Socrates, Aristotle and Plato - Essay Example

In order to attain self-knowledge, To Socrates, a person must have awareness of all the facts relevant to his existence. He supported that if people know what is right, they will naturally act virtuously. Actions that are evil or bad, resulting from ignorance. Socrates connected knowledge with virtue and linked virtue with happiness. Summing up Socrates philosophy of ethics we conclude that, the wiser man knows the right thing so he does good and thus stays happy.

In contrast to Socrates, Aristotle suggested an ethical system termed "self-realization". Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Hence, a person must act according to his nature and enhance his hidden talents, so as to be happy and satisfied. In his view, a person will do good deeds and be content when he operates in harmony with his nature and grasps his full potential. When a baby is born, he is a “potential person”. The innate potential of that child must be realized for him to become a "real" person. He believed that discontent and aggravation result when a person is unable to realize his potential. Moreover, he emphasized that for a person to become virtuous, he had to practically do virtuous activities than just simply studying what virtue is.

Plato upholds virtue-based eudemonistic ethics. This means that human well-being (eudemonia) is the chief aim of moral notion and demeanour. Plato's views on the ethics of happiness seem rather passive because of his differing perception of happiness. He observes happiness as a state of precision which is very hard to realize as it is based on metaphysical conjecture which may seem both obscure and beyond ordinary understanding.

As per discussing the consistencies and differences, we generally observe that Socrates and Plato believe in the moral imperative. Socrates and Plato had a higher opinion of Humanity than Aristotle. Plato was more interested in understanding the relationship between the everlasting and absolute, and in what is more concise and 'flows' in nature. Socrates sustained that there were fixed rules for right and wrong. He believed in unending, absolute laws as human motive is eternal and immutable. Plato was interested in what is eternal and immutable as regards morals (right and wrong) both in society and nature. For Plato, both these problems were the same and hence for him there was no dichotomy. Aristotle rejected the extremes and thought man can live the good life by using all his capacities. For Aristotle, there are three ways that man could live a happy life. The first type of happiness is one of delight and pleasure. Second is the life of a liberated and accountable citizen and third is the life of a thinker or philosopher. He believed that one can lead a harmonious and balanced life if these mentioned ways of being are activated. Apparently, both Plato and Aristotle agreed on the ethics of a good life, and emphasize balance and self-control as the key factors.

I personally agree with Aristotle, as he believes in acting upon what we call a virtuous act. Because just the mere knowledge of things is not enough if we don’t practically apply it in our lives. Socratic views of self-awareness are also very appealing. As Plato’s viewpoint seems a little ambiguous, I somehow cannot relate to his philosophy of happiness as something unattainable as he calls it a state of utmost perfection that is almost unachievable. I rather agree with Socrates and Aristotle here that by developing self-awareness and realizing our latent potential, we can become happier and more content in our lives which is very humanly possible.