Socrates and Aristotle have many similarities in their moral theories. They both believe that a virtuous person acts justly and those just actions are good. They also agree that living a virtuous life will bring about happiness; however, their theories drift apart when defining what moral aspects are needed to live virtuously. Socrates believes that knowledge is the key to living the just life, which will bring happiness; as long as someone is doing the right thing, happiness will come, regardless of the pleasure or pain they feel. Aristotle differs from this theory because he shows the pleasure and pain influence our actions, which will then influence our happiness. Socrates’ theory is optimistic because he shows that happiness is completely
…show more content…
When explaining to Callicles that pleasure is not the goal of our actions he says, “So we should do the other things, including pleasant things for the sake of good things, and not good things for the sake of pleasant things,” (Gorgias 500a). Our actions should be performed solely because they are the right thing to do, not because they will bring us pleasure because they do not necessarily come as a packaged deal. With this assumption, someone can be in constant pain and still be happy because they are acting justly, but this is exactly where Socrates’ definition of happiness falls apart in its application to the real world. An example where this doesn’t seem true is when someone is terribly abused. Their life is no longer in their control, and they suffer terrible pains while he or she is probably acting justly, so by Socrates’ theory, this victim is happy, but this seems almost impossible that someone could feel any sort of happiness while severely suffering. Since Socrates’ theory that pleasure and pain are not involved in happiness seems to decompose, these feelings must be somewhat involved in our …show more content…
He explains why people often misinterpret the relationship between pleasure, pain, and virtue is because they focus on the people who use their emotions improperly. He says, “These [bad effects of pleasure and pain] are the reason why people actually define the virtues as ways of being unaffected and undisturbed [by pleasures and pains]. They are wrong, however, because they speak of being unaffected without qualification, not of being unaffected in the right or wrong way, at the right or wrong time, and the added qualification,” (Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, Ch, 3.5). Aristotle directly addresses Socrates’ theory, where pleasure and pain do not intersect with virtue, and then shows exactly why this theory is not approaching the problem in the right way. The people that believe that pleasure should not affect virtuous people are failing to notice the people that act on pleasure and pain in the right ways, which clearly should not make them base or unhappy. If someone is acting with their pleasure and pain in mind, and still pursuing a just life, then they should still be classified as virtuous and happy; however, this theory relies on the fact that we must feel pleasure and pain towards the right
When explaining to Callicles that pleasure is not the goal of our actions he says, “So we should do the other things, including pleasant things for the sake of good things, and not good things for the sake of pleasant things,” (Gorgias 500a). Our actions should be performed solely because they are the right thing to do, not because they will bring us pleasure because they do not necessarily come as a packaged deal. With this assumption, someone can be in constant pain and still be happy because they are acting justly, but this is exactly where Socrates’ definition of happiness falls apart in its application to the real world. An example where this doesn’t seem true is when someone is terribly abused. Their life is no longer in their control, and they suffer terrible pains while he or she is probably acting justly, so by Socrates’ theory, this victim is happy, but this seems almost impossible that someone could feel any sort of happiness while severely suffering. Since Socrates’ theory that pleasure and pain are not involved in happiness seems to decompose, these feelings must be somewhat involved in our …show more content…
He explains why people often misinterpret the relationship between pleasure, pain, and virtue is because they focus on the people who use their emotions improperly. He says, “These [bad effects of pleasure and pain] are the reason why people actually define the virtues as ways of being unaffected and undisturbed [by pleasures and pains]. They are wrong, however, because they speak of being unaffected without qualification, not of being unaffected in the right or wrong way, at the right or wrong time, and the added qualification,” (Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, Ch, 3.5). Aristotle directly addresses Socrates’ theory, where pleasure and pain do not intersect with virtue, and then shows exactly why this theory is not approaching the problem in the right way. The people that believe that pleasure should not affect virtuous people are failing to notice the people that act on pleasure and pain in the right ways, which clearly should not make them base or unhappy. If someone is acting with their pleasure and pain in mind, and still pursuing a just life, then they should still be classified as virtuous and happy; however, this theory relies on the fact that we must feel pleasure and pain towards the right