Nicomachean Ethics - Essay Example

Nicomachean Ethics A critical element in the comprehension of Aristotle’s ethics which have been complied and put forward by the philosopher in his book titled Nicomachean Ethics is associated with identifying who or what the philosopher deems as an ethical person on the basis of his understanding of morality, actions, the notion of the greater good and even life itself. Given the vast understandings and fundamental aspects that thrive in Aristotle’s assessment of human character, the purpose of this paper is to establish Aristotle’s concept of ‘virtue’ as supported by the argumentation that has been developed in Nicomachean Ethics. The root of Aristotle’s development of ideas and beliefs in his famous and most celebrated text can be traced back to the formulation of what comprises of ethics and what or who can be identified as an ethical person on the basis of philosophical foundations. Asserting Aristotle’s assumptions of ethics, Sherman brings the concept of the vicious versus the virtuous person in the dynamic by stating that the former is marked by a sense of instability that is not present in the latter thereby, creating a substantial difference or variance between the characters of the individuals who thrive on such distinct characteristics (18). Nonetheless, the idea which stems from highlighting this component of the postulation is that for Aristotle, even the most supposedly perfect ethical principles which are guided by capitalism, socialism or any other form of belief cannot be regarded as ‘perfect’ if the person who abides by them is an individual who is marked by a sense of viciousness. This argumentation introduces the philosopher’s concept of how only that individual who is virtuous can demonstrate the ability to adhere to the ultimate ethical principles and guidelines. Before establishing arguments for the comprehension of the true status of virtue, it is important to identify the process of how one can travel back to a state of virtuousness and what is that specific and decisive component that can allow an individual to strive towards the achievement and attainment of a state of supreme ethics. The answer to this query comes in the form of journeying back to one’s essence. For Aristotle, the foundation of the argument of essence is based upon distinguishing between substance and mean as the philosopher states: “…in respect of its substance and the definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme” (31). In the realm of Nicomachean Ethics the notion of essence is supported by outlining the real essence of human beings which in turn can be established as reason. Reason, in itself, is a single source of attaining the ability to demonstrate rational actions and pursue rational behaviors. From the preceding comprehensions, Aristotle allows humans to derive the ultimate good that emerges from the notion of rationality – the state of Eudaimonia. As stated by McDowell, Eudaimonia ascertains the attainment of principal good which emerges as the conclusiveness, finality and end for all that has been done by a human being (3). The motivation for choosing Eudaimonia may appear to be rather simple because the concept in itself appears worthy of being pursued and persistently attracts an individual towards it. Similarly, as per Aristotle’s argumentation the incentive which drives one towards Eudaimonia is rooted in the extraordinary and remarkable worth of the state itself such that it encompasses other drivers in life to become the epitome of distinction and leading an overall good, content and satisfied life. At this point, the philosopher’s primary case in favor of seeking eudemonia or the ultimate end can be supported by establishing a distinction between instrumental ends and the ultimate or intrinsic end (Sherman 152). From the perspective of Aristotle, the desire for seeking an instrumental rather than the ultimate end is sparked by the want for material possessions and goods, primarily money. However, the want for such a life negates the possibility of seeking ultimate happiness through the adoption of virtuous principles, actions and behaviors. While, it has been ascertained that virtue in itself guides towards the adoption of life decisions that could lead to the achievement of chief good or Eudaimonia, it is important to establish the nature of virtues as demonstrated by the arguments and cases that have been presented by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics. In accordance with Aristotle’s conception of his ethical principles, the selection of abiding by virtuous standards and behaviors such as reason is prompted effectively by two distinct yet comparable motivations – choosing virtue for its own worth and opting for virtue for the sake of attaining a state of happiness. In the light of this description, the true state of virtue is characterized by upholding moral standards and adhering to the said moral standards when performing actions, channeling certain thoughts or demonstrating specific behaviors. At this point in the development of Aristotle’s argument for virtue, the fundamental question which arises relates to the identification of those moral states which can indeed fall under the category of virtue and arguing against the presence of these states in the description of those behaviors or actions which are conducted by vicious persons. From a philosophical perspective, the determination of virtue is marred by the need to establish how the achievement of this trait can become possible and plausible, because despite of the fact that when the significance of virtue becomes known, the application of this concept may remain dubious and therefore, limit or restrict individuals from achieving Eudaimonia as per the assertions of Aristotle’s virtue ethics and its associated concepts. Consequently, if it has been established that the purpose of life is to work towards the achievement of an ultimate end then how would it be possible for an individual to determine that an action is worthy of being correctly labeled as a virtuous, most importantly as per the situation or scenario in which he/she is in. According to the argument which has been presented by Aristotle in this case, the notion of magnitude describes and distinguishes between the concepts of character, action, behavior and moral state as well as strength. Consequently, the adoption of suited virtues has been specified by Aristotle through the representation of his theory of ‘mean between extremes’. The basis of this conception is associated with striking a balance between moral states and standards to better ethical standards and advance the state of virtue. There on, one can assume that what Aristotle intends to promote and advance amongst humanity is an inherent understanding of moral stipulations and how virtue can be utilized to acquire a desirable state of equity, justice and balance which eventually leads to the achievement of the ultimate rather than the instrumental end. Moreover, the philosopher theorizes that in alignment with aiming for the achievement of a mean state in moral standards any magnitude which promotes excess or guides an action towards deficiency can be labeled as a vice such that too much of something, even if it is positive cannot be termed or deemed as desirable regardless of it affirmative associations. Thus, if virtues such as honesty, fairness, courage and confidence are highlighted to be positive behaviors then for Aristotle claims that it is important to conduct them as per the situation whereby, a mean is achieved as per the specific requirements of the scenario. For example, in one case the mean between extremes or virtuous behavior can be described as ‘courage’ however, if one delves into the excess of this action then it could be edge towards recklessness while, demonstrating a lack of this action could be labeled as practicing a deficiency of courage. While, Aristotle’s ethics demonstrate a state of balance and provide a comprehensive description of the consequences of the actions which can be achieved if one chooses to abide by them, it is still possible to raise certain critical objections on the matter by defying the representation of Aristotle’s arguments and beliefs regarding the case. One of the primary objections in this case stems from the clause that the demonstration and practicing of virtues should be situational such that one must only commit them in moderation and after critically assessing the requirements of the particular scenario. For example, in times of war a soldier is expected to show courage when battling with the enemy however, if the same soldier chooses go after a thief or robber in a normal situation when the right thing to do would be to call law enforcement personnel then this action could be regarded as reckless or even stupid behavior if the robbers are armed and can pose an obvious threat to the life and wellbeing of the soldier. In this case, it should be noted that the first instinct of the soldier would be to go after the robber even if he/she is unarmed because of the creation of a tough psychological mindset due to military involvement that has shaped the soldier’s psyche into immediately acting against any wrongdoing or transgression that essentially violates the safety, security and well-being of another individual. Thus, if Aristotle’s theoretical framework of ‘mean between extremes’ is applied to the mindset of a soldier then it would not work partially because of the individual’s personality and instinct that has the potential to impact decision making procedures in such scenarios. Accordingly, appropriating actions as per the specific incident becomes a lesser matter of concern when an individual is expected to act immediately in a given situation and reaction time therefore, becomes fairly shorter or even inexistent because of the nature of the situation. The aforementioned objections suggest that the situational applications of virtuous behaviors is not applicable in each and every scenario, therefore, the adoption of an ethical stance in such cases should not be based upon the situation but upon the outcomes and consequences of the situation depending upon whether the result has been favorable or unfavorable. For example, if the unarmed soldier is able to restrain the armed robbers then the act should be termed as courageous rather than a reckless action despite of the nature of the situation unless the outcome turns out to be negative or undesirable upon the adoption of the specified behaviors and actions. Works Cited Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics Translated by W. D Ross. Retrieved from [24th March, 2014] Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. NuVision Publications, LLC. 2003. Print. McDowell, John Henry. Mind, value, and reality. Harvard University Press, 1998. Sherman, Nancy, ed. Aristotles ethics: critical essays. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000. Read More