Aristotle Ethics Essay

Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics provides a sensible account for what true good moralness is and how whizz may go ab stunned attaining it. Aristotle covers human beingsy topics that help reach this conclusion. One of them being the conceit of mean between the extremums. Although Aristotle provided a reli competent account for many philosophers to follow, Rosalind Hursthouse along with many others finds lose ends and topics which layabout be easily misinterpreted in Aristotles writing.Aristotle explains his concept of mean between the extremes by the following paraphrase In everything that is continuous and divisible it is possible to take much than, less, or an equal amount, and that either in toll of the thing itself or relatively to us and the equal is an medium between excess and break (Book II. 6, p. 1747 l. 25-28). here he defines human virtue as an arrangement or disposition to behave in the matureeousness manner or as a mean between the extremes (excess and defic iency).However, later he continues to add how this mean or intermediacy is not the same for every person. A mean, according to Aristotle is determined by unmatcheds needs and capacity. Not everyone has the same mean hence everyone does not have the same needs or capacities. The mean, Aristotle goes on to explain, is relative to the person, not the object. It has to be relative to not simply you as a person, moreover also relative to your situation, not just your opinion.If ten pounds be alike much for a specific person to eat and two too petite, it does not follow that the trainer will order sixsome pounds for this also is perhaps too much for the person who is to take it, or too little- too little for Milo, too much for the beginner in athletic exercises. (II. 6, 1747 l. 36-39) According to Aristotle, there is a right dish out or an objectively correct mean for everyone when you take inot account their situation. Aristotle tries to paint a picture of how one should go ab out determining this mean in a situation.He provides several examples and instances and horizontal presents the excess, defect and mediocre in each for the reader to analyze. Briefly, Aristotle classifies the mean as being the main characteristic in achieving excellence. He explains how moral excellence so-and-so only be attained through figuring out these excesses, deficiencies and intermediates. He also adds in how simply going these three is not everything, just now feeling them at the right time, the right place, in the right situation, etc is just as important.For instance, both fear and confidence and proneness and anger and pity and in general pleasure and pain may be felt both too much and too little, and in both cases not well but to feel them at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right aim, and in the right way is what is both intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of excellence (II. 6, 1747, 1106 l. 1 9-23). In book two, chapter seven, Aristotle begins to form an outline of general means that every person should be aw ar of.He talks about anger, pride, honor, the giving and taking of money, etc. By discussing these subjects he constructs an outline of summary of these states to help one better understand the principles behind attaining moral virtue. In chapter ogdoad of book two, Aristotle discusses how one extreme may be surrounding(prenominal) to the mean than the other. He gives two reasons for this one being drawn from the thing itself and the other from ourselves. In other row, when he states for because one extreme is impendent and liker to the intermediate, we oppose not this but rather its contrary to the intermediate.E. g., since rashness is thought liker and nearer to courage, and cowardice more unlike, we oppose rather the latter to courage for things that are further from the intermediate are thought more contrary to it? another is drawn from ourselves for the th ings to which we ourselves more natur entirelyy tend seem more contrary to the intermediate (II. 8, 1750, 1109 l. 4-14), he implies that when assessing the mean in relevance to the object itself, it can be seen that sometimes it falls close set(predicate) to one end than the other. For example, as Aristotle explains, a coward lies further away from the mean (having courage) then rashness does.In a way, being rash implies being courageous because one who is rash does not think too severely before acting therefore shows courage, even though he/she does so in an mazed way. On the opposite end, someone who is referred to as a coward shows no courage and does not act courageously but rather chooses to hide and do nothing. The second method Aristotle discusses is related to ourselves and what we assume to be closer to the mean. He says that the things we more or lessly tend to do are the things we con boldnessr further from the mean.In other words we con stancer ourselves to be wanti ng(p) in a soul because what we do seems to be the flip side of the intermediate. He says that since the extreme which is furthest from the mean is that which is the most contrary to the mean we describe the things we are most likely to lapse inot as contrary to the intermediate. In addition, referring back the courage example, people know that we are more likely to be cowardly than rash, so we are more aware of being deficient in courage. Aristotle goes on to discuss how one may figure out what extreme the mean is closer to.He says that to do so, one mustiness follow three rules 1) avoid the extreme which is furthest from the mean, 2) pecker what errors we are most likely to commit and avoid them diligently, and 3) be wary of pleasure because it often slows or blurs our judgment. If these three rules are obeyed, Aristotle says that we shall be able to hit the mean between the extremes. When Aristotle uses the bent stick example, he is just showing a comparison between someone dr agging themselves away from the bad extreme and trying to straighten a bent stick.They are both hard to do but they must be done for the overall candid. When you straighten the bent stick, you are drawing it away from one side and bringing it back to the middle, just as one must do with themselves. Rosalind Hursthouse does a very good enough job in discussing Aristotles concept of phronimos. Hursthouse believes that the phronimos is different from a person who is not sincerely yours innoxious but nonetheless hits the mean between the extremes on a particular occasion in the sense that the phronimos is a master in all the v-rules presented by Aristotle in his account.It is these v-rules that help the phronimos be as good at making decisions and making the right choices as Aristotle suggests he is. Hursthouse says that even though these v-rules exist, they do not capture what gives the phronimos his special knowledge. wherefore, she goes on to say What is special about the phroni moss knowledge is the especial fellow feeling he brings to these rules, his unique mastery of the concepts involved. All the difficult work, one might say, is done by this high-performance understanding, not by the rules themselves.To lack phronesis is to lack such mastery so these rules, the v-rules, cannot be fully understand by those lacking phronesis (13). So pretty much, even though a person can toil these rules and then hit the mean between the extremes after following them, he is still not doing that as well as the phronimos can because he/she is not capable of truly understanding those rules for what they are. Hursthouse thinks that there is no set code for the phronimos to follow. This code, often referred to as the v-rules discussed earlier, are not guidelines because they are not very hard to comprehend.They are only statements of simple moral virtue that anyone who has had a decent reproduction knows to some extent. Therefore she argues, how can these rules be a cod e for the phronimos when it is so far ahead of the normal person and sees what normal, non virtuous individuals cannot. This debate was primarily between the generalists and the particularists. The generalist said that the phronimos must know a code but the particularist denied it. Since the phronimos does not attain virtue through a code, Aristotle explains that his virtue is due to a proper upbringing mixed with the right lectures in adult hood.In other words, unless someone does not have the right childhood and does not learn the appropriate and virtuous ways of life during this childhood, he cannot grow up and attain phronimos by listening to a philosophers lectures because he is not equipped with the right tools to truly understand the essence of moral virtue. As Hursthouse states, Phronesis-excellence in practical reasoning, moral knowledge- can be acquired only by habitually engaging in virtuous action, not, for example, just by learning a indite code of conduct (16).This st atement holds true because once again, the phronimos differs from the normal non virtuous man not because he knows this code of conduct but because he knows how to properly interpret and apply it to life and his surroundings. He knows what to witness for in every situation whereas someone that only has a general understanding does not know what to look for. That is how the phronimos is able to make certain decisions that an ordinary person may not be able to make.Therefore, the phronimos not only has knowledge of these code-like rules, but he has special knowledge. Given the nature of virtue, it can be said that Aristotle does not give the best account one can in regards to moral living because he focuses too much on phronimos. His concept of phronesis seems to be unattainable almost because he repeatedly states that it cannot be attained through normal means. In a way he even insults philosophers by saying that a person cannot attain this perfect moral virtue through their lecture s.another(prenominal) reason is because Aristotle relies too much on emotions to get a person through. Kant argues this by saying that emotions are not everything. Reason is just as important if not more because it provides a way to hold those emotions inot a logical explanation or even to better understand them. Aristotle incorporates reason inot his work but stresses emotions even more so. Aristotle has provided a very strong base frame for moral virtue. He covers all the main concepts and points that should be noted.However, there are many lose ends in his work as well. He does not go inot much detail about the different situations that can arise when trying to do what is morally virtuous. However, overall Aristotle provides an accurate account. Aristotles Ethics are the ground work for many philosophers in trying to understand what moral virtue truly is. He provides a definition of what every man should try and achieve (phronimos). Many philosophers not only argue his points bu t also agree with them. At the end of the day, it is he who set the main rules for virtue.