Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

[Ellie]

“Every art and inquiry, and similarly every action as well as a choice, is held to aim at some good.”

Aristotle uses this as his reasoning for why happiness is the ultimate goal. He claims that all actions and choices are just preliminary steps toward the end of goal of achieving happiness.

First of all, this is like the fourth thing we read this semester that the writer seems to stress this idea of how happiness is the end goal, or how it’s obvious that ultimately it’s what everyone wants. And I just don’t get it. I don’t know if it’s something with the neurological synapsis in my brain or something else, but there seems to be something that’s blocking my ability to understand this concept when pretty much everyone else seems to think that it is so obvious and clear. Yet this idea still makes absolutely no sense to me. AT ALL. How can happiness be the thing that everyone is pursuing? And why, do I seem to be the only one that thinks that if true, it’s really dumb, stupid and shallow of people to be running after happiness like it’s the end goal? Because that’s what it is. Dumb, stupid, and shallow.

Secondly, this reasoning is faulty because happiness isn't the last step. Rather, it’s also a step to something else. People want happiness so that their life isn’t a total waste. So that there was some sort of meaning or purpose to it all. Therefore, ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose’ is the ultimate goal, and not happiness, because happiness is just the means to that end goal. Therefore, according to Aristotle’s reasoning happiness wouldn't be the end goal so I don’t know why he claims that it is.

[ivandavenny]

I think this idea of various anachonisms is a really interesting and I think it highlights his points about choice-making very well.  However, I don't think that reason necessarily has anything to do with some of the choices.  Would this mean that the mean virtue is not necessarily even related to reason?  For instance, the example Aristotle uses multiple times is recklessness versus cowardice.  Each of those, and the mean courage, can come about not because of reason, but because of desperation, or anger, or sadness or a plentitude of other emotional, unrational reasons.  

First, I think that we should define courage.  If someone is in a potentially dangerous situation, but they are unlikely to have any adverse effects from charging in, and they are aware of this, it cannot be called courage.  So, they must be aware that there is some amount of danger in order to be courageous (and I make the assumption that the more danger the person is in, the greater courage they will have).  So, if we had a way of weighing each situation of its danger quantitatively, how much would qualify a courageous man from a reckless one, or from a coward?  Obviously walking around in the real world on a normal day requires some amount of 'recklessness', if only because a helicopter could crash on top of you or something.  But we don't view taking a walk as a courageous action.  

Not knowing the risks of a situation and walking into it anyway is an irrational act.  Sure, you know your own capabilities, but having no knowledge of what you will face means that it could be ANYTHING.  Sure, you can guess what it may be based on your previous experiences, but as the empiricists say, there's no guarantee that will continue to be true in the future.

So, lets say we know the risks, quantitatively.  the reward must be greater than the risk, but like gambling, the house will always win, odds are eventually you will misjudge, or simply be unlucky.  And you know this too.  So is it rational to walk into the situation?

Obviously the converse of this is to be irrationally afraid, which is to be afraid of anything, no matter the odds of its danger.  I would argue that unless something is 100% guaranteed to not harm or be dangerous in any way, then it is completely rational to be afraid of it, as long as the fear doesn't infringe on your happiness.  And so, in order to go outside, you must in some ways make an irrational act.

Now, what I'm saying is that in this respect, there is virtue in the unrational.  There is an acceptable amount of irrationality accepted in our acts, and necessary to function.

to ellie: Would having purpose or meaning in your life make you happy?  If so, then would that make happiness the goal?  I agree that its kind of like the "chicken or the egg" argument.

[jay]

I happen to enjoy this reading, maybe it is because the chapters was short. Anywhere I don't believe every art and every inquiry, and choice is aim to some good. And a lot of you will agreement that we have come across someone who intentions what no aim for any good.

Everyone dream is to have  happiness and therefore aim their goals to this, but you have to wonder "happiness" but at whose expenses.

[jay]

Sorry I ended up sending it without finishing.

Aristotle's talked about political art and political inquiry. One being on a personal level and the other a general context. The political art is one we ought to do and the other is what we have to abstain from in order to become good human being. While political inquiry have to do with the laws of the land (right). Is this not what Kant is saying when he mention the twofolding is metaphysics and that is nature and morals. I have some who relate the two together I dont know why.

[imusicea92]

When talking about animals, Aristotle suggests they are not happy because they are not able to share in such activities and then he continues to say, "it is because of this too that a child is not happy either..."

At this point, I disagree with Aristotle. Should deeds be toward the greater good? Maybe but I see a child and I see the purest and simplest kind of happiness. Children are happy because the happiness doesn't have the same kind of context in which we see happiness. They see something new and it's a wonder. We as adults are happy because the joy is greater than the suffering in that moment. A dog is just happy to be fed but adults are happy because of the quality of food they eat. Happiness is relative and this is why I can not agree that all happiness has a just ending because for some people that may not be the case. This is also my response to the above posts, only some would consider happiness to include having a purpose. Besides can we really define justice and for the greater good if we can't define happiness? Is it all relative?

[elena.pronoza]

"Virtue, then, is twofold, intellectual and moral...intellectual virtue result mostly from teaching - hence it requires experience and time - whereas moral virtue is the result of habit...Neither by nature, nor contrary to nature are the virtues present: they are present in us who are of such nature as to receive them, and who are completed through habit."

Aristotle principally says that moral virtue can't be taught, but only could be learned by living well. So, by living right we will receive good habits which present virtues afterwards. Also he clearly says that moral virtues are not presented in us naturally which is a direct contradiction to Kant's theory of moral law. Kant states that moral is inheritance of human beings and we easily determine good and vise.  "...it needs no science and philosophy to know what one has to do in order to be honest and good, or indeed, even wise and virtuous." So, it's definitely the opposite to the virtue of Aristotle who believes we don't have any virtues naturally.  Another interesting difference is that Kant doesn't believe in teaching virtues. He says that "in morality there is no imitation, and examples serve only for encouragement". I think Aristotle's idea of teaching good has some sense because a new born baby could be taught to be good or bad depending on the surroundings he is raised in. On the other side, scientists and genetics presented an idea that genes determine who the person would be, and this idea is closer to Kant's theory which I see as more persuasive. 

[rebecca.s]

This writing seems a little over simplistic and idealistic for real life. I don't feel like Aristotle is talking about real people, but archetypes of how people should or should not be. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it was written about such a different society than ours, or the translation was difficult.

Compared to Mill, Aristotle talks about happiness in, I think, a different way, I felt like Mill's version of happiness had more to do with the absence of pain, since he counted many other things like successful achievement of goals as happiness. Aristotle's seems to be more abstract and difficult to understand. In fact, if this is a book about ethics, it seems like his whole definition is different than ours. In book I he is talking pretty exclusively about a person's relationship with themselves, which is generally not how we conceive ethics today. It has more to do with our relationships with other people.

[AYGUL KULA]

Aristotle

“Now, since there are many actions, arts, and sciences, the ends too are many: of medicine, the end is health: of shipbuilding, a ship: of generalship, victory: of household management, wealth. “ (Aristotle, 2) Aristotle clearly defines the end. What I understood from this statement the end is the result of our action, our will. The end is the result of our goal and/or work. For instance, for a developer the end is a building for car repair person the end is a fixed car.  Kant doesn’t states clearly what he meant by end and leaves it to reader to figure it out.

“As for its name, them, it is pretty much agreed on by most people: for both the many and refined say that is happiness, and they suppose that living well and acting well are same thin as being happy.” (Aristotle, 5) Aristotle says that being well and acting well is same as happiness for many people which I agree.  But in different times same person can defines happiness differently.  As Aristotle says when person is sick happiness is health, when poor happiness is wealth.  I think happiness is kind of package. There should be health, some wealth and friends and family.   

[felixjonanthony]

In his first book, Aristotle cryptically discusses happiness and the fulfilling aspect of being successful. He claims that all aspects of life are done so in the purpose of being successful. “We also see that even the most honored capacities-for example, generalship, household management, rhetoric-fall under the political art. Because it makes use of the remaining sciences and, further, because it legislates what one ought to do and s what to abstain from, its end would encompass those of the others, with
the result that this would be the human good.” (3) He touches upon the aspect of doing things to achieve the successful goal of happiness – we do one thing to cause another to cause another, which will make us better and therefore, happier. “And thus they cherish the life of enjoyment.” (6)

I also enjoyed the comparison to animals and the ideas Aristotle brought in. I interpreted his works as an argument to further prove his point that humans are "goal" or "success" centered by showing how animals are based on impulse. He categorizes humans separately than humans - something unique since many people enjoy comparing how similar and animalistic we are. Aristotle compares an animals need to act without thinking of the end game, whereas humans act to shape the end game.

[Elvira Toporova]

So virtue is a purposive disposition, lying in a mean that is relative to us and determined by a rational principle, by that which a prudent man would use to determine it.(ch.6, book 2)

It gives us a clear expression of Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean: virtue is a mean disposition between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. In calling virtue a “purposive” disposition, Aristotle means that virtue is not just a disposition we sit on and do nothing about, but is rather the impetus that leads us to virtuous activity. Aristotle gives no rules as to what counts as a mean. His reason is that the mean depends greatly on the person and the situation. Rather than lay down any rules, he recommends phronesis, or prudence, which helps us reason our way through practical matters and determine the best course to take.

[Ali]

I found it interesting when comparing the concept of virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics and in Utilitarianism. When comparing it to Mill's Utilitarianism, Aristotle's approach to morality and ethics seems much simpler.

Aristotle explicitly says that without virtue we can not be happy, however Mill on the other hand viewed virtue as a tool to "multiply happiness." This virtue could be self-sacrifice or anything that upheld the "greatest happiness principle." Whereas Aristotle's definition of virtue is based largely on habitual dispositions, such as courage, friendship etc. Aristotle's application of virtue in morality and justice is a much more plausible reality then Mill's grand attempt at actualizing a highly moral striving society. Also, even though Aristotle does reference a type of standard for quantifying virtue, he realizes that it is too difficult to measure due to every individuals distinct nature. This contrasts from the stricter quantification such as the Utilitarian Calculus proposed by Bentham and Mill.  

[andrewaalvarez10]

When I first started reading this I wasn't too amused by it and didn't really agree which is surprising because I mildly a fan of Aristotle. When I reached the second book though is where I started to be a bit more amused and was again interested in Aristotle. This is because he started to bring up this idea of self-awareness which is something the virtuous people possess. I really like this idea because I feel as a society a lot of people aren't really self aware and that's why so many people have trouble with personal identity. Aristotle talked about the spectrum of emotions and feelings, and how there is a mean of those emotions and also extremes. This is interesting because I feel as if people who are not self aware tend to not be aware that there is a mean and there are only the extremes that they get to choose from, which then leads to them to trying to live up to those extremes. The only reason self aware people are more aware of this mean of emotions and feelings is because they are self aware that puts them into a relation with the society around them where they are very aware of the people who surround them. I don't want to make it sound like self aware people are some kind of superheros, they're not. I just think they have some kind of insight that other people don't have.

[g.dlegister]

"Virtue is more Precise and better than every art, as is nature as well. If all this is so, then virtue would be skillful in aiming at the middle term." What is Aristotle trying to state about the importance of Virtue? Well I believe he thinks its a more important then anything else and without it a human being can not achieve anything without the thought of  "Virtue". He continue to explain his opinions and thoughts, add to the examples he brings up he states how people action are dictated by there morals choices. So my question is, depending on a person mood, would the're emotions dictate the're moral status?

From what i understand, a person would be only know Virtue at moments of the day depending on that person mood. Morally a person can feel passion when they are angry, frustrated or happy with out Virtue and Aristotle states that. He states is not morally good and I agree with him and in some condition, and the condition is the fact that we may do things that are morally wrong to other people but we find pleasure it. In Aristotle point this wouldn't aim for the "middle term". In simple words, the act of control and discipline  is an action towards the "middle term".   

[rbrutusjr]

In chapter 3, Aristotle talks about how to evaluating someone's actions. He says that you should evaluate someone's actions based on whether it was invouluntary, nonvouluntary, or voluntary. I am not sure what nonvoluntary means. But i do agree with these statements. However, i would take it a step further and say that there are more things to evaluating someone's actions. First, I usual take into consideration the person's age. Because we all know age can be responsible to many actions that are committed whether voluntary or involuntary. Secondly, I also think about the person's mindset and I try to put myself into their shoes and ask what would I do?  While I do agree with Aristotle, I just wanted to add my own opinion and judgement to his statements. 

[Soon M. Seo]

"There are, then, three dispositions, two of them vices-one relating to an excess, the other to a deficiency-and one of them a virtue, namely, the mean"(38,39 Aristotle).
At the first time I heard this concept, it gave me the impression of the importance of remaining balance. However, after reckoning what he says, I think he is trying to accent the flexibility. People tend to try to define things and people including themselves. They often say, 'In this case, you have to do this way', 'This person is aggressive', 'This thing is cold.' I say having the stiff idea, namely, stereotype, is vices. Defining things is convenient. However, people and things are changing. Once a person implants a bias of something in his/her mind, it impacts the mind with two extremes either excess or deficiency. According to Mr. Aristotle's virtue, flexibility is required to be ready to deal with different cases. A stone is cool, so a person can touch it in room temperature. However, when someone heat up the stone, it gets hot, so the one can barbeque on it. It looks same, but the one cannot tough it for long time with bare hands. I am applying Aristotle's thought into concept. Before we fix our ideas based on excessive or lack of definition, we can approach to certain thing freshly every time. One experience of failure in similar situation does not apply to another all the time. Through the failure one might learn solutions. By resetting one's mind on the mean and having flexibility, the result can be differ.

[stephane1]

Aristotle, Mill, and Kant all three share a similar theme, but Aristotle would be in agreement more with Kant because he is teaching about something other than just happiness but instead virtue. while Aristotle is a big defender of virtue he acknowledges that more people chooses happiness but some chooses virtue, the honor in doing something good, Aristotle is very self explanatory if you ask me, very relatable.

[stephane1]

Aristotle as far as i have read is the first philosopher who attempts to define what happiness is, Mill talks about how we do thing to make us happy and that pleasure us, while Aristotle says that the pursuit of wealth and having the most pleasures and other things does not define happiness, he posed a scenario where he ask different people what happiness is, none of whom had the same answer, and that is where i say happiness is self define, only you can define what happiness means for you, no philosopher can elaborate on that for you.

[krystalgonzalez.28]

"If therefor, there is some end of our actions that we wish for on account of itself, the rest being things we wish for on account of this end, and if we do not choose all things on account of something else - for in this way the process will go on infinitely such as the longing involved is empty and pointless - clearly this would be the good, that is, the best." Book 1, Ch2

This quote stood out to me because something about it made some sense to me.  So i choose it and decided to figure it out.  I believe what Aristotle is trying to say is that there is always meaning to our actions in life.  There is always a goal in which we are trying to accomplish which in the end will make us happy.  No matter what we do the actions always lead up to something which in the end will lead to our happiness in life.  Whether its something like finishing my post on time, its an action which will help my grade, so I can pass this class, which in the end will go towards my college degree, then help me find a job, which will complete my success in life, causing me to be happy because I can support my self and family, etc.  This action was intended for my class at first but in the end led to my happiness.  If our actions are not on account of something else the process will go on infinitely as Aristotle says, being empty with no purpose.  Everything in life has a purpose.  This is how I took this chapter from Aristotle.