To understand why humans act a certain way, there was two preeminent philosophers, Aristotle and John Stuart Mill, that transformed the subject of human morality. Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher born in 384 B.C. that illustrated his perspective on human good in the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle believes that happiness is the highest human good that is the final end, self-sufficient, and the virtuous activity of the soul according to reason. Happiness is the good that everything else aims for, even pleasure. On the contrary, John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher born in 1806 that portrayed his views on human good in Utilitarianism. Mill defines happiness as solely pleasure and absence of pain. Since pleasure plays a contrastive
…show more content…
Within the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle focuses on his detailed definition of happiness in order to know the good for humans and how to achieve it. With this, he figures out that happiness or Eudaimonia, is the final and self-sufficient end of human action. In order to understand why humans strive for this good, Aristotle discovers their function which is activity of the human soul with the “sense of possessing reason and exercising thought” (Aristotle, I.7). These are the only aspects that separate us from other species. Additionally, this activity of the soul must be good that exhibits virtue as excellent states of character (Aristotle, I.7). Aristotle then continues explaining the origins of these virtues and how they are activities that must be done well through human knowledge gained by teaching, learning and habit. Then, he tries to determine the right kinds of actions that produce these good characters. Aristotle declares that a good action is a kind of mean between two extremes of defect and excess, which are both bad. Therefore, this mean must be relative to the person acting and to the situation (Aristotle, II.6). Although, this mean is not the mathematical average or middle value, it’s influenced by tendencies towards one extreme which is more pleasurable to the human. With this, Aristotle proceeds to discuss his stance on the role of pleasure in
Within the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle focuses on his detailed definition of happiness in order to know the good for humans and how to achieve it. With this, he figures out that happiness or Eudaimonia, is the final and self-sufficient end of human action. In order to understand why humans strive for this good, Aristotle discovers their function which is activity of the human soul with the “sense of possessing reason and exercising thought” (Aristotle, I.7). These are the only aspects that separate us from other species. Additionally, this activity of the soul must be good that exhibits virtue as excellent states of character (Aristotle, I.7). Aristotle then continues explaining the origins of these virtues and how they are activities that must be done well through human knowledge gained by teaching, learning and habit. Then, he tries to determine the right kinds of actions that produce these good characters. Aristotle declares that a good action is a kind of mean between two extremes of defect and excess, which are both bad. Therefore, this mean must be relative to the person acting and to the situation (Aristotle, II.6). Although, this mean is not the mathematical average or middle value, it’s influenced by tendencies towards one extreme which is more pleasurable to the human. With this, Aristotle proceeds to discuss his stance on the role of pleasure in