In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses human life and identifies happiness to be its ultimate goal. To achieve Eudaimonia, person has to be occupied by rational activity and at the same time, lead a virtuous life. Eudaimonia will be defined shortly and it should be noted that it will be used interchangeably with the word happiness. The ensuing paragraphs will explain Aristotle’s theory, followed by its discussion. The essay will identify ethical theory’s main strength and its weaknesses, which on the whole will undermine the model. However, because of the limited scope of the essay, only few of its aspects will be discussed. Before moving to unpacking Aristotle’s theory, meaning of Eudaimonia should be explained. Even though
…show more content…
If a person is born ugly or physically impaired, there is nothing he can do about that. Therefore, he/she won’t be able to become happy throughout their lifetime. Here, Aristotle’s theory also seems to fail because fulfilling human function fully should not entail things that are out of people’s control. For example, someone like Stephen Hawking, who even though exercised his rational soul, probably, to the fullest, would not be considered as Eudaimon by Aristotle. Though, he himself suggests that truly virtuous and happy person will be able to endure all the sorrow that befalls him/her. It becomes slightly unclear, how much importance does Aristotle really grant to all of those external goods. Probably this claim connects to his view that person can be called happy only after his death, that is when his whole life can be evaluated. Thus, it seems that if several misfortunes befall someone, he/she can still be called happy after his death if he/she endured them suitably. However, it still seems unclear if based on this theory Stephen Hawking would be considered as happy person or not. Aristotle also uses word “blessed”, but does not really identify its relation and importance to his theory. Therefore, Hawking could be perceived as a happy person, but not blessed one, but this would probably still make his happiness inferior to the highest
If a person is born ugly or physically impaired, there is nothing he can do about that. Therefore, he/she won’t be able to become happy throughout their lifetime. Here, Aristotle’s theory also seems to fail because fulfilling human function fully should not entail things that are out of people’s control. For example, someone like Stephen Hawking, who even though exercised his rational soul, probably, to the fullest, would not be considered as Eudaimon by Aristotle. Though, he himself suggests that truly virtuous and happy person will be able to endure all the sorrow that befalls him/her. It becomes slightly unclear, how much importance does Aristotle really grant to all of those external goods. Probably this claim connects to his view that person can be called happy only after his death, that is when his whole life can be evaluated. Thus, it seems that if several misfortunes befall someone, he/she can still be called happy after his death if he/she endured them suitably. However, it still seems unclear if based on this theory Stephen Hawking would be considered as happy person or not. Aristotle also uses word “blessed”, but does not really identify its relation and importance to his theory. Therefore, Hawking could be perceived as a happy person, but not blessed one, but this would probably still make his happiness inferior to the highest