Aristotle's Function Argument Analysis

Aristotle’s Function Argument looks at determining the ultimate ends to all means, – Eudaimonia or happiness and wellbeing – and explains that this end, in itself is the only thing that is never used as a means to obtain another end. Despite how immoral or wrong the act of a person may seem, their ultimate end from committing the act is the same whether or not they think so. If a person wants to obtain pleasure, honor, money or another external good – external good being one of three types of goods; the other two are goods which have relation with the soul or the body --, they wish to do so in order to achieve happiness. Eudaimonia is never used to obtain these things. On a smaller scale, every human act aims to achieve some …show more content…
The objective part comes from the imperative; a command is given and should be followed without objection. The categorical idea adds universality to the concept, meaning that there are no conditions in which one does not have to follow the imperative at hand. Humans all have moral duties that need to be followed, and this is because of our ability to reason. This imperative must be realised despite our own will or desire. It is used to determine which of the possible actions would be the best morally. Moreover, the categorical imperative must be followed even if there is no harm in not observing it for example, a person should not cross the red light even if there is no oncoming traffic or pedestrians. Disobeying this rule at any point in time would mean that one could always break this rule. Morality is unique to humans as Aristotle said because we are rational beings. Since we are rational beings, and we can reason, every act we commit is more or less reasoned before being committed. Therefore, the categorical imperative is used to determine whether or not a person can or cannot commit an act. It is essentially moral law. Violating a categorical imperative results in immortality for example a categorical imperative might say thou shalt not kill. Taking a person’s life after knowing that for many life is sacred …show more content…
Moreover, that is part of her conflict because she wants to provide the best care that would best suit his pocket. The principle of nonmaleficence is also exercised by this doctor because the doctor is not trying to harm her patient in any way. Additionally, the risk of her patient becoming impotent is very low, and it is reversible. This principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence, however is starting to come into conflict with the respect for autonomy regarding the possibility of the doctor not telling the patient of the risks involved in taking the new medicine, that she wants to prescribe for him. Respect for autonomy emphasizes the importance of having a rational patient know the risks and benefits of a treatment in order to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to use it. Not giving the patient this information is denying them this choice, even more their right to