In book X, Aristotle refined his view on pleasure and the ultimate good. He acknowledges that pleasure cannot be the ultimate good as well as disagrees with the idea that pleasure is evil. Aristotle explains that pleasure is indeed a good but not the Good. He does this by explaining that certain pleasures in life can grow with regards to intelligence and knowledge and the ultimate Good is one that does not change in accordance with anything else, it stand on its own without improvement.
Pleasure cannot solely lead a person to the good life because pleasure that fails to fall under virtue can lead a person to lead a life of appetites or a beastly life. To avoid this, Aristotle explains that pleasure is inherently tied to virtuous actions and therefore habituating those moral actions will result in a pleasurable life. This life consists of pleasures as a result of virtue and reasoning but pleasure in itself is not the goal or purpose of life. The good life consists on contemplation, because contemplation is what seems to be the purpose of man. Unlike any other being, humans have rational thought which seems to be the distinguishing characteristic. We must then use this characteristic which we can most easily do more often to live the good life.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Ethics Book 8 & 9
Aristotle categorizes friendship to be based on one of three things: utility, pleasure, or goodness. According to Aristotle, the most difficult to attain but also the most rewarding is a friendship based on goodness. I agree with his evaluation as I can only evaluate two of my friendships to truly be based on goodness. Though I share a friendship with and care for many people, my most pure friendships are those in which I value the other person’s goodness and where we are both willing to sacrifice much to help the other succeed. Extending the idea of friendship to a government and its people, a corrupt political state is one where there is an imbalance of benefit between the two members. Throughout history, people of the state revolt when they feel that the government is abusing of them and their service without giving enough benefit back to the people. A popular example of this is when the 13 colonies revolted against Great Britain because they felt neglected by their government. History supports Aristotle’s idea that a relationship with an imbalance of benefit will not endure.
Aristotle points out how although some relationships seem to be based on selflessness or appreciating the good in others, that is not always the case. In my life, I value the goodness of certain people, such as my teachers or even classmates, but these feelings sometimes remain as superficial approval for the person and never develop into a friendship. Also, I have met people who I deem to be self-loving; that is, they do a service to others, not because they have a genuine care and friendship with the person, but because it is a noble action that makes them feel good about themselves. This type of relationship is beneficial to both parties, but it remains superficial and has a limit to its benefit. Friendship is a vague term for the relationship between two people and can take many drastically different forms. Because friendship is a dynamic thing that changes with time, though some friendships grow, others also end. If friends begin to develop different goals, they often stop receiving and providing what the other person needs. I agree with Aristotle’s argument that it is appropriate for these friendships to end. Although friendships might end, I also think that it is very beneficial to remember those friendships. Apart from the memory of the friendship being joyous, it is also a means to learn what a person looks for in future relationships. If a person meets a stranger who is very similar to someone who used to be their friend, they can predict that the friendship might not last. Remembering previous friendships and evaluating them is one way for a person to define what they want and do not want in a friendship.
Aristotle points out how although some relationships seem to be based on selflessness or appreciating the good in others, that is not always the case. In my life, I value the goodness of certain people, such as my teachers or even classmates, but these feelings sometimes remain as superficial approval for the person and never develop into a friendship. Also, I have met people who I deem to be self-loving; that is, they do a service to others, not because they have a genuine care and friendship with the person, but because it is a noble action that makes them feel good about themselves. This type of relationship is beneficial to both parties, but it remains superficial and has a limit to its benefit. Friendship is a vague term for the relationship between two people and can take many drastically different forms. Because friendship is a dynamic thing that changes with time, though some friendships grow, others also end. If friends begin to develop different goals, they often stop receiving and providing what the other person needs. I agree with Aristotle’s argument that it is appropriate for these friendships to end. Although friendships might end, I also think that it is very beneficial to remember those friendships. Apart from the memory of the friendship being joyous, it is also a means to learn what a person looks for in future relationships. If a person meets a stranger who is very similar to someone who used to be their friend, they can predict that the friendship might not last. Remembering previous friendships and evaluating them is one way for a person to define what they want and do not want in a friendship.
Friday, April 7, 2017
Aristotle's Ethics
Aristotle begins Nicomachean Ethics by introducing probably the most important question that humanity can ask-what is the purpose of life? The purpose to one's actions is always to seek some good and solely for the purpose of that good. For example, one can seek to answer many questions to why they do something, however, there comes a point where the leading questions reach the final question and that it is-- why do you want to be happy? And there seems to only be one answer. We seek happiness for the sake of being happy and that is the ultimate goal for humanity according to Aristotle. Aristotle then points out some definitions of happiness. The one who lives the whataburger life or the feeding of one's desires is what Aristotle calls a beast. A beast has no rational and is therefore a slave to its desires but humanity is capable of making rational decisions which is what separates us from the beasts. Aristotle then mentions that those who seek honor cannot be truly happy because honor is dependent to the opinion of others.He also describes that those who associate virtue with happiness can live a virtuous life but also experience tremendous mishaps.Finally, Aristotle explains that to be truly happy one must perform one's function well. To do this, rational decisions that seek virtue are what makes a man happy.
I agree with Aristotle on his view of virtue. It is something that we acquire through life experiences and our rational decisions. It is not something that is within us from birth, it is habit that determines our character. Virtue is also determined by reaching a mean and that mean is different for every individual and every individual's experience. I agree, Kendall gave a nice example in class. If you see the Syrian refugee crises and become enveloped in anger it is not virtuous. As well as if you do not react with certain amounts of anger that would lead to a resolution. It is all about the right amount of the opposing virtue with its vice.
I disagree with his views on what a person is responsible for. That is encompassed by voluntary actions and involuntary actions. If actions are done involuntarily then he claims they do not belong in the field of ethics. I believe that if a person creates a habit of immoral decisions then those actions that then emerge involuntarily are to my opinion his responsibility. I might have read it differently though. He then goes to say that those actions that are done voluntary do carry moral responsibility and also the consequences of those actions. I also disagree to slight extent, I believe that someone who is taught immoral actions is going to execute them thinking that they are for the good, but the responsibility lies on the teacher of those incorrect virtues.
I agree with Aristotle on his view of virtue. It is something that we acquire through life experiences and our rational decisions. It is not something that is within us from birth, it is habit that determines our character. Virtue is also determined by reaching a mean and that mean is different for every individual and every individual's experience. I agree, Kendall gave a nice example in class. If you see the Syrian refugee crises and become enveloped in anger it is not virtuous. As well as if you do not react with certain amounts of anger that would lead to a resolution. It is all about the right amount of the opposing virtue with its vice.
I disagree with his views on what a person is responsible for. That is encompassed by voluntary actions and involuntary actions. If actions are done involuntarily then he claims they do not belong in the field of ethics. I believe that if a person creates a habit of immoral decisions then those actions that then emerge involuntarily are to my opinion his responsibility. I might have read it differently though. He then goes to say that those actions that are done voluntary do carry moral responsibility and also the consequences of those actions. I also disagree to slight extent, I believe that someone who is taught immoral actions is going to execute them thinking that they are for the good, but the responsibility lies on the teacher of those incorrect virtues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)