Aristotle’s Theory of Virtue and Happiness Essay

Aristotle was one of the most respected philosophers of all time. He wrote on many subjects covering a wide range of topics politics, psychology, metaphysics, logic and ethics. In the article Nature of Virtue written by Aristotle, his theory of a persons happiness and right(a) morals is explained. I agree that a tenders goal in life is to be knowing, and to live a dear(p) life save happiness and good do non cum hand in hand. In this paper, I disagree with Aristotles fit function argument. The word happiness is a much broader term to Aristotle than what we think of.(Johnston, Para. F) By happiness he means supremacyful, life story a good life and physical well being. A fully happy life would include success for themselves, their family and descendants. The idea of good and happiness according to Aristotle is based around the proper function argument. The proper function argument is basically that every man is brought to this demesne to corroborate a function. Happiness is the main goal in someones life, and this comes with a function. For all things that have a function or activity, the good and well is thought to reside in the function. We argon not on this earth to merely live, but to do our best to live well. (Cahn 113) Something is good if it performs its proper function for example, a good movie. If you watch a movie and you think its good, than it has performed its proper function. The purpose of broccoli is to feed and give mint nutrition, the purpose of a truck is to transport objects, and the purpose of one human may to be a plumber. Fixing sinks and toilets is this humans function, and if done successfully, happiness will be achieved. The function of humans is an activity of the soul and must act in accordance with virtue, or goodness. A person squirt but be happy when they are fulfilling their function. (Cahn 114). When a person is fulfilling their function, they are eudaimon. Eudaimonia is the Greek term for happiness and living well . When someone takes start in Eudaimonia, they are taking part in the activity of the soul in accordance with excellence, virtue or what is good for (The Human good and Function Argument) In Aristotles view, human beings are the only species that have the potential to live a better life. He believes living well creates happiness, the final goal for human beings.Reaching a goal drives every behavior, and the goal of humans is to attain goodness and excellence. He also states that every man should pursue happiness and happiness is attainable by all people. (Traditional Virtues and The agnostic. ) I disagree with these statements being happy, and being evil can happen at the same time. For example, the roman prints lived very happily take down though their actions were evil. The Romans believed they were the most superior and advanced society yet they found pleasure and happiness in torturing and killing Christians for sport.The Romans lived in a world of evil, and they were undou btedly happy. Aristotles objection to my example of the Romans would be that the Romans took their pleasure to the extreme with their lavish lifestyles, which idle words to their downfall and demise. Aristotle would use his theory of the Golden mean to object to the Romans happiness. For Aristotle living life well involves using the virtues we were intended to use, including chiefly reason, but also courage, honesty, and moderation in pursuing pleasure. (Stevenson 67).Every good thing exists between two deadly things. So anything is achievable as long as it is not taken to excess. Aristotles example for this is that if 10 pounds is too much for someone too eat, and 2 pounds is too little, than 6 pounds being the mean, would not be the exact amount that person should eat to be satisfied, but is something to aim towards. (Cahn 117). Aristotles golden mean says that you should not do anything to the excess, or you will only hurt yourself. If you overindulge in physical pleasures, yo ur health will deteriorate. (Stevenson 67. ) In other words, the Romans overindulged in their pleasure, which lead to their own pain and torture in the end. If it is true that you cannot experience goodness unless you are happy, and you cannot be happy if you take action into extremes, than it must be true that the people in want cannot be good. Every society has had its rise and fall in power, so does that mean that people that live on the under side of the extreme, or in Aristotles example, to only eat two pounds of food, can never achieve goodness be suffice they are not happy?For example there is a scurvy tike in Africa who is living in severe conditions, with no food, and not enough water. He is doing everything he can in pursuit of happiness. He goes to church, he helps his parents out with the family, and he is doing his best in school. However, he is hungry and living in unhappiness because of his terrible situation. Because this boy is not happy, does this mean he is no t a good person? Happiness is attainable to all people, but how is happiness attainable by this boy?Living to the extreme may cause unhappiness in some situations, but it is quite often that living in moderation can lead to unhappiness as well. Moderate behavior will not always bring happiness. For example, someone who is very passionate and romantic may find that moderate behavior does not suit his or her needs. One can not be happy if forced to control oneself in all situations of life. (Popkin 10) A human wants to live life the way they desire, and to get through from acting how you feel does not lead to happiness. Aristotles theory is based around the fact that good morals come from habit.You must be taught to be good in order to be good. According to Aristotle, your characteristics come from your actions in other words, you become good by doing good (Cahn 113). Under Aristotles theory, to be a good person, you must have been taught to be good at a young age to acquire good mo rals. In order to earn from the sort of study he is undertaking, one must already have been brought up in good habits(Traditional Virtues and The Skeptic. ) This means the group of people with potential to have virtue and happiness is limited.It is limited to the people who come from a family with good ethics. The only people who are going to become good, are the people who are already well on their way to be good because their family is training them to be this way. But what about the people who come from bad families? Or what about the people who were raised by ethically good families? For example, a child who was brought up by parents who had no ethics or good morals at all. The mother was a drug addict, and the father ran away while the child was at an early age.The child wasnt taught anything about morals, and did not have a proper upbringing what so ever. Everything the child knew was learnt on his own, and he decided who he wanted to be an acted in relation to this. This chi ld ends up being a good person, has a good job, and lives in happiness. When Aristotle makes the point that you must have had exercise in virtues, he does not have any proof that this is always true. What Aristotle owes us, then, is an account of these traditional qualities that explains why they must play a central role in any well-lived life. (Traditional Virtues and The Skeptic.), Aristotle must explain to us why being trained by a guardian is required in order to end up living a complete life. In conclusion, Aristotles theories are applicable in some situations, but should not be applied in all situations. You can be happy and evil at the same time you do not have to be good in order to be happy. Aristotle objects by saying you cannot be happy and live to extremes, however you can also be happy and over indulge at the same time. It is also assertable for someone to live well, have virtue and happiness even when they had not been brought up this way.They can learn on their own, characteristics can be defined by who you want to be. Aristotle says that happiness is attainable by all, but if you follow the Aristotles theory, you will find that happiness is limited to a certain group. Works Cited Johnston, Ian. raise on Aristotles Nicomachaean Ethics. Records. November 18th, 1997. http//records. viu. ca/johnstoi/introser/aristot. htm. April 15th, 2010. Cahn Steven. Exploring Ethics. Aristotle The Nature of Virtue. Ed. Steven M. Cahn. New York Oxford University Press. 2009. Pg 113-117. The Human Good and Function Argument. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Oxford Blackwell Publishers, 2001. May 1st, 2001. http//plato. stanford. edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/HumGooFunArg. April 15th, 2010. Traditional Virtues and The Skeptic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N. P. May 1st, 2001. http//plato. stanford. edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/HumGooFunArg. April 15th, 2010. Stevenson, Jay. The Complete Idiots ask to Philosophy. The Golden Mean. Ed. Drew Patty. 2 nd Edition. 2002. Pg 67. Popkin, Richard. Philosophy Made Simple. Criticism of Aristotle. Richard Popkin and A. Stroll. New York, 1993. Pg 10-11.