The Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle - Essay Example

Task: The Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle Introduction In his Nichomachean ethics, Aristotle defined the virtue of molarity as a disposition. He describes it as being in the nature and character of a person to have the right behavior accepted by the society. He presents it as the mean of the extremes of excesses and deficiency, which in itself, have the consideration of vices. He insists that humans learn the virtue of molarity though a habit or practicing something for a period of time. His definition of virtue includes having a socially accepted attitude towards the feelings of pleasure and pain. The view of Aristotle display a patient and descriptive approach towards the ethical issue of moral virtue. The central issue that Aristotle presents is the question of, what it takes for an individual to have the term of a moral and good person. He is of the opinion that the character of an individual determines how he or she responds to a similar situation, meaning that habits of people to behave in certain ways relies on their dispositions. Humans have a choice and capability of having a good moral character, something that they can derive from within themselves, more of an in-built mechanism. An example given by Aristotle is when an individual is facing an imminent threat of danger. Individuals will react to the situation with either the feeling of fear or courage. In the case of a person with the disposition of courage, his actions will depend on the mean between the excessive deficiencies of having cowardice tendencies, or have an excess of rashness in making decisions. The excessiveness makes the individual acts with courage to the situation. The application of the virtue of molarity as explained by Aristotle requires the flexibility of the mind, where there can be the full accommodation of the two extremes of mean of virtue. His analysis and explanations on moral value may have complexity in understanding, but the goal to understanding his explanations on moral virtue is in avoiding the extremes of situations, and seeking a balance, a moderation to situations. Moral virtue requires the moderation, where the character of a person in doing what is right according to the eyes of the society prevails. He relates the moral disposition of a person at doing well as related to the derivation of pleasure in their lives. He intimately connects pleasure to the good moral character of an individual. The essay has a focus on the definitions and explanations of Aristotle in the Nichomachean ethics, where he explains pleasure and moral virtues. It aims at making an argument either for the Aristotle values on the subject of good moral character, where he insist that the moral virtue depends on the nature of a person. There are critiques of the Aristotle Nichomachean ethics, who argue that having good morals does not depend on the character of the individual, but the habit of a person in practicing what the society terms as a god moral behavior. The essay critically observes both sides of the argument, looking into detail the critiques of Aristotle on the issues of pleasure and moral conduct. The essay will then focus on the side of the argument that prevails, where the writer takes a stand on either side of the argument. Exposition The Nichomachean ethics of Aristotle analysis pleasure, insisting that pleasure depends on the individual. He preserves pleasure as a main goal of human beings. Man will attempt anything as long as it makes him happy. Moral goodness depends on the same principle where man can chose to do good, same way they can strive to achieve pleasure. It is in their character to achieve the two vices. Having a good moral character and having happiness in life all depend on the cultivation of virtue. The principle of virtue can have either an individualistic or a societal basis. Similar to a Buddha middle path analysis, Aristotle defines that having a good moral character depends on the mean of balances between two excesses that define the situation (Aristotle 2012, p. 368). A difference with the beliefs of Aristotle and his way of examining a good moral character with the Budhaistic analysis is on the issue of virtue. The Aristotle explanation relies on mean of the two extremes of a situation relying on the principle of virtue. The middle path argument for the Buddha is that the method of using a mean relied on a peaceful manner in which humans sought for their own happiness, and hence, their search is what determined whether they can have the definition of a good moral character. The middle path of the Buddha movement insists on the habit of the individual, and his ability of seeking what matters to him in life, principally, as an individual. It is a prerequisite for the meditative type of life, a peaceful life where the individual negotiates through the extremities of a harsh type of ascetic and the search of pleasure. The belief of Aristotle in the virtue of having a good moral character relies on the purpose of a person to do well. He takes the belief that all actions and questions must have a purpose, and their purpose should be for the achievement of some sort of good. Humans seek for pleasure in their lives, something that they always desire. If they have to search for this often elusive feeling, then the pleasure intent and solution must be of a good nature. Ultimately, this chief need of goodness should have an influence on how humans decide to live their lives as they aim for the achievement of the ultimate goal of pleasure. In the same breath, politics, social and ethical philosophy also has the same characteristics and ambitions. The actions of an individual, where he achieves the good moral character in his life impacts on the rest of the population, leading to the same state in the whole nation. In further explaining the moral character of a person, Aristotle deflects the morality virtue to conventions of people (Aristotle 2012, p. 370). The people already know what is good, and they are the best judges of the good in the society. The final goodness in having an impressive moral character should have self-fulfilling effects, which is an isolated feeling and calls for the lack of nothing. The virtue of humans, therefore, depends on the individual soul of a person, which has the components of rationality and irrationality. The virtues of molarity and intellect all correspond to the reason of an individual. In his argument, there is no possibility that virtue, of happiness or molarity, can be as a result of a habit. It has to be in the nature of an individual to have the moral obligation to do well. This means that, there is impossibility of assuming that habit alone can be the cause of the nature of humans in their molarity judgment. Habit, after all, is the result of the nature of a person, and one cannot create a habit in his life that has difference from their basic nature. It, therefore, concludes that nature of a person is the sole source of the moral convention of a human. The skill of performing good moral acts, originally from the nature of man, is the only way to create a habit of having a good moral standing. Different Views of other Philosophers The Aristotle beliefs on the character and good nature of a person has had several discussions over the years, which modern philosophers insisting on the habit of an individual as playing a major role in determining the moral character of a person. By Aristotle having absolute faith in the character of an individual, he expects that every individual has a level of goodness in his heart, something he aspires to accomplish in every day of his life (Aristotle 2012, p. 369). In sense, this means that we should trust the intentions of others. It is having a substantial amount of behavioral reliability in other people. The issue is, people do not have behavioral reliability. The level of trust in other people, as a society, is at its best, questionable. It means that we should have absolute trust in the babysitters of our children. Trust in the drivers on the road to follow traffic rules. Trust that people will behave in a socially acceptable manner and not do social crime such as murder and robbery. The society, however, does not afford us the luxury of doing that. John Doris criticized the analysis of Aristotle on the moral character of people in the society. He maintains that the society behaves only because of the current situation the individual has the fortune or misfortune of being. It means that, in a situation that forces the individual to act out of his moral character, then he will do so. In an example, in the case a driver is in a hurry to get somewhere, he will disobey the traffic rules, especially if he is in a fairly isolated area. In his attempt to explain away Aristotle, the philosopher claims that humans have an adept o observing and analyzing issues only through the way they observe them, and try to explain away any existing contradictions. Aristotle, in his claims that molarity, as a virtue, depends on the character of the person, had a problem of perceiving the society as a consistent variable, something it is not. According to the situational philosophy of Doris, the situation of a place determine the moral reaction of a person. The habitual decisions that a person makes in a certain situation eventually make up the moral character of an individual. Another critique of Aristotle is the Kantian philosopher, Gregory Trianosky. He wrote the book of ‘Natural Affection and responsibility for Character’. He strongly opposes the Aristotle thinking that the character of an agent determines his moral virtue. His argument is that the will of a person, especially at doing well, can have sufficiency at doing the best moral acts. The attitudes, reactive capacities, skills and reactions of a person can have development through individual will, but their development cannot have sustenance through the will. The character of a person depends on the voluntary actions he commits, and their temperament as an individual, combined with the history of their upbringing from childhood. Their childhood experiences, expectations of peer, social environment and happenstance majorly contribute to good moral character. All these factors shape the habits of the individual, meaning that his acts in the society will have the support of their habits developed throughout the years. Analysis The critics of Aristotle share some common values in their arguments. They agree on the fact that there is an obligation of the society to act in a socially accepted way in relation to their morals. Individuals have the inclination to do well, but the situations they are in can determine the actions they take. They have a common agreement that humans seek for pleasure in their lives, and although there is a difference in how they seek that pleasure, the virtue of molarity remains a common ground for all the parties (Aristotle & Bartlett 245). Aristotle makes a valid claims that many have used all the years since their establishment. Several philosophers, however, do not agree with the Aristotle principle that morality depends on the disposition, or otherwise, the character of a person. Having so much faith in the character of a person would mean that everybody in the world strives and actually does good, out of his morality and the need to achieve pleasure. This is not the case. There is a lot of evil, crime and mistrust in the society, where not everybody has the capability of goodness. The specific situation can determine what a person actually des in a situation, but the possibility of being in the same situations in several occasions during a lifetime is a hard factor. This is, however, unless that situation is an occupation. Random situations and how and what an individual decides to act cannot be a good basis for judging his morality. A situation can have the nature of randomness and, therefore, a repeat of the situation does not have consistency. The argument that the will to do well does not have the ability of sustaining a development of the virtue of morality makes more sense. Every member of the society cannot have the assign of the same proportion of trust that they will act in a socially acceptable manner of goodness. Factors such as their childhood experiences and the expectations of their peers may shape the moral nature of a person. It means that the habits of a person, developed through their lifetime, can have a strong determination of the moral nature of a person. An individual who has had a rough and traumatic childhood can have a different understanding of moral obligations in the society from an individual who had a happy childhood. Conclusion The Aristotle defines morality as a virtue. He connects it to the nature of the individual. He has a total trust of the reliability of persons in the society, where he believes that they all have the intention and strive of doing well in the society. The achievement of a good moral character depends on the extremities of the mean of the situation. In the same way, the society has the main goal of achieving pleasure in their lives. There are, however, different t views and opinions of other philosophers. John Doris, for example, believes that the nature of a person cannot determine the moral character of an individual, but the situation the individual finds himself determines the moral actions. Gregory Trianosky, on the other hand, insists that the habits of an individual determines the moral character of an individual. All the philosophers, however, have the common belief that moral obligation depends on the societal expectations. Work Cited Aristotle & Bartlett, Robert. Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics. Mason OH: University Of Chicago. 2012. Print. Read More