NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
University: Lecturer: Course: Date: Aristotle's ideas on happiness, justice, and friendship Aristotle's ideas on human virtues ultimately became compiled into ten books commonly called the Nicomachean Ethics. Nicomachus was Aristotle's son, and whether the ten books were written by Aristotle as a dedication to the son, or were compiled by the son, is not clear. Suffice it to say that the ten books covered virtually all facets of living as perceived in those days. Even now, most of what was written in the books is still valid and applicable. Nicomachean Ethics flow from the first book to the tenth book. To understand them well, it is ideal to follow the sequence from the first.
The first book mostly introduces the whole subject matter of human virtues, outlining the scope of Aristotle's arguments. The second describes moral virtues, defining the concept and listing examples of such virtues. One of the virtues thus listed is courage and temperance, the subject of the third book. The fourth book discusses the other types of moral virtues.
And so on. A quick glance at the way the Nicomachean Ethics were organized shows that some subject matters were more crucial or complex in scope than others. For example, the entire fifth book is dedicated to the virtue of justice. The scenarios presented to support the arguments are rather outdated, but they still hold true. The sixth book is dedicated on the types of intellectual virtues available. The types thus presented (knowledge, prudence, wisdom, art and intuition) would not agree with a modern scrutiny of the intellect.
Overall, Nicomachean Ethics evolved under the premise that all human deeds are a means to an end. And since the search for comfort and prosperity is amongst the most basic needs of the human, then it follows that cultures should evolve a system of sustaining virtues that will lead to this goal (Ross, 2004). And a coherent system would need to have properly defined ideas on justice, friendship and happiness- for it is through this that the members of the society can coexist. Aristotle's perception of happiness differed from the conventional perception on several key points.
According to him, happiness is not a short term state of the mind or personality. It is not a mood. Happiness is a long-term, individual status produced by the inter-play of the individuals virtues, fortune and health. For one to be happy, he or she would need to be aware of and practice a certain level of virtuous existence. He or she would also need to have a certain amount of fortune, whether from personal effort or incidental luck. And his or her body would need to be free of any ailments or injuries.
Thus, the degree to which one could be said to be happy could be judged according to the satisfaction of these three requirements. And because of this, happiness is actually a final status, self sufficient, and the product of all our lifetimes activities. Aristotle's concept of justice is so wide and complex that he split it into two main categories: general justice and particular justice. He covered both in his fifth book of the Nicomachean Ethics.
General justice concerns the relationship of this virtue with others, and the simple obedience to existing rules. Particular justice is more convoluted, and is further subdivided into to subcategories. The first subcategory concerns itself with unjustly gains. In this, Aristotle shows the difference between being moral and being just. For example, he shows that adultery as a form of self indulgence is not unjust, though it may be immoral. But adultery for any kind of gains other than pleasure is unjust.
Similarly, physical violence may be wicked, but only unjust if someone uses it for gains. In this way, this first subcategory consists of all activities whereby the gain of money or safety is the motivation. It is concerned with all sorts of unfair play between people (Etext, N. D). The second subcategory of justice deals with all other sorts of unlawful behavior which is not unfair. Its scope is then wider than the first category, since being unfair is unlawful, but being unlawful is not necessarily unfair.
This second subcategory of justice is mainly blind to the context and subject of the issues at hand, and seeks to restore equality between the parties concerned. Due to this, it is mainly concerned with scenarios where any kind of transaction has occurred, since then equality can be restored by simply taking from the one who has taken more and giving it to the one who had taken less. On friendship, Aristotle maintained that friends can either make up or break down the individual. They are like a part of the self, an extension of the individual that contributes to the overall well being of the individual.
Due to this, friendship can be seen as a virtue- a personal attribute that defines the individual. There are three levels of friendship, according to Aristotle. The first level consists of all friends that one interacts with in pursuit of a gain. Aristotle called these utility friends. In modern language, they would be seen as acquaintances people that one interacts with in the process of a certain business transaction, and then breaks away from afterwards, until the next such transaction. In most cases, acquaintances are rarely remembered after the transaction is finished.
And because people at this level of interaction rarely take the time to know each other well, this is also the level at which quarrels and disputes can arise easiest. The next level of friendship according to Aristotle is pleasure friendship. It describes the kind of interaction experienced by people who share an interest or hobby, but probably not their personal lives. For example, sportsmen may acknowledge each other during the sports, and even display concern for each others well being. But beyond the sports, they may not interact at all. This kind of friendship usually disappears once the activity that is bringing the two people together is over.
The third level of friendship is the genuine, long-term interaction between people that is based on personal character rather than activities or hobbies. This kind of friendship does not have time limits, and is usually unconditional, as long as the people involved retain their personalities. In modern times, it can be seen as true friendship, whereby no terms have been placed on its existence. In the contemporary work situations, the kind of friendship usually observed is at the first and second levels. I have worked as a waiter in the past, and have experienced these kinds of interrelationships first hand. With my boss, the interrelationship was definitely the utility type.
We worked and interacted together as long as I was an employee in that business, and as long as I performed well in my job. These terms were made clear to me right from the start. We did not share hobbies or any other interests with my boss. Personal livelihood was always kept out of our conversations, and the conversations were always related to business. In fact, my interaction with my boss was always about the bottom line: profit. My interaction with my boss was different from the kind of relationship I had with my fellow waiters in the business.
We soon bonded with each other, especially since we had to interact much more often, and had roughly the same hobbies and interests. But even with them, there was an invisible line between our shared interests and our personal lives. During our free time, we would discuss our hobbies, but never about our backgrounds. When I finally left the job, our correspondence ceased all together. We no longer had a common ground once I moved out of the general locality, and there was no motivation to reach out to these former colleagues. Aristotle pointed out a core feature of modern living: the focus on pleasure.
According to him, the desire for pleasure has given rise to all sorts of evil. The main types of evil that Aristotle identified are brutality, vices and incontinence. Brutality is observed in modern work relationships, whereby some individuals take undue advantage of others in pursuit of personal gains. The activities involved in such brutish behavior are often considered uncivil. There may be no law against them, but they run against the society's grain. For example, being macho may give the males undue advantage over their female counterparts, yet there may be no law strictly defining the activities involved as unlawful (Sparknotes, N.
D. ). Aristotle differentiated pleasure from happiness. Pleasure serves itself, is usually premeditated, and has a conclusive beginning and end. This definition still holds true. He also contended that pleasure is a result of the interaction of perceptual objects and perceptual capacities. Perceptual objects are the sources of the pleasurable feeling.
To an observer, a flower can be a perceptual object. The perceptual capacity is the sense within the individual being used to perceive. Sight hence is the perceptual capacity being used to perceive the flower, and hence generate the pleasure. This simple association is also largely valid even now. The external world is perceived through our senses and thus generates the feelings of pleasure.
From this simple association hence, it is possible to design a civic work atmosphere whereby pursuit of pleasure at the expense of productivity is discouraged. This can be achieved by reducing the amounts of distractions in the workplace: unnecessary procedures, bureaucracy and so on. All these distractions provide an avenue for the individual to lose focus and instead indulge in pleasure seeking ventures. The concept of the Golden Mean by Aristotle holds the view that any normal and desirable state is actually a balance between two extreme and undesirable states. In other words, any virtue is located between two vices. This was a development from the medical idea that being healthy was a matter of being in equilibrium.
The idea behind the Golden Mean is that people can coexist together if they avoid extremes. Aristotle pointed out the moderation thus required was relative to the individual and context. This concept can still be applied even in todays work relationship. For every civil interaction, a range of moderate behavior can be specified, and thus define what is acceptable and what is not.
Since people differ in personalities and capacities, having a range of acceptable behaviors is more realistic and workable than having an absolute line between good and bad (constitution, N. D. ). And finally, Aristotle's ideas on particular justice are still applicable to civil relationships today. For example, his perception on over-reaching contended that there are some areas that the law does not cover, that are still within the boundaries of particular justice. When someone takes undue advantage of situations or personal status to gain unfairly, it might be hard to define the act in legal terms as unjust. In fact, the person may be deliberately taking advantage of a loop-hole within the legal system.
But in a society whereby particular justice prevails, no such legal loop holes are possible, since Aristotle's particular justice is more flexible in interpretation, while still retaining its validity. Works Cited: Constitution (N. D. ). Nicomachean Ethics, Book 2, Chapter 3.
Retrieved from web accessed on 25 th February, 2009. Etext (N. D. ) Aristotle's: Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, Chapter 2. Retrieved from web accessed on 25 th February, 2009 Ross, W. D. Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle Kessinger Publishing, 2004 pgs 3 - 5.
Sparknotes (N. D. ). Nicomachean Ethics, book 2 summary Retrieved from web accessed on 25 th February, 2009.
Free research essays on topics related to: long term, personal lives, first book, nicomachean ethics, n d
Research essay sample on Nicomachean Ethics Personal Lives
