Aristotle – The Micomachean Ethics (Books 1-IV attached)

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics
The function of man argument is defined in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. According to this view, to discover the human good, one must identify our function as human beings. The human function is regarded as a rational activity and so is our good, which is done in agreement with virtue. The human good is identified as happiness, and everyone aims to attain it in life. According to Aristotle, it is only possible to arrive at a clear conception of happiness if one first determines the function of a human being. According to the theory, for all things with a function, the good resides in the function (Aristotle. and Ross 1.6 1097b). Aristotle presents the example of a flute player to explain the meaning of function residing within the object. For one to be a flute player, he must know how to play it. The same case applies to happiness in that for one to be happy; happiness must exist inside.
Aristotle also argues that every action has a purpose that defines which other actions are done and in what way they are done (1.7 1098a). Medicine is practiced for the purpose of healing while a flute is played for music; every action, therefore, has a purpose. After establishing that every action has a purpose and that this helps in our understanding of the human good, he asked himself whether there was an end in mind for an action taken. He concluded that there was an overall good that all humans sought as their lives would be useless.

This goal is referred to as “Eudaimonia.” It is the highest good for all humans and determines what it entails to be a good human being. The eudaimonic life as depicted by Aristotle is achieved through virtuous activity and reason (Aristotle and Ross 1097b22) It involves living well through being compassionate and in general happy. Eudaimonia requires action. Therefore, it is not enough to possess a squandered disposition. Aristotle claims that excellence is achieved by living in agreement with reason and involving the necessary competencies. For example, if to be a politician you require good oratory skills, then it would be right to say that having good oratory skills is a necessity for one to be a politician. The excellence of character as depicted by Aristotle is important in exercising reason. Virtue is, therefore, a component of the good life.
The mean as used by Aristotle is not an arithmetic mean; rather it is the balance between two ends of a virtuous trait. Aristotle gave two types of virtue; the moral virtue which comes from one’s character, and intellectual virtues which involve knowing a situation and what it demands from you. Aristotle described different virtues through tabulation and the effects of deficiencies or excesses of the virtues. The mean may be nearer to an end or far away from another end. One has to be on the right end of the virtuous disposition and act in the right way at the right time (Aristotle and Ross 1097b22)). This is what is known as hitting the mean.
For example, gentleness is the right mean concerning anger. The excess of anger would be irascibility while the deficiency in anger would be a spiritless person who may be too gentle to defend himself. An irascible person, on the other hand, would be angry at all times and to the wrong people. Anger should, therefore, be against the right people, on the right grounds, and at the right time. According to Aristotle, knowing when to be angry and to who may be difficult. The reason is therefore applied in evaluating when to take a particular disposition concerning anger and gentleness. According to Aristotle, a small excess is not bad and therefore just know the right time to act in excess. It is, however, important to note that one with a deficiency is often regarded as being more virtuous than one with an excess regarding this virtue.
Take an example of a situation in a hospital where you had taken your relative who is in a critical condition. The doctor who is to attend to him is nowhere to be seen. He is contacted but arrives after two hours later and as he passes the smell of alcohol hits your nostrils. Which is the best disposition to take? A virtuous person would, in this case, be expected to reprimand the doctor for his uncaring attitude. Life is at stake, but he seems not to care otherwise he would have immediately responded. He is also not supposed to be drinking during working time as he is involved in sensitive duties. Some little amount of anger would be necessary for this scenario. It would be good to tell him what is at stake and what his behavior might cause in future so that no lives are lost in future. The excess would be depicted by one who results to blows, slaps and kicks towards the doctor for his behavior. Deficiency, on the other hand, would be depicted by one who does nothing; does not question or reprimand. This would seem to imply that he is comfortable with the actions, which is not the case.
Both Aristotle’s and Utilitarianism theory are concerned with the attainment of happiness. In both theories, happiness is the end. However, the two views exhibit notable differences. Aristotle’s main teaching is that virtue is based on choosing the mean. He argues that happiness should be determined by the end of an action. One should take an action that brings happiness at the end even if it brings suffering now. If one loves his job but is unhappy with the salary from it, then someone else that worked in a miserable job but earned higher pay than him would be happier than him. The man who worked miserably for the whole of his life earned enough money that would support him after retirement and would, therefore, be happier than the other man. Aristotle was also of the view that happiness was best attained through practicing virtue in their day to day life. For example, one who assists the helpless, the sick, and the hungry through giving them money will feel happier after his actions than another who went on an expensive luxury trip.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, focuses on the maximization of utility. According to this theory, an action undertaken should aim at making a good number of people happy (Mill 92). For example, if a crossing pedestrian endangers the life of about twenty passengers in a vehicle, the driver would be advised to hit him and save the rest. The outcome, therefore, determines the moral worth of an action. Aristotle’s theory is more logical as compared to Utilitarianism. The view that death is right if it leads to the saving of more lives may not go well with many people. All lives are important; there is no one better than the other.
Works Cited
Aristotle., and W. D Ross. The Nichomachean Ethics. 1st ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. Print.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, Liberty, and Representative Government. 1st ed. London: Dent, 1910. Print.