WEEK 14: Finish Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and REVIEW

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

This is our last week of class. I will finish covering Aristotle and then we will have a review. Try to write about Aristotle this week--even if you wrote something last week. Try to compare what Aristotle is doing to what you say in Mill and Kant. What are the major differences? similarities? Now that you have read all three of the ethical theories, which one do you agree with the most? Why?

-MD.

[tayo.ojudun]

For this last post I would just like to focus on the first sentence. 

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action as well as choice, is held to aim at some good". Aristotle says so much about the work so early on, which causes the first page to consist of more than half a page of footnotes. However, this statements seems to be easily disproved. I can easily think of numerous examples that could possibly disprove it. This first claims seems impossible, 'every art, inquiry, action, and choice being aimed at some good', and somewhat nonsensical. There is so much evil in the world and I will safely assume that this evil was around during Aristotle's time as well. How could he even have the gall to make such a claim? It doesn't make much sense. 

However, thinking about this on an entire plane, Aristotle may have had an intricate thought here. Rape for example is an evil, but the good could perhaps be the rapist releasing some type of stress or getting a pleasure from the rape. Good for the rapist, but not for the victim. This is a different type of good though, a selfish type; normally not the way in which the word is used. The aim of the action(rape) had good intent for one party, but not the other. This is a bit odd because then any action whether already declared as evil by society can be somehow seen as good. But an action having good intent should not only be for one party,because then that doesn't make it good at all. 

[taniki0108]

Aristotle theory was aimed at the actuality which was in the middle of Kant and Mills.  Mills was just concerned with the effect of what you did not what were your motives for doing it, while Kant look at the motives, what were your reason for doing this action.  For Aristotle the effects and the action among other things contributed to the moral of a person.  I would agree with Aristotle the most because there has to be some form of balance.  Kant and Mills were just learning on one side of the fence too much and with that there can be a lot of confusion.  Both your action and your reason for doing something is important because if you take both inconsideration you will be more morally correct and less prone to making the wrong decision.  Thinking about just the good for yourself is not morally right so you have to take in the effect of what you are doing and how its going to impact others and yourself and if everyone benifit in a good way then thats the best choice to make.

[gulyabigela]

"It is also clear, as a result, that none of the moral virtues are present in us by nature" (page 50).
Aristotle was confident that all moral virtues can be learned by habits and constant practice. We can see how different it is from the Kant's point of view, who stated that moral law is a universal concept, which can be acknowledged by anyone a priori. I think by stating that each person knows what is right to do at the moment of making decision, Kant also assumes that every individual has a knowledge of what is right or wrong on intuitive level. Therefore, I conclude that he believes in goodness of each person despite his or her habituation. There is also another famous scholar, psychologist Carl Rogers, who believed that every person was born innately good, and it is a society is the one who blame for the deviation in humans.
I think that the ideas of Kant are closer to my view of life and people. Even though Aristotle's ideas make sense and most of our qualities and behavior depend of our roots, custom and society, I believe there is a predisposition of every person to be good. Maybe we can teach the person to play on any musical instrument, but we as a society also may force people to do bad things. If the person doesn't have the opportunity to get a job, he will eventually rob someone to survive or feed his family.

[jossianny(jossy)]

"The good of the individual by himself is certainly desirable enough, but that of a nation and cities is nobler and more divine" (3, Aristotle).

 When reading "Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics" i saw that a lot of Kant's and Mills ideas came from here. Like Mills idea that you should do good to everyone in your circle and good would come to you. From here we could also get the idea of the good will which Kant talks about which then connects to the "greatest good" which is happiness. But happiness is different for every person and even for the same person. This is all leading to virtue. The virtue of a person is the most important thing according to Aristotle. I think by Virtue he means the way a person acts, his/her personality, what makes you different from others. There is a lot of ideas that Aristotle brings and as i kept reading it, it got me confuse.But everything he says connects to Kant's and Mills ideas but it has even more.

[staceydavidyants]

"So happiness appears to be something complete and self-sufficient, it being an end of our actions. But perhaps saying that "happiness is best" is something manifestly agreed on, whereas what it is still needs to be said more distinctly." (Book 1, Chapter 7) 

Happiness is something we all strive to achieve. However, happiness itself, and the path to happiness is different for everyone. Some people are happy just being a great parent, others only feel happiness when they have achieved things in their career, and some feel happiness only when both thing are achieved. Aristotle says that what happiness is needs to be said more distinctly. But it is very difficult to sum up the idea of happiness for all people. When Mill wrote about the happiness principle, he divided happiness into involved both pleasures of the mind and pleasures of the body. This is certainly true as both pleasures lead to happiness. However, for some people, a pleasure of the body may trump a pleasure of the mind, and so it also becomes difficult to distinguish what happiness is exactly. Certainly, Aristotle's statement, "happiness is best" is true for all people; we all try to achieve happiness in our fields, at any point in our lives. But even at different points in our lives, happiness is defined by different things. What brings upon a child's happiness is very different from an adult's happiness. Nevertheless, happiness is an essential feeling that all humans need in their lives, whatever the means may be to achieving it. 

[vgultyaeva]

"It is also clear, as a result, that none of the moral virtues are present in us by nature"

 

I agree with that statement because in my opinion people learn on trial and errors throughout their lives. We also learn morals from our parents that have been passed down from generation to generation starting with first people ever lived. They are the ones that actually made first mistakes, mistreated or hurt someone and realized what is wrong and what is right. I would admit that the standards changed and in different societies they are different but basics would probably be the same (like killing is bad) because we all have the same origins.

[jimborat69]

 

I see that Aristotle is the balance between Kant and Mill.  However their similarities is about being happy, good individually and socially. I know there are deeper meanings as these three philosopher are teaching us. Mill is all about the result. He believes that in any situation, the result of good is the most important of them all. No matter how it happened as long as the result is the benefit good for someone, will be the right thing, On the other hand, Kant most important is the motive. It doesn’t matter for Kant the result is but what is important is the motive. I tried to understand what is Goodwill that is the most important for Aristotle. It is basically everything that is good for human beings is Goodwill because it is the balance of life. It is the balance of the motive and the result. I am more in the result like Mill. We can think about the worst scenario but for me what matters is the result. Like the gangster example in class, I will kill one person because the result is five more lives I'm able to save. I think result is really more realistic than motive.

[Amanda Murat]

To my understanding Mills mains concern is the people and them reaching the etxtreme of happiness. Mill views the people of society to be the most important and as long everyone is happy and content with their way of living everyone would be at ease. Mill does not  place no restriction to what one may to be happy as long as they are not hurting others.

However Kant view of Happiness is a little different, He believes people should think rationally and ones motive is what determines whether they are good or bad( right or wrong). To Kant everyone should know  the right thing to do , and that moral law is a natural instinct for all individuals. He believes that everyone does something for a reason therefore aware of what the consequences would be.

Last, Aristotle views the goodwill of person to define their individuality. Of all 3 essay I find Aristotle to make the most sense. Aristotle argues that everyone should have intent to do good for themselves and everyone around them..To Aristotle goodwill is the  balance of motive and result , which is balance of life (happiness).

[Teresa Sanchez5901]

      Chapter 9 

" this is also why the perplexity arises as to whether happiness is something that can be gained through learning , or habituation or through some other practice , or whether it becomes to be present in accord with a sort of divine allotment or even through chance". (9:9-12)

I think what Aristotle is saying is that Happiness is achieved through a cultivating mixture of virtue(eudaimonia) , in the sense that it is the mean of Intellectual ( taught ) and Ethical moral virtue ( habit) .for instance when you were a child and you played with your favorite toys you were happy  and when we were finish we were taught to put them away  for the next time we want to play with them. (intellectual) . After a while it starts to be habitual , you know exactly where your toys are and which ones you want to play with that makes you happy.  I agree on only some of what Aristotle has said. Yes , happiness can be gained through learning but also I believe that it has a lot to do with satisfying oneself, or finding one's inner happiness.

[arielleraoul]

"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. And in all things of

this sort that fall under some one capacity-for just as bridle making 

and such other arts as concern equestrian gear fall under horsemanship, 

while this art and every action related to warfare fall under generalship, 

so in the same manner, some arts fall under one capacity, others under an

other-in all of them, the ends of the architectonic ones are more choice worthy 

than all those that fall under them, for these latter are pursued for 

the sake of the former."

James 2:14-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

"Faith Without Works Is Dead

¹⁴ What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? ¹⁵ If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? ¹⁷ Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

¹⁸ But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your^[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my^[b] works. ¹⁹ You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! ²⁰ But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?^[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? ²² Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ²³ And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”^[d] And he was called the friend of God. ²⁴ You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.²⁵ Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?²⁶ For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

This quote reminded me of a scripture in the bible that says faith without works is dead.In the scripture the works can be related to the medicine,shipbuilding,generalship, household management etc. in Aristotle's quote. The faith (belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,) is represented in the person who is willing to do the shipbuilding, be the general etc. And through these two things faith(morals of a person) and works(actions/art); good health, a ship, victory, wealth is obtained. These things obtained in Aristotle's quote can be compared to justification,righteousness,goodness, fulfillment and perfection in the scripture. Because of the faith(morals of a person) and works(actions/art) these latter are pursued.

[vgultyaeva]

 

“Without friends, no one would want to live, even if he had all other goods.”

People are not meant to be alone. When I think about it I always go back to the myth of human creation that we studied in the beginning of the semester. The one that stated that people were 2 headed creatures and even after being separated they still needed each other to survive. It is true that everyone has their other half in their love life but friends and family are also an incredibly important part of persons life. Everyone needs that support and reinforcement that they provide. Moreover I think we also learn by curiously through other people’s loves.

 

“For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.”

As well as our capacity to learn by curiously we also learn through trial and error and that is what I think Aristotle was talking about in the quote above. We try things and if it doesn’t work out next time we adjust our actions accordingly to the previous experience and so on until we succeed.