Would Aristotle consider someone hooked into the experience machine truly happy? Explain why or why not. After reading the text, I truly don’t think Aristotle would consider someone hooked to a machine happy.
Second Paragraph: The use of private
Aristotle, like Kant, believed pleasure or happiness should not be the motivating force behind moral actions. Aristotle believed happiness is only acquired through one’s virtue. He believes that “virtue is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency”(140). Aristotle’s meaning of extreme is to overcompensate by taking excessive measures to fix a certain situation. To be deficient, would be either not do anything at all or the least possible action that would produce little or no result.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics begins by exploring ‘the good’. Book I argues that, unlike other goods, “happiness appears to be something complete and self-sufficient, and is, therefore, the end of actions” (10:1097b20-21). In other words, happiness is the ultimate good. But how does one achieve happiness? Aristotle formulates this in the context of work, since for all things, from artists to horses, “the good and the doing it well seem to be in the work” (10:1097b27-28).
Within Book 1, chapter 7 of The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores the concepts of happiness and human good. He explains how happiness is attained, and by the end of the passage reveals how a person can become good. Initially, Aristotle claims that every human action is done for some greater goal. These final goals are referred to as “…the good achievable by action” (1097a 23).
The Nicomachean Ethics begin with a simple concept-- everyone wants happiness. In Book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores what happiness is and how to achieve ultimate happiness and good life. In the passage, 1097b22-1098a18, also known as the “function argument”, he further explores the happiness as the chief good concept by examining human function and the good that comes along. In this passage, Aristotle’s thesis is that the good of humans resides in human function of activity with reason (rational activity). From this thesis, we can imply that the good performance of function can lead to ultimate happiness.
Aristotle filled Nicomachean Ethics cover to cover with claims pertaining to happiness, virtue, friendship, and similar concepts. One claim states that happiness is choice worthy in its own right and self-sufficient, as “it is the end of the things achievable in action” (I.7, 1097b). Another claims finds that happiness requires external goods (I.8, 1099b). The purpose of this paper is to create a complete comprehension of these claims before responding to them.
Some might say that if there were a set of people that were skilled in killing then it would automatically be seen as good because one, they are skilled in the art of killing and two, they have a reason to kill which can strain from severe cases of depression to discrimination. Although certain statements can be seen as good counter arguments, people sometimes forget that Aristotle is talking about the final outcome of happiness in the best sense with a big emphasis on the “noblest and the pleasantest thing”, meaning it is assumed murder sprees and other bad actions are rooted out because there is an image of a chief good through rational means. The function argument helps us realize what it takes to bring about happiness from certain actions in everyday life, for instance, the idea that the good of anything that has a function lies in performing the activity well establishes a foreground for the way humans go about with their daily activities. Not everyone is going to be able to do certain activities well as this is given by the imperfect nature of humans, but it does enable the human population to focus on distinct areas of expertise. The idea of something ultimately being good only if you perform the activity necessary well hints at a split society in the sense that everyone is predetermined to be good at something and the only way they will live a “happy” life is by strictly performing the activities they are good
According to Aristotle, his definition of pleasure mean that the golden mean is our goal that we want to achieve in every action we make in life. However, we can also be easily get foolish by our action and achieve self-indulgent instead and goes to the excess category. Meanwhile, John Stuart Mill wrote in his Utilitarians’ that for someone to feel pleasure; mean there’s no pain involve also known as pleasure-acquisition, and we always aim for higher achievement to continuous feeling pleasure. Utilitarian belief that we not only seeking for pleasure in quantity but also quality, and only those who had experience both lower and higher pleasure can fully understand. Thus, I agree with Aristotle because I feels that pleasure is just an temporary
The main topic of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is eudaimonia, i.e. happiness in the “living well” or “flourishing” sense (terms I will be using interchangeably). In this paper, I will present Aristotle’s view on the role of external goods and fortune for the achievement of happiness. I will argue that he considers them a prerequisite for virtue. Their contribution to happiness is indirect, via the way they affect how we can engage in rational activity according to the relevant virtues. I will then object that this view threatens to make his overall account of happiness incoherent.
Nicomachean ethics refers to a logical analysis of the essence of good life for humans. In the beginning, Aristotle starts his work by claiming the existence of some ultimate good where in the end, every human being is aiming to achieve. The essential characteristics of the ultimate good include completeness, finality, self-sufficiency, and continuity. This good, which every person’s actions strive to achieve, is happiness (referred to as “eudemonia” in Greek). This could also be translated to being blessed or living well, which is not a fixed state but a form of activity.
“Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that which everything aims. But it is clear that there is some difference between ends: some ends are activities, while others are products which are additional to the activities. In cases where there are ends additional to the actions, the products are by their nature better than activities.” (Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, as translated by Crisp, 2000, p. #3) Aristotle was the first philosopher who wrote a book on ethics titled, Nichomachean Ethics.
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.
Philosophers have debated the distinct subjects such as justice and happiness extensively. For instance, Plato discusses the subject of justice by arguing that justice is what allows people to live excellently. In contrast, Aristotle discusses happiness by arguing that acquiring virtues enables people to achieve the ultimate goal of happiness. What is the meaning of the terms justice and happiness? The term happiness could be elucidated as a satisfaction from goals achieved or from one’s status.
Aristotles starting point is with the highest good. It is the ultimate end goal. The highest human good is always worth pursuing in its own right. It is an activity that is an end in itself. This conception allows him to isolate two features of what he determines the ‘end goal’ or ‘final purpose’.
