Aristotelian Philosophy Essay Research Paper Aristotle argues

Aristotelean Philosophy Essay, Research Paper

Aristotle argues that felicity, map and morality are closely connected and

that virtuousness is dependent upon all of them. To to the full grok Aristotle? s

theory, we must foremost analyze each of these qualities and so find how

they are related to one another. The deliberation procedure will demo that all of

these qualities can be strongly connected, but non entirely. Happiness,

map, morality and virtuousness can be independent of one another. The first

deliberation is to specify felicity. Happiness is the highest of all practical

goods identified with? populating good of making good? ( 100 ) . Harmonizing to

Aristotle, Every art and every enquiry, and likewise every action and chase,

is thought to take at some good ; and for this ground the good has justly been

declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found

among terminals ( 99 ) . An illustration of this contemplation would be the concluding merchandise

created by an designer. This single completed constructing a construction from

start to complete and has reached the terminal of the undertaking. The designer is pleased

by the consequences of what she created. The designer achieved the coveted result

and is hence happy. A difference between the existent terminal and the desired

result is what makes felicity different for each person. All terminals do non

lead to happiness. For illustration, completing a picture makes the creative person happy but

non the autoworker whose preferable terminal is doing vehicles. The fact that non all

human existences portion the same ends proves that felicity is found at different

terminals. Aristotle illustrates happiness as being the? head good? . In the

following quotation mark he explains that rational human existences take felicity for itself

and ne’er for any other grounds: Since there are obviously more than one terminal,

and we choose some of these? for the interest of something else, clearly non all

terminals are concluding terminals ; but the main good is obviously something concluding. ( 103 ) . By

this definition, felicity must be merely the concluding terminal, which is the? head

good? ( 103 ) . This means that felicity is the chase of all that which is

desired, and the desire is to make the concluding terminal. If the terminal is concluding it

becomes the? head good? ( 103 ) . In Aristotle? s ain words he says,

? Happiness, so, is something concluding and self-sufficing, and is the terminal of

action? ( 103 ) . To state that felicity is the lone head good is non wholly

true. If felicity is the lone head good than what is our map as human

existences? Aristotle associates working good with felicity and felicity is

the concluding consequence. He says that the map of human being is, ? ? an activity

of psyche which follows or implies a rational rule? ? ( 103 ) . Human existences

must hold the ability to exert their capacity to ground in order to map

good. Reasoning is the cardinal factor in doing determinations. Human existences usage

concluding to make up one’s mind what choices to do in life. The result of the picks

worlds make is what creates desire. As a consequence, desires are what determine the

? head good? ( 103 ) . If the head good is felicity, than the map of

human existences and concluding must besides be happiness. One will remain on the way

towards felicity if logical thinking is used as a map of life. Having virtuousness is

an indispensable portion of the equation that sustains felicity and the ability to

map good. Rather than taking roundabout waies down waies of lack and

inordinateness, one may utilize concluding to go a virtuous individual. By remaining

committed to the way toward felicity, one is considered virtuous. Aristotle

claims that the, ? virtuousness of adult male besides will be the province of character which

makes a adult male good and which makes him make his ain work good? ( 111 ) . If the above

statement is true than merely virtuous human existences are happy and if they are

happy than they must besides be working good. Aristotle so divides virtuousness

into two separate countries: rational virtuousness and moral virtuousness. He says that

moral vir

tue is the consequence of? wont? ( 108 ) . If moral virtuousness is

? wont? ( 108 ) , it can non be? nature? ( 109 ) . Let us convey this to a deeper

degree. Gravity by nature pulls everything to the Earth? s surface at a fixed

rate. This rate can ne’er be changed by the wont of something else. For

illustration, no affair how many times running H2O is diverted from its original

way to the lowest point, the Torahs of natural philosophies will ever predominate. The running

H2O will one time once more happen its way to the lowest point. This proves that any

kind of wont can non alter nature. However, rational virtuousness comes from what

is taught and learned throughout life by wont. Aristotle? s illustration of

rational virtuousness is made clear when he says, ? ? legislators make the

citizens good by organizing wonts in them, and this is the want of every

legislator, and those who do non consequence it miss their grade, and it is in this

that a good fundamental law differs from a bad one? ( 109 ) . If virtuousness is the province

of character, than the province of character defined by Aristotle is, ? what makes

a adult male good and which makes him make his ain work good? ( 111 ) . If it is true that

virtuousness gives people a pick, than Aristotle is right when he states without

uncertainty that we as human existences could, ? ? take more, less, or an equal

sum? ( 112 ) . If a individual chooses to remain within the mean than they are

? intercede? or equal. If they choose to? take more? than they are

inordinate. Finally, if they choose to take? less? so they are lacking

( 112 ) . Therefore, felicity and virtuousness are mediate extra and lack. For

illustration, if one is inordinate in the feature of bravery than others might

see them as being afraid of nil. If an person is afraid of nil than

they can non be happy. Peoples do non ever look up to absolute bravery. There is a

clip and topographic point for bravery. The same can be said for those people who are

deficient or deficient bravery. In other words, felicity is being intermediate.

Aristotle has some good points when he speaks about the constructs of felicity,

but his ideas besides imply that felicity, map, morality and virtuousness are

all tied together as if they are inseparable. He states that felicity is the

purpose of the? head good? . Function is the ability to ground, morality is

cognition gained through wont of what is right or incorrect and virtuousness is a province

of head of that which is intermediate. The manner Aristotle ties these separate

elements together is singular and in a perfect universe his theory would likely

be true. The lone down autumn to his hypothesis is that this universe in which we

live is non a perfect 1. Even Aristotle says that the? head good? is the

? concluding terminal? ( 100 ) . If this is so, than life can non be considered happy until

it ceases to be. The ability to ground is non the lone intent of human

being. The chief map of human existences is alternatively the ability to last

with the advantage of being able to ground. Morality is the differentiation between

what is right and incorrect and this differentiation is dependent on the person and

the state of affairs. Virtue includes all features that have merit and that are

held in high respect. This deliberation with Aristotle? s theory has proven that

felicity, map, morality and virtuousness are tied to one another in a perfect

universe. These four elements are besides inter-mingled in our non-perfect universe, but

merely under certain fortunes. This is because every homo being has their

ain perceptual experience of what represents felicity, map, morality and virtuousness.

Finally, Aristotle says that virtuousness is being intermediate, but how realistic is

it to believe that virtuousness can merely be for those who ever stay with-in the

intend? Merely as we don? Ts have a perfect universe, there is no perfect homo being


Newberry, Paul A. Theories of Ethical motives. Mayfield Printing Company:

California, 1999. Nicomachean Ethical motives. 2000. Online. Internet. 22 Feb.1994-1998.

Available: hypertext transfer protocol: //

A limited
time offer!
Save Time On Research and Writing. Hire a Professional to Get Your 100% Plagiarism Free Paper