WEEK 13: Finishing Kant and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

Sorry for posting this so late. We are finishing up with Kant and moving to Aristotle's Virtue Ethics.

-Mateo Duque.

[iriejam796]

"and the refined say that it is happiness, and they suppose that living well and acting well are the same as being happy." According to Aristole happiness is an activity of the soul. The activity he's talking about is the body and soul because he thinks both works in conjunction with mankind being virtuous. Aristole believes that virtue leads to a honored, complete and fulfilled life. This is a good way to look at it even though it is not always true because a person doing good deeds still doesn't necessarily equates to a life of fulfillment and happiness. We can never assume a person is happy by just his/her actions because we don't know what is going on in their inner soul, only they can determine that certain level of happiness. 

"But their life is also pleasant in itself; for feeling pleasure is among the things related to the soul and their is pleasure for each person in connection with whatever he is said to be a lover of."  I agree with this statement because everyone's happiness is measured in different levels and there is no telling that because someone loves to play basketball and baseball that they are at a place of contentment and happiness.  I think a persons happiness is not based on just one or two things that he/she has done, instead it's their entire life and what they did to achieve their level of happiness. Another person cannot Iive your life therefore you have to know what gives you inner peace and what you have to do to make you happy. Which raised the question  " Is there such a thing as happiness?" because no matter what level of happiness you attain there is always a higher level that is attainable. To me, happiness doesn't have an end and it's how each individual define their happiness will make them live a complete and happy life.  So, I do not to agree with Aristole that being virtuous leads mankind to happiness.

[odinredd]

"The simply complete thing, then, is that which is always chosen for itself and never on account of something else" (Aristotle pg11)

"Happiness above all seems to be of this character, for we always choose it on account of itself and never on account of something else. (Aristole pg. 11)

Aristotle takes us to a place where we find that there is common ground for the aim of being human. He tries to help us find our purpose in life it seems. He talks about that whatever we do we do for our happiness. Happiness is the ultimate goal of the human.Whatever we do, we ultimately do for our happiness. Everyone's happiness is different though. What do humans have that gives us the unifying humaness? Aristotle tells us that it is the "rational soul". This makes us different than plants and animals since they are only able to have the first two types of souls, the vegetative and appetitive soul. Now that we have a unifying theme and goal for humans we can now state that the human purpose in life is to develop our rational soul to the utmost, which would cause us greatest happiness, just like a professional instrument player's goal is to be the best at their craft and that would give them the most happiness. 

I tend to agree with Aristotle on this point. Everyone strives for happiness. I think the idea of different soul characteristics is very interesting as well. I am just not sure if we are able to say that humans are the only ones with rational souls since we are only able to understand each other. We know that chimpanzees and other primates have great rationality. I wonder if there is a split for languages as there is souls. Can we understand the language of plants and animals if we just analyze it a bit more? 

Anyway, I digress, Again I feel that Aristotle has a great point since we all aim to be happy and being happy is the ultimate thing in itself. Aristotle does a great job of bringing us to the fact that we should pursue happiness by way of logical development instead of other ways. 

[taniki0108]

Aristolle believe that all things are aimed towards the greatest good.  Being good or doing something good will make you happy.  But the question still remains has to whose happiness?  I agee that people do things to make them happy, but sometimes that make other people sad.  Then there are times when you do things well but you don't necessarily enjoy doing it, but you still do it because it makes other people happy.  "Living well and acting well are the same thing as being happy," I don't agree with this, simply because of the word "acting" which people do a lot.  Not because you act good, means that you are good.  You maybe good as it pertains to you but what about others.  A persons whole being should be taken into consideration when you take about their happiness, not only what they do for thier friends and family but also what they do for others.  Complete happiness has to come from deep, not just what's on the top like a cherry, but the things that are not visible to the eyes.

[asiyebodur91]

"For those things to which we somehow more naturally incline appear to a greater degree contrary to the middle term. For example, we ourselfs are naturally more inclined towards pleasures..." 

I agree with Aristotle because we tend to go extreme, its either one way or another, very rarely we stay in between; especially when it comes to our personal pleasures. We tend to “naturally incline” towards the favorable action. I also think he is trying to state that, if we wanted to do something, we usually don’t stop until we have finished it or feel like its done. For example, if you are running at a football yard and you have done 5 laps, you would probably incline to do 5 moresaying “oh what’ll happen if I do just 5 more,I’ve already done 5 so5 more isn’t much.” So you persuade and incline your decision to an extreme of doing another 5 laps. Or for example, when you are shopping you see an item you want to purchase for 500$ and then you also see accessories for that item that are like $100 more. You are more inclined towards to buying the items because you say to yourself that you already spent 500 so another 100 isn’t much. 

[m.inam.gul]

"Virtue too is defined in accord with this distinction, for we say some of the virtues are intellectual, others moral "

I feel even though it is important to have moral virtues to help us behave in a civil manner, it's also important to possess intellectual abilities with which one can establish right from wrong. Intellectual virtue, as Aristotle refers to it, aids us in reason and allows us to understand some of the complex moral and ethical standards. The concept i found sort of confusing was the idea of Prudence, which is an intellectual virtue of reasoning. But how can oneself make an judgment about himself or something else reasoning properly? What makes someones reasoning proper and others' not?

[jimborat69]

I wanted to argue that a dog has a goodwill, pride love of liberty.  Regarding goodwill, I always here in the news that dogs are doing heroic stuff. One new I saw is the owner was getting mug and the dog fought the criminal. Some crazy stories about the dog save children. I think this is the goodwill of the dog that we cannot take away from them.

I have two dogs and every time we go to my brother’s house, they act that they own the house. They will be going to the couch lay down or they will just hangout wherever I am. They always do this any house I take them. It is like they can do everything because I am around. However when I am not with them, my brother say that my dogs are just in the corner longing for me. They won’t even badge when he calls them. I thought at first because it was not my house so last vacation I had, I keep them in my house and my brother just sleepover to watch them. My brother told me that they just stayed in one corner and doesn’t move.  I think this is the pride and love of liberty when I am around. They know that the person who loves them the most are not around.

[jimborat69]

We will always have regret in our life but when we make a decision is always a 50/50 from right and wrong. Why do we regret even at the moment to make decision we know is the right decision? Because we did not made enough time to think about it but after making the decision we tend to relax and make an effort to think and justify our decision. This is the time that likely we will end up telling ourselves that we made a wrong move and we regret it. When this happens to me, I think about the speech titled “Everybody’s Free to Wear Sunscreen” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfq_A8nXMsQ) this always help me not to regret my decision. It tells me that we only have 50/50 chances and the race is long so why worry. 

[gulyabigela]

"One day or a short time does not make someone blessed and happy either."

It is interesting how the concept of happiness was perceived in a different way than now. Today every student of psychology or even just a regular person will tell that it is impossible to be happy for the long time; true happiness lasts only moments. However, Aristotle considers happiness as something fundamental, which is possible only with the right way of living. Although I also think that happiness is an ultimate meaning of all our actions, but do not recognize happiness as a state of being, which can last for a long time. Unfortunately, the individual is made in such a way that adaptation to any new achievement will come fast, and the person wants more or something different. I guess it is humans' drawback but a positive moment at the same time, because it causes findings new paths or following new virtues to live in attempt to achieve this sense of being happy, which is completely emotional and can be filled in the ordinary day just because there is a good weather outside. 

I guess Aristotle's concept of happiness is very close to the modern understanding of self-realization or satisfaction with own life, the conclusion about which can be generated only when we consider the whole life of the individual.

[laquintaclark]

There is the expectation of the final outcome of our lives being happy. We want to do the best we can to make this a possibility and each choice we make in our lives depend on the "good" as argued in the text. Like most I seek the happiness to apply to my life, whatever that may be.

[vgultyaeva]

I agree with the opinion hat dogs have a goodwill but i also think that they are individuals. I have 2 dogs myself and they grow up together and spent their lives never being a part but they have totally different personalities.
One is very gentle and soft and likes to sleep under blanket and walks slow and enjoy kthe weather. She doesn't like to walk on the grass and asks for things that she wants. Like if she wants water she will look at my and make me follow her and will show me that they are out of water or that she likes the weather and wants to go for a walk.
The other one is constantly energetic and likes to run around a specially on a grass and open spaces( like our ranch). She is more playful than the other one. She is also much more independent.
They both get deferent moods and i see when they are sad,happy or even depressed. They are the same breed and related to each other. Dogs of the same breed are brad to have the same characteristics and if they didnt have ego of their own they would act very similarly and had no personalities like my dogs do. They would just follow the rules of nature and acted predictably.

[Blanca]

" they suppose that living well and acting well are the same thing as being happy. But as for what happiness is, they disagree, and the many do not give a response similar to that of the wise. The former respond that it is something obvious and manifest, such as pleasure or wealth or honor, some saying it is one thing, others another. Often one and the same person responds differently, for when he is sick, it is health; when poor, wealth. And when they are aware of their own ignorance, they wonder at those who say something that is great and beyond them. Certain others, in addition, used to suppose that the good is something else, by itself, apart from these many good things, which is also the cause of their all being good".

According to Aristotle, happiness lies within the soul. I agree with him that humans strive for happiness and tend to seek their purpose in life. In my opinion, I also believe that no one is ever completely happy because we always tend to aim for more, to live a perfect life. But would a "perfect life" make us happy anyway? What really is the meaning of happiness? Like Aristotle states, often the same person responds differently when he or she is sick, happiness is health, or when poor, happiness is wealth. Someone may be wealthy and wouldn't be happy because they may not have family & there may be someone with a family but poverty may make them unhappy. Aristotle believes that humans do not know what happiness really means.

[racquelallwood1987]

I'm not sure that I understood Aristotle's view of happiness. None the less I think that Aristotle feel that a person's happiness depends on each individual.  Everyone's happiness has a purpose in life and a goal.  Therefore, I agree with certain points of  his idea of happiness because it is not something that you loose in a couple of hours like a pleasure or sensation, rather his idea of happiness is the value of living.  This is when an individual lives up to their full potential in society, and as a result no one can measure if you had happiness in life because it is only when your life is over that people can say whether you had a happy life or not because of the mark you left on society.  That is if you live up to your full potential as a human being.

 

There is sill  the question why does happiness have so many different views?

[Givan]

Aristotle thinks for one to truly be happy he/she must act with ends in mind; whether it’s being rich   or excelling at something, but it’s how we get to this end will truly determine an individual happiness.  I think Aristotle is definitely incorporating some of Socrates’ speech from Plato symposium within his work. Socrates said people are never content with where they are in life. They are always striving to get more or do better, because they believe the end results will be more enjoyable; But Aristotle took it a bit further.  Aristotle believes happiness is the reason we do stuff, it’s the apex of all our activities and we are always working towards it. It’s also the ultimate good. Aristotle thinks if we are trying to figure out how to be happy , we as individuals need to figure out our purpose first, and inevitably, good things accomplishes their purpose well; which our purpose can be viewed as living in virtue. when we do live a virtuous life we can truly be happy. We as individuals need to try to be the best at whatever it is we are good at. For the normal everyday individual this may be hard to grasp. One may say being the best at something is hard work and sleepless nights; how can I truly be happy that way? Aristotle thinks that happiness shouldn't come easy; you need to work hard for it. A perfect example of this is Kobe Bryant. Kobe is a virtuous individual who enjoys his virtue and takes pride and joy in learning and improving himself; because he knows that at the end of it all this is where his happiness lies.

[Linda Chen]

"And with a view to our life, then is not the knowledge of this good of great weight, and would we not , like archers in possession of a target, better hit on what is needed?" 
Aristotle is talking about happiness as the action that made a person happy. Also, the act of becoming happy is done for good. In this quote, he regards obtaining happiness with a purpose exemplifies a person of virtue. A person who has virtue leads a happy life. Having happiness is not described as one point in life, rather it is the accumulation of all the actions people have overcome throughout life to create a happy life. For instance, having wealth by saving money, having health by taking care yourself, having wisdom by listening intently to others, and a position in society to recognize all these actions which has made you happy. He addresses the idea that happiness for an individual is always desired but obtaining happiness (action) for the greater good of the "nation" is "divine". Having the desire to obtain happiness for the greater good is ultimately for the most virtuous of heart. It is here people give recognition which ultimately defines how much happiness you obtained through a life time.

Having two kinds of virtue intellectual and moral allows a person to be well rounded. Where moral virtues are practiced at birth throughout life, and intellectual virtue must be taught. Aristotle claims that a virtuous person behaves themselves in a virtuous way because they want to portray themselves in this manner. We learn to behave ourselves via extremes. For instance, At a wedding someone crying out loud, or someone laughing out loud. Learning to master the quite cry while rejoicing (smiling) for the married couple is a way to balance both extreme behaviors. Maybe this was not a good example but there is a point to be made about how we obtain virtue via practice and observation.

[kenlyv]

Happiness above all seems to be of this character, for we always choose it on account of itself and never on account of something else. Yet honor, pleasure, intellect, and every virtue we choose on their own account-for even if nothing resulted from them, we would choose each of them- but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, because we suppose that, through them, we will be happy. But nobody chooses happiness for the sake of these things, or, more generally, on account of anything else.

 I think that Aristotle saying that in order for someone to be happy it have to depend on that person, which would lead to their true happiness. Therefore, I agree with certain points of  his idea of happiness because I believe people would do anything for happiness no matter the circumstance.Happiness is the only self virtue. intelligent, pleasure, riches: these are all things we thrive for to gain happiness. but we look for it to attain it, and we don't go to any channel. 

[abe]

"The inquiry would be adequately made if it should attain the clarity that accords with the subject matter. For one should not seek out precision in all arguments alike, just as one should not do so in the products of craftsmanship either. The noble things and the jsut things, which the political art examines, admit of much dispute and variability, such that they are held to exist by  law alone and not by nature. And even the good hings admit of some such variability on account of the harm that befalls many people as a result of them: it has happened that some have been destroyed on account of their wealth, others on account of their courage. It would certainly be desirable enough, then, if one who speaks about and on the basis of such things demonstrate the truth roughly and in outline, and if, in speaking about and on the basis of things that are for the most part so, one draw conclusions of that sort as well. Indeed, in the same manner one must also accept each of the points being made. For it belongs to an educated person to seek out precision in each genus to the extent that the nature of the matter allows: to accept persuasive speech from a skilled mathematician appears akin to demanding demonstrations from a skilled rhetorician. Each person judges nobly the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. He is a good judge of particular thing, therefore, if he has been educated with a view to it, but is a good judge simply if he has been educated everything. Hence of the political art, a young person is not an appropriate student, for he is inexperienced in the actions pertaining to life, and the arguments are based on these actions and concern them. 
Further, because he is disposed to follow the passions he will listen pointlessly and unprofitable, since the end involved is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference at all whether he is young in age or immature in character: the deficiency is not related to time but instead arises on account of living in accord with passion and pursuing each passion in turn. For to people of that sort, just as to those lacking self-restrain, knowledge is without benefit. But to those who fashion thier longings in accord with reason and act accordingly, knowing about these things would be of great profit. 
About the student, and how one ought to accept [what is being said], and what it is that we propose, let these things stand as a prelude.

First off, this piece led to my ruminating more so than any dissertation we have come across throughout the duration of this course. For the first time, I felt the need to reread paragraphs at times so as to disentangle what it is, exactly that Aristotle is aiming at. He seems to expatiate upon everyday life.... chapter 3 book 1 is my fav part; to me,so much vigor. especially considering how short it is. succinct and terse, but impossible not to understand, even if it may take you countless times to conceive. Each and every being can relate to this.. The learned mind can do so much, can know so much, can be capable of many great feats. but, It is ultimately what that person achieves with what he/she has been bestowed with that truly defines an individual and his worth on mankind. hopefully, for the betterment of humanity. we all know a few self-serving, egocentric, "bright-minded" folks that seem to be motivated only by whatever it is that may be of benefit to them, and them only. One can only judge based on what he has seen or experienced. Each person has experienced many different things in life, each being has had varying dealings and days in comparison to the next one. so there will always be confusion, ambiguity or uncertainty between a people. moral and ethics are touchy subjects. we can't touch them. describe them. give it a color. they're of conception.. there will always be clashes when it comes to moral and justice, for the conception of these will more than likely involve difference of opinion, leading to strife and dispute...the young are not qualified to be students of political arts, for they have no experience of life and conduct? well, consider me a STAUNCH CRITIC of this notion presented by aristotle. One should begin educating himself on the nuances of politics at the youngest of ages! I say, the younger the better, we need younger people to have voices, to become politically active, to actually be cognizant of what's going on in government, whether it be local, federal, global. this may be a subjective opinion but if we were to follow aristotles creed on politics, the young would feel as if there's no need to educate themselves on politics(which is the status quo anyway), which in turn would lead to a politically inactive public, which would then lead to complete tyranny. they pertain to us, our children, our future.. moreso than the elderly guy in the senior home (no pun intended). some of our constituent servers are just extremely out of touch... Who remembers romneys 10thousand dollar mistake on national tv? literally, the last thing he should've done. to me, that moment right there sealed his fate.. and this was THE eventual candidate for the presidency coming from the repub side. I'm not claiming to be a psychic, but ive told my friends 10 months before the election. there are no legitimate candidates in the repub side, no matter how bad obamas PR was @ the time. obama was bound to win that election, to me it was fixed!. and they tried sooo hard to make it seem sooooo close... which is why i've always believed in the false left right paradigm.. you have 4 "serious"candidates that don't have the slightest of chances against obama... gingrich? cmon not after a few wives, 84 ethics violations as speaker(fed tax)..(first speaker disciplined for ethics violations). romney? the money launderer who banks swiss and cayman? and who's bain capital outsources... what american would vote for him during these times? rick perry, the idiot that even texans hate? he was assigned the governorship only after george w. bush had to give up his post   once he won the 200 elections.  and poor little ron paul, the old guy that everyone laughs at..rather, one could pose the argument that the younger the representative or congressman or elected official, the bettter! if anything, they're au courant or up 2 speed as to what is going on, especially on a local scale..I do understand his point, in that the elder individual is more likely than not, the wiser, more prudent and cannier all around individual and the younger individual acts on the basis of feelings more so than reason and logic, which makes total sense.... but if you look at today's situation, more office time for one guy hasn't worked out too well for this country. i just truly believe that, as long as you stick to your principles, stick to that firm backbone you have, however vivacious it may be... if you act based on that, and that with which you believe in alone, for as long as good is intended, then nothing should stop you.. personally, I vouched for the eldest of republicans during the primary of '12 because I deemed him to be the only viable candidate, striving FOR the american citizenry... the rest are carbon copycats of each other, with slight alterations to their respective policy agendas (which is also totally dictated by the media.. i hate how they can easily dictate topic of discussion and we alllll fall for it, like yea!!! that IS what we should be talking about) .. to me. they sit there fight and bicker over strangely similar policies to the incumbent in office, while the guy with an actual plan, the man with a flawless track record that speaks for itself, is cast off by mainstreammedia as a fanatic, radical, extremist, revolutionary.

if that's what he is, it's exactly what this country needs.
I've always been a proponent of lowering the age of candidacy requirements .. presidency should be lower than 35. (just an opinion) 30 sounds right..... the fact that one can become state senator or assemblyman, in NY @the age of 18 is amazing. the center of finance and culture, the 3rd most populous state in the country, can have an 18 year old representing NY with a reserved seat in the "worlds greatest deliberative body." take that "aristotle!"  how old do you think the next young congresswoman/man started studying "the art of politics." it's never too early

[Amanda Murat]

I agree with Aristotle theory of Happiness, He defines happiness to be determine by ones life and goals . In Chapter 3 he states "it happens that some have been destroyed on account of their wealth others on account of their courage", This meant to me that everyone characteristics plays a part in what makes them happy and some go to the far extreme to please themselves but at the end the are  stilll not satisfied with the final  results.

 Somethings that we view as good are not always good for everyone. One may yearn to be rich with all the money in the world it still does not guarantee happiness it might actually urge to want more.

[tresjoli17]

“the good of the individual by himself is certainly desirable enough, but that of a nation and cities is more divine.

 

The inquiry, then, aims at these things, since it is a sort of a political inquiry.”

 

Here Aristotle describes that the activities of an individual for his sake’s good is desirable enough, but that the good of a nation or city would definitely override that in importance. He begins to speak of politics since that the field that would oversee the good of the people as a whole. Before this Aristotle described all actions or activities as being aimed towards some good/ goal. We perform certain functions with an expected outcome. However, it is the actions that we perform out of sake of goodness, (and not out of necessity), that are the ultimate good. He used virtue as an example. 

It’s kind of ironic to me that politicians win campaigns by preaching what they will do for the good of the people, (if elected), but are often found out to be the most self serving individuals among us. I also don’t think that the role of politics can be considered a work towards the highest good since politicians are generously compensated for their positions and enjoy benefits that come with their title. Also they may improve our quality of life within the community but they cannot really be expected to improve the quality of character of each member of their communities.

 

[vgultyaeva]

I was really effected by one of the moral laws of Kant. The one where he tells to “ take an action that you are about to so, think about it ( generalize it). What would happen if you make it a law for everyone? What world it would make? Of it makes a good world than it’s moral.”

            I have never thought of morals in that way. However, it is like a much bigger take on treat people how you would like to be treated. This law can govern all of the actions towered people, animals, things or just day to day actions towards anything.  I agree and actually tried to follow it exactly for few days.  I must say it is not easy. Even basic thing as getting read of an old gum turns into a quest for a trashcan.  However if everyone would follow this one law I think that the world would get substantially better for everyone.

[kenlyv]

 “The moral worth of the action thus lies not in the effect to be expected from it; thus also not in any principle of action which needs to get its motive from this expected effect.”

 This quote is basically saying that for something to be good it does matter what the long-term effect are. All that matter that are the good intention  It is not for the reward that someone does something good but is because that person wants to good. Now a day’s many people who try to do good is because they expect something in return but this is exactly what limits people from doing good.