Three Characteristics Of Aristotle's Argument For The Higher Human Good

1095 Words 5 Pages
In Aristotle 's argument for the ultimate human good and how it relates to virtue is not so much a search for good for goods sake but for the highest good that a human being can ascertain in that persons experience and travels in life. So then how is it that Aristotle argument has validity to an over all understanding or relation to virtue? It is not an easy philosophical quandary to disseminate considering other philosophers have studied Aristotle 's teachings and spent the most part of their careers arguing against (in cases) this very prose. Then if one were to attempt to justify Aristotle 's argument that it would seem that, fist we must understand that in Aristotle 's mind that ethics is not a theoretical concept but an attempt to …show more content…
What these three characteristic have in regards to human good is that in the end from Aristotle 's perspective is that a person does not live ethically or well for some sort of goal later on but rather from a understanding of positive virtues such as obtaining resources, ones health, and a better financial situation for example. This is not the real reason that a person aspires for the higher human good, but for the over all happiness obtained from these virtues is what drives a person or to put in another way a sense of personal hedonism is the driving factor or goal to why a person strives for a higher …show more content…
The reasoning for this is because of the available list of moral theories to choose from deontology or modern deontology defines that all things that are considered good should be right. To further strengthen this Kant uses his Categorical Imperative rule to interpret what is right and anything that is immoral goes against this rule is incorrect. An example of this which runs very much parallel to christian religious doctrinaire of the “Golden Rule” that can be found in Kant 's first formulation “ Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction” or in other words “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Kant 's definition also suggest that the moral act must have a sense of duty to have moral worth in it, but this is not to say that as a human being, a persons initial want is to do what grants people the greatest happiness, that this is in ones own best benefit candidly speaking. Although though Kant’s Categorical Imperative rule seems like it can be the morally right action to take, the issue that may come up is that it works or may work for the individual but may not be applicable to humanity as whole. The question does arrive however if “duty” is in the eye of the beholder or is it a universal trait that all people are subject to? I would

Related Documents