ipl-logo

Aristotle's Final Action Analysis

1092 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Ethical decision making case study

This paper will discuss how Aristotle’s theory of action relates to the his thoughts on “one’s life as a whole.” It will start by defining actions and the attributes given to them. Next, Aristotle’s view on life as a whole will be discussed. Then the process behind determining one’s final end is addressed and the paper will conclude with the argument supporting why a single final end is optimal. Aristotle considers choice to be necessary for proper action and believes all actions are aimed towards a goal, which is inherently good (Annas 30). Under this premise actions only account for a small part of the things we do, as Aristotle assumes that ethics is only concerned with what someone does on purpose. This makes sense as ethics is not concerned …show more content…

Aristotle believes that at some point everyone should reflect on their life and determine if they are satisfied with the direction in which they are going (Annas 28). This requires the person to take a step back from their current situation and evaluate their past and determine how they will act in the future. To do this, they will need to understand what their ultimate goal in life is and how their actions have helped them achieve it so far (Annas 30). Aristotle believes that all of one’s actions are cumulative to one final end and that all other ends they seek are subordinate. This final end is something that one hopes to achieve for its own sake, while all subordinate ends are achieved for the sake of it (Annas 31). To visualize this one should picture life as a pyramid, with one ultimate end that is built on all others, as opposed to a mountain range, where each end is complete within itself and separate from all …show more content…

It would only be possible for someone to have either one, multiple, or no final ends. Aristotle discounts the later two in order to conclude that one should only have a single final end. One may argue that there are multiple things in life for which they value for their own sake, or even that they value nothing for its own sake. Aristotle thinks that it would be irrational for someone to have multiple things in life that they want for their own sake because they would always be competing for time and energy (Annas 32). Aristotle adds that a situation would most likely arise in one's life where they must choose which end they wish to work towards and this would result in one becoming superior to the other (Annas 32). If one was unable to determine which one of the ends they valued more they would simply be reduced to randomly choosing which to pursue. Aristotle argues that someone must have at least one final end by stating that if one does not value anything in life for its own sake then life would be empty and vain, and we know that life is not empty and vain (Annas 32). Through this rationalization it is only reasonable to believe that one should seek a sole final

Show More
Related
313 Words | 2 Pages

To do this I must first explain several concepts of Aristotle which are: (1) how he concludes that the human function is reason, (2) what he means by happiness and how it is the human good, and (3) why he believes that the activity of the soul must be virtuous to become

Read More
299 Words | 2 Pages

In the movie “Shooting Dogs” there were 3 distinct characters that closely resemble the ways Aristotle, Kant and Levinas lived their lives on a daily basis. In the movie, Father Christopher is a priest that represents Aristotle and his ways of finding happiness in the community. Also, the Belgian Soldier shows human action by doing good just for the sake of his duty, similar to Kant. Finally, Joe is the local elementary school teacher who created strong relationships with many people in Rwanda. Aristotle was philosopher that truly believed that happiness is the goal of living, and we must distinguish the difference between pleasure and happiness.

Read More
268 Words | 2 Pages

On the contrary with Aristotle, right off the bat he says that most people will not reach true happiness. When one knows off the top that they will not accomplish something, one of two things will happen. They will either give up or they will push or work even harder. The question then changes for Aristotle from what is happiness, to will enough people challenge themselves enough to reach for the impossible? It is those people that push themselves harder that will reach true happiness.

Read More
1217 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More
1210 Words | 5 Pages

Thus, when human function is done well, it is in accordance with virtue and best human life is achieved. In addition, it can be inferred that since Aristotle’s definition of happiness is to be virtuous, performing rational activity well can lead to happiness. In addition, Aristotle states, “if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete” (1098a18). This means that eventually there will be one virtue that is inclusive of all virtue and that displays an end, and this virtue will be in line with the self-sufficient and inclusive concept of happiness as the chief good. If this inclusive virtue and good is achieved, ultimate happiness will be achieved as well.

Read More
1892 Words | 8 Pages

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,

Read More
1082 Words | 5 Pages

Aristotle, on the other hand, had a much more positive outlook on the applicability of his political theory. In many ways, his ideal ideology would look much like Plato’s, although with a more guided and empirical approach. Aristotle, like Plato, argued that the state was not only necessary, but essential to the happiness of its people, because the state was the only means by which the city could achieve happiness. According to Aristotle, “the best good is apparently something complete” and likewise, that “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification” (Nicomachean Ethics, 205) and “everyone aims at living well and at happiness” (Politics, 315). Furthermore, he argued that “happiness is an activity of the soul expressing

Read More
922 Words | 4 Pages

Aristotle is a philosophy whose main goal is to be happy or to find happiness also how you can be a better human bean. Aristotle 's also states that happiness is not what brings us Pleasure or Honor but contemplation. The way Aristotle 's sees pleasure and honor is wrong is because it only brings happiness for a short period. Not only that but everyone has different values and lifestyles that does not comply with everyone 's views of pleasure and honor the same way. Aristotle makes it clear that happiness should already be instilled in our brain, and that it 's not something people should achieve to fill complete or have happiness as a goal.

Read More
2802 Words | 12 Pages

Summarizing his causes, Aristotle said that “all things that come to be come to be by some agency and from something, and come to be something.” Aristotle considered the Unmoved Mover as the form and the world as the substance. He also considered the Unmoved Mover as the final cause and by being the final

Read More
958 Words | 4 Pages

We often live our inherently busy lives absorbed within important tasks or mindless routine, rarely stopping to think, from a third person point of view, about our life, or ourselves. Perhaps this is a self-protectionism mechanism in effect, shielding us from the harsh reality of the surrounding and the unknown of the future and what we essentially are. However, it is critical to move away from simply living our lives, and take a moment to think about what we are, our purpose in what we do and the reality of our circumstances. Only by achieving this can one truly escape from the routine, remove the shackles of meaningless life and break through the illusion of surroundings. Aristotle is well known as one of the first philosophers to have observed himself and those around him, to come up with his own definition of what constitutes as human beings and how it can explain some of our most common behaviors.

Read More
1087 Words | 5 Pages

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the concept of happiness is introduced as the ultimate good one can achieve in life as well as the ultimate goal of human existence. As Aristotle goes on to further define happiness, one can see that his concept is much different from the 21st-century view. Aristotelian happiness can be achieved through choosing to live the contemplative life, which would naturally encompass moralistic virtue. This differs significantly from the modern view of happiness, which is heavily reliant on material goods. To a person in the 21st-century, happiness is simply an emotional byproduct one experiences as a result of acquiring material goods.

Read More
1413 Words | 6 Pages

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.

Read More
908 Words | 4 Pages

At the end of everyone’s lives, the goal appears to be about attaining happiness. Describing how to obtain happiness has been an issue that was debated in the past but is still talked about now . In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle expands on his view of happiness and he focuses particularly on how reason helps recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life. I feel that Aristotle’s philosophies on happiness are important works within the field of philosophy and he considered one of the………of it . In this paper, I will explore Aristotle’s beliefs regarding happiness then compare and contrast them to those of Martin Seligman.

Read More
984 Words | 4 Pages

“Plato’s philosophy is an attempt to justify Socrates’ belief in the objectivity of moral virtues.” As one of Socrates’ most loyal disciples, Plato’s own philosophy was heavily influenced by Socrates’ own thoughts and teachings. Much of Plato’s philosophy is a direct extension of some of the questions Socrates posed, i.e., Socrates asked what justice is, and Plato explored this question in his own writings. It is Socrates’ code of ethics, however, that most closely corresponds with Plato’s ethics.

Read More
796 Words | 4 Pages

Socrates and Aristotle, despite being related through Plato, are in fact very different people and have many differing theories. Socrates outlook on life was that we 're all inherently good, but we will do bad things on accident. For example, when talking about ignorance, Socrates believes that we do not willingly do anything wrong. We instead have two branches of ignorance: not knowing something and knowing that you don 't know, or not knowing but you think that you do know (Plato, P.561). Aristotle on the other hand, claims that there is a different outlook on the model of ignorance.

Read More

More about Aristotle's Final Action Analysis

Related Topics

Open Document