Compare and Contrast Essay of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is an analysis of character and intelligence as they relate to happiness. Here, Aristotle distinguished two kinds of "virtue," or human excellence: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue is an expression of character, formed by habits reflecting repeated choices. It is a mean between two less desirable extremes. Courage, for example, is a mean between cowardice and thoughtless rashness. Intellectual virtues are not subject to this doctrine of the mean. Nevertheless, it seemed Aristotle argued for an elitist ethics: where what's good or virtuous can be realized only by the mature male adult of the upper class, not by women, or children, or barbarians. It was noted in class that these may have been (non-Greeks), or salaried "mechanics" (manual workers). In politics, many forms of human association can obviously be found. Aristotle did not regard politics as a study of ideal states in some abstract form, but rather as an examination of the way in which ideals, laws, customs, and property interrelate in actual cases. He thus approved the contemporary institution of slavery but tempered his acceptance by insisting that masters should not abuse their authority, since the interests of master and slave
are the same. It seemed to Aristotle that the individual's freedom of choice made an absolutely accurate analysis of human affairs impossible. "Practical science," then, such as politics or ethics, was called science only by courtesy and analogy. The inherent limitations on practical science are made clear in Aristotle's concepts of human nature and self-realization. Human nature certainly involves, for everyone, a capacity for forming habits; but the habits that a particular individual forms depend on that individual's culture and repeated personal choices. All human beings want "happiness," an active, engaged realization of their innate capacities, but this goal can be achieved in a multiplicity of ways. John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism (Latin utilis,"useful"), in ethics, the doctrine that what is useful is good, and consequently, that the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results. The term utilitarianism is more specifically applied to the proposition that the supreme objective of moral action is the achievement of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This objective is also considered the aim of all legislation and is the ultimate criterion of all social institutions. Utilitarianism is likewise at variance with the view that moral distinctions depend on the will of God and that the pleasure given by an act to the individual alone who performs it is the decisive test of good and evil. These are the general conceptions of Aristotle's Normative Ethics and John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism; however, this paper aims to portray specific correlations as well as the differences on their individual notions of Hedanism (good (which is sometimes called virtue = pleasure/happiness), and morality is a word which would encompass all of these terms. Aristotle begins the Nicomachean Ethics with the question of what the chief good is for human beings. Notice two things: His question is what life is best for us, whether it be individually, or communally. B. Even though he holds that what is intrinsically good about, e.g., pleasure, wisdom, and honor is different, nonetheless there must be a single chief good. Why? Because otherwise any conflicts between intrinsic goods would be irresolvable. Since every action aims at some good, if there is a basis for choice between "final" goods, it must be some "more final" or "most final" good. This is the chief good. Some definitions: Aristotle calls a good final if it is desired for its own sake. Not all final goods are equally final; some are more final than others. Call one good more final than another if it is never desired for the sake of the other, although the other can be desired for the sake of it. Call a good final without qualification if it "is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else." Aristotle remarks that there is broad agreement that the chief good is eudaimonia (happiness), but which might better be understood as flourishing, living and doing well. Eudaimonia is generally thought to be "most final." Any other final good we may also desire for the sake of a flourishing life, but such a life we desire only for its own sake. Therefore it is the most final good. This reminds me of Mill's argument when he said that everything else we desire for its own sake, we desire as part of happiness. This comes straight out of Aristotle. In efforts to "drive this point home", Aristotle said the practically wise person does not simply deliberate well relative to those ends she has as morally virtuous (e.g. to be brave, just, temperate, and so on), and which she has acquired through upbringing. She pursues these ends for their own sake, and chooses acts of these kinds for their own sake, and chooses for its own sake to be the kind of person who cares about doing these kinds of things for their own sake, and so on. But, intrinsically desirable as these specific virtuous actions are, they are not the most final end, that, after a
Some common words found in the essay are:
Mill Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Happiness Mill, Whereas Aristotle's, Nevertheless Aristotle, Aristotle Mill, World Series, Mill Mill's, Utilitarianism Latin, Mill's Mill, own sake, final final, practical science, desire own, intellectual virtues, desire own sake, moral virtues, kinds own sake, human nature, final chief, sake desire happiness, mill's happiness, final desired, relate passions emotions, courses action choice,
Approximate Word count = 3153
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
