In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions. There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions. Are we responsible for some of our actions after all? If so, under what circumstances?
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).
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book ll, is about his idea of how people should live a virtuous life. Throughout this book, he explains that humans learn virtue from instructions and we learn virtue from practice too. Virtue is something that is very important because it is a moral habit that results in keeping our moral values. Aristotle believed that nobody is born with virtue, everyone has to work at it daily. After reading Nicomachean ethics, Book ll, my main conclusion of it is that us as humans are better off being virtuous than simply doing what we feel like doing at any moment in time.
Therefore, if one wishes to be healthy, he can choose to eat healthy and practice sports, but his choice of being healthy just by its own will not predict the outcome of actually being healthy. Conclusively, “choice relates to the means and wish relates rather to the end”. Additionally, Aristotle also expatiates on anger and appetite. These characteristics, for Aristotle are related to pleasure and feelings which are themselves relate to all animals. However, choice is not for that choice is only related to rational beings.
To reach this conclusion, I will be splitting this passage into 3 parts. The first section is Aristotle’s introduction to
Happiness, or eudaimonia, according to Aristotle, is defined simply as human flourishing. The act of flourishing
As we have read in the Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics book, Aristotle believed that there are three different kinds of friendship. There is the friendship of utility, the friendship of pleasure and the friendship of the good. Aristotle believed that in order for people to be friends they must see each other with common respect and wish one another good. The friendship of utility as described by Aristotle is the kind of friendship that is not permanent it is mostly temporary. This kind of friendship is mostly temporary because the friendship is based on benefits that can be obtained from one another.
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.
Aristotle, a well-known philosopher, believes that nature is what makes us who we are as a person and that environment doesn’t affect ones self-decision. Meaning also that own virtues are not taught. We are born with virtues and that should lead with us being purposeful in our actions to achieve a greater good. In his text of Nicomachean Ethics, he talks about what he thinks about human nature.
In Nicomachean Ethics V, Aristotle addresses the many kinds of justice. One justice that Aristotle points out is call, rectificatory justice, which involves voluntary transactions like trade or involuntary transactions like theft. This is settled in court where the judge ensures both parties get equal gains or losses. “The law only looks to the difference made by injury and treats the parties as equals,— since this kind of injustice is an inequality the judge tries to equalize it”(Nicomachean Ethics 87). Aristotle, provides an example of voluntarily buying or selling something, or any other transaction were someone gains something while the other loses or doesn’t gain anything.
According to Aristotle, an individual can achieve happiness only by realizing all the works and activities in accordance with reason throughout his lifetime. He claimed that happiness consists in cultivating and exercising virtue and it is the ultimate purpose of human existence, as stated in his work Nicomachean Ethics “He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life”. However, such Aristotelian concept of happiness inevitably contradicts the understanding of history as development which maintains that fulfilling the work of human exceeds the limits of an individual and thus can only be achieved in the course of history. Three
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.
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.
In Hamlet, Shakespeare utilizes the characterization of the ghost of King Hamlet to convey significant and climatic messages to the protagonist who, based on the information that is provided, carries out major plot-shifting developments. This leads the reader to make the connection to all that the protagonist does within the text and the initial meeting between the younger and elder Hamlet. It could be fairly speculated that the actions that are taken by the ghost of King Hamlet 's character bring about the death of five separate people, all of whom died with different relations to King Hamlet. The ghost 's appearance sets the revenge plot into motion, but it also delays the play 's action. Shakespeare uses this method of solemnity-based
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.
