In Aristotle 's ethics, Book 1: the theory of happiness, Aristotle claims that there are some aims in the nature of man that influences every movement of the mind and every activity of the body, consciously or unconsciously. A man is incessantly striving to attain a ‘good’ or purpose of existence. According to Aristotle, there is a point in the purposes of man where the gradation of good (lower goods becoming subordinate to higher ones) ceases. It is this very point in man’s life where the mind attains absolute and complete satisfaction. It is this point where human conception cannot go any higher either. Aristotle calls this a ‘final good’, a supreme purpose that comprehends all lower forms of good and all aspirations. It is not an infinite,
…show more content…
He first approaches through analyzing what people think. He collects facts about people’s belief and attitudes and does so by bringing to the fore various widely supported candidates for the title ‘best life for man.’ i.e. the life of practical activity, the life of pleasure, and the philosopher’s life. Characteristics that everyone would look for in the ideal life is what Aristotle draws attention to. With this approach, Aristotle is not, of course, able to give a detailed recipe for making a good life. What he does, though, is clarifies the interdependency and interrelations of various aim and activities that are required for proper human …show more content…
Aristotle places happiness as the central good. I think happiness should in no way be the ultimate aim in human life. In order to attain happiness, people do not always act in a positive way. For example, a man may rob another man and become happy. He becomes happy with the wealth he acquires but he does not ever realize that he attained happiness at another person’s cost. He also seldom realizes what kind of difficulties the other person has to go through after he loses his belongings and possessions.
I think Kant’s notion of good will is what we ought to adopt. If a person acts with a good will, he always aims at something good for others. If the person in the example we just saw was to act with a good will, he would not have robbed another man in the first place. He would have opted for some other ways of earning for living: by begging, by working, or by employing some other means. In not harming another person, he also employs autonomy
He first approaches through analyzing what people think. He collects facts about people’s belief and attitudes and does so by bringing to the fore various widely supported candidates for the title ‘best life for man.’ i.e. the life of practical activity, the life of pleasure, and the philosopher’s life. Characteristics that everyone would look for in the ideal life is what Aristotle draws attention to. With this approach, Aristotle is not, of course, able to give a detailed recipe for making a good life. What he does, though, is clarifies the interdependency and interrelations of various aim and activities that are required for proper human …show more content…
Aristotle places happiness as the central good. I think happiness should in no way be the ultimate aim in human life. In order to attain happiness, people do not always act in a positive way. For example, a man may rob another man and become happy. He becomes happy with the wealth he acquires but he does not ever realize that he attained happiness at another person’s cost. He also seldom realizes what kind of difficulties the other person has to go through after he loses his belongings and possessions.
I think Kant’s notion of good will is what we ought to adopt. If a person acts with a good will, he always aims at something good for others. If the person in the example we just saw was to act with a good will, he would not have robbed another man in the first place. He would have opted for some other ways of earning for living: by begging, by working, or by employing some other means. In not harming another person, he also employs autonomy