contract with the animals and because they do not speak we can’t do that. However even if we do not have a moral contract we should still look at the way we treat animals as many ways are too cruel and we don’t blink an eye but we need to. Epicurus says that justice is a contract or an agreement to neither harm nor be harmed. Humans invent justice by making contracts with each other. The purpose of the agreement is to make other’s happy the laws must be just, make others happy and be useful.

When it comes to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, I believe that he has found a common thread in humanity in the fact that humans strive for the moderate in living virtuously. However, I would argue that the thread is varied enough to have no true worth in discerning the aspects of humanity. People have too different moralities and goals. Because Aristotle allows for these “local variations”, as Martha Nussbaum later terms in her defense of Aristotle, he is acknowledging that there cannot be an overarching analysis of humanity.

Many classical philosophers have given their voice to the nature of human life and what entails its climax. The very nature of human beings has been investigated, broadly, to establish a comprehensive understanding often pegged on morality. Yet, such thoughts have prompted diverse viewpoints with accompanying grounds or reasons. Happiness is an unending topic of discussion in philosophy. This paper explores the similarities and differences in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism to coin a position in whether or not happiness is the ultimate end that human society aspires to acquire.

The main principle of utilitarianism is happiness. People who follow this theory strive to fulfill the “ultimate good”. The “ultimate good” is defined as ultimate pleasure with out any pain. It is said that the pleasure can be of any quantity and any quality, but pleasures that are weighted more important are put at a higher level than others that are below it. This ethical theory also states that if society would fully embrace utilitarianism then people would naturally realize their moral standing in the

Introduction The founder of Microsoft doesn’t need and introduction. Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest person in the world. He is well known for his harsh “do as I say, not as I do,” leadership style in the workplace. He was a visionary, and his vision was to build a company or product that would forever change the world The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were created by them both .Their

The existence of good is not dependant on the mind of others but in your own mind. I believe it is impossible to associate something as being good without having some kind of objective. Good is defined differently through the minds of every human being. What is correctly good to some, may be different to others. This is shown in the principles of being, Aristotle’s meaning of a good life, and in Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle’s New Natural Law theory and how it relates to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

PHL100-T0401-SUM#2-MOSSMAN-PATRICK In book 1 of The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that The Good for a human is not a state of being, but instead virtuous activity. Aristotle first states that each field of human accomplishment seeks some sort of end. He continues that ends can be desired as a means to further ends, simply as ends in themselves, or both. Accordingly, the final end, The Good that is being ultimately sought, would be that which is the end to which other ends are directed towards, and is desired solely for itself (NE.

We need to decide in every situation the right thing, to do for us. This eventually leads to the statements about finding the mean of all the virtues for yourself. Once you have achieved true happiness, you will be able to deliberate for any person in any scenario what the mean is for them and the right thing to do for all cases and all

Warn Me! A silent and drizzle night lies in front of me. I think stars will shine brightly soon, because stars usually appear after the rain. My long hair also beautifully shines bathed by the moonlights.