If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/10079613/
‘The good’ for human beings: the meaning of Eudaimonia as the ‘final end’
- Virtue ethics is an agent-centered normative ethical theory (not an
act-centered theory) and thus determines the morality of an action based on
the character, motives, or inner dispositions of the person performing it,
rather than focusing solely on the consequences or the inherent rightness of
the act itself
- Eudaimonia is part of Aristotle’s holistic assessment of the character,
motives, or inner dispositions of the person
- Eudaimonia is the good life for humans.
- It is translated as "living well and faring well"
- It constitutes human flourishing (achieving the best life that a human can
live)
- To live well and do well, instead of merely being happy, is to realise your
function with arete
- For humans to live well and do well is therefore to live 'the life in accordance
with a rational principle' well, ie 'virtuously'- eudaimonia
- It therefore fits in within Aristotle's teleological perspective on the universe,
where everything has an ergon and final telos to achieve. For us humans, our
telos is eudaimonia.
- It is intrinsically good, and any other end (e.g happiness) is only
instrumentally good in so far as it helps us achieve eudaimonia.
- It is different to happiness in a few crucial ways. The main difference is that
happiness refers to a psychological state, whereas eudaimonia relates to a
way of living which enables someone to realise their potential. Happiness is
also subjective and wavering (it comes and goes very easily). Whereas
eudaimonia is objective and stable. It is an evaluation of life as a whole, and
so is far less wavering.
, - Eudaimonia encompasses all aspects of a person's life, including emotions,
intentions, actions and character.
- In this way, it is a lifelong process and evaluation
- This means that not everyone (e.g women or the poor) will be able to achieve
eudaimonia, as not everyone will have the same opportunity to grow
- It does not require us to be perfect all the time. Instead, Aristotle says that
achieving eudaimonia is about progress and developing virtues within the
mean that can enable us to flourish.
The relationship between Eudaimonia and pleasure.
- The main difference is that happiness refers to a psychological state,
whereas eudaimonia relates to a way of living which enables someone to
realise their potential.
- Happiness is also subjective and wavering (it comes and goes very easily).
- Whereas eudaimonia is objective and stable. It is an evaluation of life as a
whole, and so is far less wavering.
- Finally, Aristotle argued that eudaimonia is intrinsically good, whereas
pleasure is only instrumentally good. It is good insofar as it enables us to
achieve our telos.
- However, Epicurus argued that pleasure was the ultimate end and had
intrinsic value.
- Aristotle rejected this line of reasoning because sometimes pleasure can be
bad, e.g. it can lead to addiction to bodily pleasures
- So, adopting pleasure as humanity’s telos is self-defeating because it actually
leads to a lack of pleasure
- However, Aristotle highlighted that cultivating virtuous habits tends to lead to
pleasure.
- For example, if you gain a fixed disposition to play a musical instrument,
eventually it is pleasurable.
- So, pleasure’s role is not our final goal, but a by-product of being virtuous.
The function argument and the relationship between virtues and function.
- Virtue ethics is an agent-centered normative ethical theory (not an
act-centered theory) and thus determines the morality of an action based on
, the character, motives, or inner dispositions of the person performing it,
rather than focusing solely on the consequences or the inherent rightness of
the act itself
- The function argument is part of Aristotle’s holistic assessment of the
character, motives, or inner dispositions of the person
- The purpose of the function argument is to clarify what a human’s ergon is
and what a human being must realise in order to be living well and doing
well.
- The function argument thus seeks to clarify the concept of eudaimonia.
(P1) For all things that have a function, the good is thought to be that which resides
in the function
Aristotle is assuming that to understand what it means for something to be
“good,” we look at what it is for. A 'function' is related to the concept of being
'good' and to the virtues which make something good (eg the virtue of 'being
sharp' makes a knife a good knife).
(P2) The function of X is what is 'peculiar' to X.
“Peculiar” here means distinctive or unique. The function of something isn’t
just anything it does, but what sets it apart from other things.
(P3) To find the function of a human, we must find the life that is peculiar to
humans.
(P4) There are three kinds of lives: the life of nutrition and growth, the life of
perception, and the life in accordance with a rational principle.
(P5) The 'life of nutrition and growth' is common to plants and humans, so it is not
peculiar to humans.
(P6) The 'life of perception' is common to non-human animals and humans, so it is
not peculiar to humans.
(P7) The 'life in accordance with a rational principle' is not common to other beings
but is peculiar to humans.
Aristotle assumes that only humans are capable of this kind of life and that,
therefore, it must be central to our function
(C1) Therefore, the function of humans is to live 'a life in accordance with a rational
principle.'
A life lived in accordance with practical wisdom (phronesis) and theoretical
wisdom (theoria)
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/10079613/
‘The good’ for human beings: the meaning of Eudaimonia as the ‘final end’
- Virtue ethics is an agent-centered normative ethical theory (not an
act-centered theory) and thus determines the morality of an action based on
the character, motives, or inner dispositions of the person performing it,
rather than focusing solely on the consequences or the inherent rightness of
the act itself
- Eudaimonia is part of Aristotle’s holistic assessment of the character,
motives, or inner dispositions of the person
- Eudaimonia is the good life for humans.
- It is translated as "living well and faring well"
- It constitutes human flourishing (achieving the best life that a human can
live)
- To live well and do well, instead of merely being happy, is to realise your
function with arete
- For humans to live well and do well is therefore to live 'the life in accordance
with a rational principle' well, ie 'virtuously'- eudaimonia
- It therefore fits in within Aristotle's teleological perspective on the universe,
where everything has an ergon and final telos to achieve. For us humans, our
telos is eudaimonia.
- It is intrinsically good, and any other end (e.g happiness) is only
instrumentally good in so far as it helps us achieve eudaimonia.
- It is different to happiness in a few crucial ways. The main difference is that
happiness refers to a psychological state, whereas eudaimonia relates to a
way of living which enables someone to realise their potential. Happiness is
also subjective and wavering (it comes and goes very easily). Whereas
eudaimonia is objective and stable. It is an evaluation of life as a whole, and
so is far less wavering.
, - Eudaimonia encompasses all aspects of a person's life, including emotions,
intentions, actions and character.
- In this way, it is a lifelong process and evaluation
- This means that not everyone (e.g women or the poor) will be able to achieve
eudaimonia, as not everyone will have the same opportunity to grow
- It does not require us to be perfect all the time. Instead, Aristotle says that
achieving eudaimonia is about progress and developing virtues within the
mean that can enable us to flourish.
The relationship between Eudaimonia and pleasure.
- The main difference is that happiness refers to a psychological state,
whereas eudaimonia relates to a way of living which enables someone to
realise their potential.
- Happiness is also subjective and wavering (it comes and goes very easily).
- Whereas eudaimonia is objective and stable. It is an evaluation of life as a
whole, and so is far less wavering.
- Finally, Aristotle argued that eudaimonia is intrinsically good, whereas
pleasure is only instrumentally good. It is good insofar as it enables us to
achieve our telos.
- However, Epicurus argued that pleasure was the ultimate end and had
intrinsic value.
- Aristotle rejected this line of reasoning because sometimes pleasure can be
bad, e.g. it can lead to addiction to bodily pleasures
- So, adopting pleasure as humanity’s telos is self-defeating because it actually
leads to a lack of pleasure
- However, Aristotle highlighted that cultivating virtuous habits tends to lead to
pleasure.
- For example, if you gain a fixed disposition to play a musical instrument,
eventually it is pleasurable.
- So, pleasure’s role is not our final goal, but a by-product of being virtuous.
The function argument and the relationship between virtues and function.
- Virtue ethics is an agent-centered normative ethical theory (not an
act-centered theory) and thus determines the morality of an action based on
, the character, motives, or inner dispositions of the person performing it,
rather than focusing solely on the consequences or the inherent rightness of
the act itself
- The function argument is part of Aristotle’s holistic assessment of the
character, motives, or inner dispositions of the person
- The purpose of the function argument is to clarify what a human’s ergon is
and what a human being must realise in order to be living well and doing
well.
- The function argument thus seeks to clarify the concept of eudaimonia.
(P1) For all things that have a function, the good is thought to be that which resides
in the function
Aristotle is assuming that to understand what it means for something to be
“good,” we look at what it is for. A 'function' is related to the concept of being
'good' and to the virtues which make something good (eg the virtue of 'being
sharp' makes a knife a good knife).
(P2) The function of X is what is 'peculiar' to X.
“Peculiar” here means distinctive or unique. The function of something isn’t
just anything it does, but what sets it apart from other things.
(P3) To find the function of a human, we must find the life that is peculiar to
humans.
(P4) There are three kinds of lives: the life of nutrition and growth, the life of
perception, and the life in accordance with a rational principle.
(P5) The 'life of nutrition and growth' is common to plants and humans, so it is not
peculiar to humans.
(P6) The 'life of perception' is common to non-human animals and humans, so it is
not peculiar to humans.
(P7) The 'life in accordance with a rational principle' is not common to other beings
but is peculiar to humans.
Aristotle assumes that only humans are capable of this kind of life and that,
therefore, it must be central to our function
(C1) Therefore, the function of humans is to live 'a life in accordance with a rational
principle.'
A life lived in accordance with practical wisdom (phronesis) and theoretical
wisdom (theoria)
