Read:
Excerpts from Book I of Aritstotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Sections 1-5, 7, 8)
Think:
What is the most general characterization of the good that Aristotle provides here?
How does he first characterize the chief good?
What does he say that everyone agrees is the highest of all goods?
What kinds of disagreement does this consensus mask?
What conclusion does Aristotle reach about the Highest Good?
Write:
Blog Post on “Human Nature and the Human Good”
In Section 7 of Chapter I of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle provides an argument for an ‘outline of the good’ with respect to man. How does the paragraph that begins with “Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired” serve as a rebuttal to the point about the best and happiest life made by Glaucon in Plato’s Republic?
The happiest life is what you want it to be, and as long as you are enjoying it, then youre golden. But, their theories are that to live happily means to live unjustly. This is far from the truth. Take nuns for example; they are extremely happy with the life they live. And I can see why, as they devote all their time to praising the lord. Glaucon says that if you live unjustly, then youre living the good life. I still disagree with this. That is the worst assumption a man can make.
Quentin D
Phil003
It is obviously clear that Glaucon and Aristotle have differing views about how to go about living a happy life. While both are partially right, the two views do have differences. Glaucon goes about saying that living a happy life is doing what makes you happy without regard to wether it is just or not. He would say that it really doesn’t matter what you do as long as you think it is the right thing to do. You can still have morals, it is just okay if they don’t go along with what society believes. On the other hand, Aristotle has a differing perspective. He believes that you should live a good life based on the values of a society and what people think is right. If you live a just life, then in the end you will be satisfied with your life no matter what. He argues that living a good and just life is the best way to achieve happiness. It is clear the two philosophers have a different view on things.
Aristotle believes a good life is journey of virtue. A person can not be viewed good until they are dead and then one can reflex on their life. Aristotle also argues that the greatest good is happiness. Happiness is not just a moment of life but a journey through life. There might be little things in life that make us happy but is it true happiness or just pleasure? One could say they are happy but what really contributes to it. A journey of wisdom and virtue can make one live a happy life.
Aristotle is arguing that the endgame pursuit of “good” is what drives a human to live a virtuous life. A person can not be considered happy until they’re dead, because only then may their whole life be examined and determined if they led a happy life. Happiness can not be taken from brief moments in time but instead must be taken as a whole. Therefore a person must live their life believing they are happy and live virtuously to fit in the definition that happiness is the higher good. While, Glaucon argues that to live a happy life a person must stay true to themselves and live unjustly if that is how they are as a person to live a truthful life that they are pleased with.
The main argument given by Aristotle at least as I interpret it is that it is not the end result that truly matters or makes one happy but rather it is the journey of reaching that point. This being said if the unjust receives everything he wants with little to no work there is little or no journey in which to make him happy before he achieves his goal. While on the other hand the just who is shunned by society is forever on a journey to gain what he wants and through Aristotle’s opinion that it is the journey and doing what you want to the best you possibly can that makes you happy then the just should be always happy. I think one of the best possible real life examples of this is the man who has no money working to have a home and food takes little for granted and as a result is always happy to have what he does, while the man born into wealth strives to find the next thing that will make him happy as he buys more and more different things looking for joy in a multitude of physical goods.
In Plato’s “Republic, ” Glaucon’s definition of happiness is living a life full of self-fulfillment with no regards to the unjust that has happen in one’s life. At some point, your injustice will catch up to you, and ultimately cause you not to be entirely happy. Living a life perfectly unjust is near impossible to begin with, but Glaucon still idealizes the thought that in order to achieve self-actualization, one must ignore problems and fears; which would never allow one’s life to improve because as humans, we learn from our mistakes and problems. Aristotle’s view can serve as a rebuttal for this then, because he presents the idea that living a life with virtues in hand is the best way to live life, for those being virtuous wish to be a part of a culture in which their behavior is considered right, and just. This view represents a life of righteousness and worldly consideration, as one would never be selfish in the actions in which they participated. Facing that which troubles oneself with an open and just mind, seems far more likely to placing oneself in a bubble and ignoring the world.
Aristotle would argue that all human interests aim at some kind of end that we consider good. This good is happiness. I think Aristotle is saying that happiness depends on living in accordance with certain virtues and that a virtuous person is inclined to do the right thing solely for the pleasure in behaving virtuously. Justice in many ways includes all the other virtues and that is why his argument can serve as a rebuttal to the point about the best and happiest life made by Glaucon, because Glaucon believed that a completely unjust life is the happiest and most worth living. Glaucon claims that living an unjust life is the best life worth living because it allows a person to focus on their desires without any restrictions. Aristotle’s idea of a happy life is one that is completely righteous and unselfish. There is no society in which a person can be exempt from all rules and restrictions, so Glaucon’s theory is not testable.
One can think of Glaucon’s in Plato’s “Republic” definition of a happy life as pleasure. Now for Aristotle’s definition, one can think of it as pure happiness. Glaucon’s definition represents pleasure because it is extremely short term. He said that if you live unjustly to the max, you will be the happiest because you are going after your desires no matter what stands in your way. This is problematic because at the end of your life, you would have all the unjust things that you did still on your mind. Aristotle’s definition was that if you lived justly and did work through your soul, you would be both happy and virtuous. He said that happiness arises when movement of the soul happens in accordance with virtue. When someone’s life is about up if they live the way Aristotle has said and pursued happiness that way, they will have no worries about what they did because they would have a clear conscious.
Shawn Linder
Aristotle believes every action is aimed is thought to aim at some good. He also believes knowledge is good because it makes one a good judge, in what their knowledge is. Aristotle argues that the greatest good is just being happy and living ones life happily. I believe Aristotle thinks the greatest good is knowledge in your specialty job. For example, a builder knowing how to u se tools. Aristotle also believes in good character traits like bravery, justice and wisdom. Aristotle’s argument is a rebuttal to Glaucon because he believes that a unjust life is the best life to live. Aristotle believes one should live a life of righteousness, and knowledge. Another difference in the theories has to do with consciousness. Aristotle’s theory would have people living with a clear conscious, where as Glaucon’s theory would make someone have a lot on their mind. Also, the happiness Glaucon talks about is short lived because you can get in trouble, unless one is so perfectly unjust, that they look just. The happiness Aristotle talks about is lived through someone’s whole life because they are a good person.
Aristotle argued that human good is activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. I personally do not see this as an adequate rebuttal to Glaucon’s view of living unjustly to the extreme is the happiest life because virtues are different for everyone. For example, a Taliban suicide bomber believes that he is acting virtuously. He thinks that he is acting with courage, with wisdom, and he believes that his action is just. However we would consider him to be living an extremely wicked lifestyle. Also the Nazi’s would accuse some one who saved jews during the holocaust to be wicked when they are in fact acting justly, because according to their beliefs that person was acing unjust. So basically Aristotle said living good is living virtuously but he is only correct if he only correct if everyone accepts his virtues. Also he makes no counter argument against Glaucon’s claim that virtue is only followed because of what happens when its broken so the rRing of Gyges has not been refuted
In Plato’s “Republic,” Glaucon claims that a happy life is made by one who lives unjustly in the most extreme form. Aristotle states in “Nicomachean Ethics,” that happiness is activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, which are the character traits of a good person. The virtues include courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom. These virtues largely go against Glaucon’s theory that to live happily is to live unjustly. This is mainly due to the fact that the virtues include justice along with other terms deemed to represent good character. Aristotle also states that the good and noble performance of the virtues results in a happy life. Whereas, Glaucon claims that going against some of these virtues, namely justice, results in a happy life because it adheres to one’s desire for goods. Aristotle’s theory represents the purity of one’s soul at the end of one’s life to represent happiness. This mainly has to do with one’s conscience at the end of his or her life. A person living by Glaucon’s ideals may have a heavy, burdened conscience, while one living by Aristotle’s ideals will have a clear, healthy conscience. Thus, Glaucon’s idea of a happy life is momentary, while Aristotle’s idea of a happy life is a life-long struggle to live virtuously through his soul so at the end one can die happily.