More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis essay on the nicomachean ethics
Analysis essay on the nicomachean ethics
Analysis essay on the nicomachean ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
One other example to this flaw can be outlined in the following scenario; I am holding a set of keys and my friend who is the owner of them is impaired, my friend is persistent in getting his keys back; according to Cepalus my only concern is to return the keys to the rightful owner, but by doing so I will enable them to drive under the influence and possible cause an accident because of it. Cephalus states that my responsibility is to return what does not belong to me and nothing more, yet if by doing this my friend ends up hurting or killing an innocent driver then wouldn’t this be a unjust act? Then it is transparent that it is not always right to return your debts. Due to the Religious aspect of Cephalus’ reasoning it is likely that he does not differentiate between legality and justice because he believes it to be one, if all law rests on the weight of authority then Cephalus does not see a difference in law and justice because the gods have authority of
In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends.
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?
In Book 1 of the republic, by Plato, we are introduced to two central figures in the argument of justice, Socrates and Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates then asks if his understanding, that what is beneficial to the stronger is just and must be beneficial to the weaker people, to which Thrasymachus replies that no, this is not so. He explains that justice is that which obtains the advantage of the stronger.
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.
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.
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, 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
“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.
Analogously, the term justice is defined as a quality of becoming fair. It is notable that different philosophers also contributed to the topics in question. This owes to the truth that Thrasymachus, Cephalus, and Polemarchus discussed justice. This paper not only analyzes philosophies from Plato and Aristotle who discuss justice and happiness respectively, but also highlights the similarities between the two philosophers. Prior to Plato’s analysis of the term justice, different philosophers had communicated their opinions on justice.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates and his peers attempt to define justice. Unlike the definitions that his peers give, Socrates is searching to define justice as a structure, not a set of behaviors. Socrates uses a tripartite city-soul analogy to define justice and show that it is found when there is harmony between the three parts of the city—guardians, auxiliaries, producers—mirrored to the three parts of the soul—reason, spirit, appetite. Although Socrates provides a well-structured account of justice in an attempt to demonstrate that there cannot be social justice—in the city—if people don’t first bring internal justice—in the soul—in themselves, he has a notable contradiction in his premises. In Socrates’ ideal city it is a necessary condition of an auxiliary acting in a just way that he must cause any producers who get out of hand, or
Debate surrounding the question of citizenship, and the ensuing ideals about what makes a good life, has existed for as long as citizenship itself – providing many contrasting views and interpretations about the peak of human flourishing. Aristotle himself recognizes this fact, stating that “…there is often dispute about the citizen…since not everyone agrees that the same person is a citizen” (Politics 65). This is indicative, then, of the fact that there will be many different interpretations of human existence and its purpose; due to the fact that there is not even agreement on citizenry and what the ideas of it reflect for human life. The juxtaposition of two such views, those of Aristotle and Locke, allow thinkers to evaluate not only two
