To a certain extent, Aristotle is similar in his philosophy to Mill, Aquinas, and Kant, but now completely. He also believes in a universal good in order to achieve happiness in life. According to Aristotle, mortality and good is understood in terms of a whole life. Contrary to Mill, Aquinas, and Kant, that understand moral obligation in terms of human individual actions, instead of examining a whole lifetime. According to Aristotle “good” can be found in many forms. He states, “Further, good is spoken of in as many ways as being (is spoken of): In what-it-is, as god and mind; in quality, as the virtues; in quantity, as the measured amount; in relative, as the useful; in time, as the opportune moment; in place, as the right situation; and
…show more content…
Aristotle is different though. You could argue that Aristotle’s definition of “good” is way more subjective. For example, Aristotle calls people “good”, if they perform a function well. According to Aristotle, you could say that a flutist who plays the flute well is a good flutist. In this particular circumstance, playing the flute would be the function of the flutist. In addition, through Aristotle’s teachings, you could conclude that what separates us from plants and animals are our rationality. Some things we do out of instinct, but other we do them because we thought about it carefully before performing the action. In my opinion, what makes us different from animals is our ability to have a set of memories, beliefs, and desires. When it comes to happiness, Aristotle teaches us to consider the person’s life as whole, and not just parts of it. The question to be asked with this is, when do you determine if the person lived a happy life or not? Well, the answer to this would be upon death. Essentially, you would be unable to determine accurately if a person lived a happy life or not until that person passes away. However, a good person should always behave well. Regardless if his life is going well or not. Essentially, you are the architect of your own destiny and you should not let external factors influence
Aristotle is different though. You could argue that Aristotle’s definition of “good” is way more subjective. For example, Aristotle calls people “good”, if they perform a function well. According to Aristotle, you could say that a flutist who plays the flute well is a good flutist. In this particular circumstance, playing the flute would be the function of the flutist. In addition, through Aristotle’s teachings, you could conclude that what separates us from plants and animals are our rationality. Some things we do out of instinct, but other we do them because we thought about it carefully before performing the action. In my opinion, what makes us different from animals is our ability to have a set of memories, beliefs, and desires. When it comes to happiness, Aristotle teaches us to consider the person’s life as whole, and not just parts of it. The question to be asked with this is, when do you determine if the person lived a happy life or not? Well, the answer to this would be upon death. Essentially, you would be unable to determine accurately if a person lived a happy life or not until that person passes away. However, a good person should always behave well. Regardless if his life is going well or not. Essentially, you are the architect of your own destiny and you should not let external factors influence