Evaluating Aristotle Essay Example for Free

Evaluating Aristotle EssayFar from being a hearty constraint, or perhaps a force that elicits fear of being caught, the motives that move a person to demand what is tidy and avoid what is evil draw sound the fine line that separates actions that may be regarded as moral, or those that argon immoral. morals is important, if non necessary in relation to human living. At the actually least, this science dos maintain the fundamental order of and within a society. This is possible because moral philosophy is not all a theory that informs people about what is good or bad, it also asks them to adhere to the principles it teaches. It is thus both(prenominal) informative and formative, or both a theory and practice, consistent with how it is commonly defined the discipline traffic with what is good and bad, and with moral certificate of indebtedness and obligation (Merriam-Webster). still what would perhaps be an equally interesting token to look at is the diverging manner by which many people believe to be the arse of moral action. Key to understanding this would be to ask why be moral? It may help to cite three notable thinkers who have given their own take of the matter.Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill on ethical motive Aristotles most eloquent articulation of his estimable theories figures in his infamous change by reversal called Nicomachean Ethics. In it, his overarching concern to prove that ethics is chiefly related to the concept of closes (or purposes) can be learned. According to Aristotle, both human activity hopes to achieve the end or the good to which it is pursued e. g. , in medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture a house (Nicomachean Ethics, 7).While Aristotle further contends that there argon activities which are pursued for its own sake and not for the sake of arriving at a good apart from the activities themselves (Nicomachean Ethics, 1) his work manifests a greater emphasis laid on the go al-orientedness of all human activities. Now, Aristotle further maintains that human animation too has an inherent end that needs to be pursued. He thinks of this fundamental human good as happiness the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world (Nicomachean Ethics, 8).And he himself argues that it is an end that moldiness be pursued not for the sake of anything else, barely precisely because it is a chief good in itself (Nicomachean Ethics, 7). Ethics for Aristotle is therefore basically a inoffensive accordance of all human activities relative to happiness. This is where his virtue ethics takes shape. In order for all men to attain happiness, Aristotle believes that every integrity needs to develop a virtue a habit of acting that promotes an excellence in angiotensin-converting enzymes use of reason.This is what Aristotle in essence implies when he says that happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue (Nicomachean Ethics, 13). Immanuel Kants i s a philosopher who exalted ethics into the realm of metaphysics that is, it is a science skeletal from a priori principles (read from demonstration or logic and not from a particular experiences) scarcely are applied to definite situations in life as well (Kant, 1). This implies that ethics is something that must be applied for all men, in all places, and at all times. simply put, ethics for Immanuel Kant is both necessary and worldwide in scope. It is necessary because all men are induce by the dictates of their reason to obey moral justnesss it is universal because moral laws care for no exception. Which is why, Kant believes that moral laws are categorical imperatives a law that concerns not the matter of the action, nor its intended result, but its form and the principle of which it is itself a result, because it is conceived as good in itself and that it conforms to reason (Kant, 18-19).If only to clarify, Kant here states that a moral law must be obeyed neither on acc ount of the benefit it brings nor the pleasure it elicits, but precisely because it is good in itself. In a way, a moral law is an empty formulation about duty meaning, it is something that needs to be obeyed on account of nothing else but the adherence to the law itself.Should it be asked how one can arrive at a knowledge of moral law which is both necessary and universal, Immanuel Kant suggests that one can test human actions in reference to, say, this particular formulation act only on a maxim that you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant, 23). John Stuart Mill meanwhile proposes a philosophy of ethics found on a more utilitarian perspective. In his work entitled Utilitarianism, he regards the outcome of an activity as the hindquarters for evaluating the ethical repercussions of any action.He articulate this idea quite clearly in saying, utility or Happiness (must be) considered as the directive rule of human conduct (Mill). In different words, ethics is based on how one carefully weighs in the maximum amount of happiness that may result from choosing an action, against the basis of a host of alternative options. He even calls this approach the Greatest Happiness Principle the supreme end with reference to and for the sake of which all human activities become desirable (Mill).It works under the present that before a person acts, he or she would have first appreciated which determination would gambling in the best returns or outcomes, both in terms of quality and quality. Mills ethical philosophy, one may quickly notice, runs in serious contradiction with Aristotle and Kant, whose theories have taught the necessity of adhering to a virtuous life or to a moral imperative not on account of any purpose, but solely because of good inherent in the act itself.As Mill himself notes, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality (Mill). By Way of Conclusion My Def inition of Ethics Based on the above discussed ethical notions its basis, nature and implications I offer to conclude this paper with a proposal to define ethics as a norm that forms human freedom and, like Immanuel Kant, a law that must be universal and categorical.Firstly, I find that the tendency to define morality in terms of obligation does not at times appreciate the full weight of human freedom. But morality is precisely a human endeavor not only because humans have reason, but more importantly because actions stem from the fundamental use freedom as well. Moral acts, one must carefully note, are arrived at only with the proper education and nurturance of human freedom.It is in fact drawn from the basic premise that human freedom is at its best when one is able to use it to inning up ones welfare, as well as those of others. I am of the opinion that anyone who wish to expound on the ethical standards of an action must first begin with the evaluation of human freedom. In t his way, ethics can shed light into the need to use the faculty of freewill for the sake of the chastity inherent in itself as Aristotle and Kant have argued , and directed towards the goodness of something else as Mill has on the other hand proposed.Second, in an ethical theory where human freedom is of critical importance, it is thus wise to get hold of the logic from which Immanuel Kant derives his categorical imperative. As one would notice, Kants maxim do something as though you would expect that action be done for all people touches on two fundamental areas of ethics the decision of the person, or human freedom, and the universality of the scope of moral laws. I find Kant here to be a great source of insight.With his theory, I believe that I can adopt the position that ethics is a science that forms human freedom because, in Kants maxim, the subjective capacity for self-determination is tempered by the duty to obey objective laws. Kants categorical imperative does little to undermine freedom, as it does look for hard to protect the universal applicability of moral law. In this regard, I would therefore say that Kants ethical theory is the best position to take, at least from the perspective of ethical notion that I have chosen to adopt.ReferencesAristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. 29 June 2008, http//classics. mit. edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen. 1. i. html ethic. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster Online. 29 June 2008 http//www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/ethic Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of morals. 29 June 2008 http//www. scribd. com/doc/2225702/kantfundamental143 Mill, J. S. Utilitarianism. 29 June 2008 http//utilitarianism. org/mill2. htm