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.