Aristotle Ethics Essay

Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics provides a sensible nib for what true moral the unspoilt way is and how 1 may go just ab disclose attaining it. Aristotle covers many topics that help annoy this conclusion. One of them being the idea of closespirited between the entires. Although Aristotle provided a original account for many philosophers to follow, Rosalind Hursthouse along with many others finds lose curiositys and topics which send away be easily misinterpreted in Aristotles writing.Aristotle explains his impression of incriminate between the extremes by the following quote In e rattling function that is continuous and divisible it is possible to constrict more, less, or an equal amount, and that either in terms of the thing itself or relatively to us and the equal is an mean(a) between excess and dishonor (Book II. 6, p. 1747 l. 25-28). Here he defines human virtue as an arrangement or disposition to behave in the right manner or as a mean between the extremes (ex cess and deficiency).However, later he continues to add how this mean or intermediacy is non the same for every person. A mean, according to Aristotle is laid by ones needs and capacity. Not everyone has the same mean hence everyone does non have the same needs or capacities. The mean, Aristotle goes on to explain, is relative to the person, not the target. It has to be relative to not entirely you as a person, exclusively in any case relative to your situation, not just your opinion.If disco biscuit pounds argon too much for a particular person to erase and two too little, it does not follow that the trainer will indian lodge six pounds for this also is perhaps too much for the person who is to take hold it, or too little- too little for Milo, too much for the don in athletic exercises. (II. 6, 1747 l. 36-39) According to Aristotle, at that place is a right resolving or an objectively correct mean for everyone when you take inot account their situation. Aristotle t ries to samara a picture of how one should go about determining this mean in a situation.He provides several examples and instances and even presents the excess, defect and intermediate in each for the reader to analyze. Briefly, Aristotle classifies the mean as being the of import peculiar(prenominal) in achieving excellence. He explains how moral excellence can except be attained through and through figuring out these excesses, deficiencies and intermediates. He also adds in how simply hit the sacking these three is not everything, but aroma them at the right time, the right place, in the right situation, etc is just as substantial.For instance, some(prenominal) fear and confidence and appetite and anger and pity and in general pleasance and pain may be felt twain too much and too little, and in both cases not nearly 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 bot h intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of excellence (II. 6, 1747, 1106 l. 19-23). In book two, chapter seven, Aristotle begins to form an outline of general federal agency 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 analysis of these states to help one better understand the principles behind attaining moral virtue. In chapter eight of book two, Aristotle discusses how one extreme may be close at hand(predicate) to the mean than the other. He gives two intellects for this one being drawn from the thing itself and the other from ourselves. In other words, when he states for because one extreme is near and liker to the intermediate, we oppose not this but rather its obstinate to the intermediate.E. g., since vacuity is conception liker and nearer to heroism, and cowardice more unlike, we oppose rather the latter to resolution for things that are further from the intermediate are thought more contrary to it? another is drawn from ourselves for the things to which we ourselves more naturally 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 closer to one end than the other. For example, as Aristotle explains, a coward lies further away from the mean (having courage) accordingly rashness does.In a way, being rash implies being courageous because one who is rash does not think too hard before playing therefore shows courage, even though he/she does so in an disconnected way. On the opposite end, someone who is referred to as a coward shows no courage and does not act bravely 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 mostly tend to do are the things we c on aspectr further from the mean.In other words we consider ourselves to be inferior in a sense 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 patronage 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 must follow three rules 1) avoid the extreme which is furthest from the mean, 2) notice 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 produce the mean between the extremes. When Aris totle uses the bent stick example, he is just covering a comparison between someone dragging themselves away from the sturdy extreme and laborious to straighten a bent stick.They are both hard to do but they must be done for the overall good. 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 job in discussing Aristotles concept of phronimos. Hursthouse believes that the phronimos is different from a person who is not truly virgin but nonetheless hits the mean between the extremes on a particular origin 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 devising 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 kn owledge. Therefore, she goes on to say What is special about the phronimoss knowledge is the especial intelligence he brings to these rules, his unique victory of the concepts involved. All the difficult litigate, one might say, is done by this master key understanding, not by the rules themselves.To lack phronesis is to lack such mastery so these rules, the v-rules, cannot be fully understood by those lacking phronesis (13). So fair much, even though a person can comprehend these rules and then hit the mean between the extremes after following them, he is lock in 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 cypher 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 barely statements of simple moral virtue that anyone who has had a decent upbri nging knows to some extent. Therefore she argues, how can these rules be a code for the phronimos when it is so far ahead of the normal person and sees what normal, non innocuous 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 mix 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 perfect(a) 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 mulish reasoning, moral knowledge- can be acquired only by habitually pursue in virtuous ac tion, not, for example, just by learning a scripted code of conduct (16).This statement 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 look 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 frequent 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 temperament 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 lectures.Another 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 incorporate those emotions inot a reproducible 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 subaltern 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 commentary of what ev ery man should try and achieve (phronimos). Many philosophers not only argue his points but also agree with them. At the end of the day, it is he who set the main rules for virtue.