Philosopher's Theory Of The Happy Life example essay topic

Nina Monroe 16 April 2002 Philosophy: Ethics 6. What arguments are offered by Plato and Aristotle that the just life is happier that the unjust one? Do you find these convincing? Why or why not?

The Happy Life "So don't merely give us a theoretical argument that justice is stronger than injustice, but tell us what each itself does, because of its own powers, to someone who possesses it, and that makes injustice bad and justice good". 1 In this quote from Plato's Republic, Adeimantus challenges Socrates to demonstrate that justice is good in itself, and ultimately, to prove that the just life is the happiest life for a human being. Both Plato and Aristotle, two of antiquity's greatest philosophers, concern themselves with the issue of human happiness. Neither thinker considers fate to be the definitive factor for achieving happiness. Rather, Plato and Aristotle argue that our actions and thoughts play a significant role in creating a happy life.

This argument, as presented in Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, also asserts that a life in accordance with justice is the happy, or good, life. Thus, tracing each philosopher's theory of the happy life necessitates a discussion of their definitions of justice. Here too, the two philosophers show a great degree of agreement. Although the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle contain major differences in their fundamental principles, both thinkers take similar stances on the relationship between justice and happiness. Plato, through various Socratic dialogues, chooses to present his definition of justice in the context of a just state, later applying it to the case of a human. In the just state described by Socrates, each individual performs a certain function within society.

2 It is in this principle of proper functioning of each part, from which Plato derives a definition of justice. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that Plato was highly critical of Athenian democracy, which encouraged its citizens to try many different professions throughout each of their lives. Plato found that a certain element of conflict or turmoil arises from conditions that promote various parts of a system to meddle with the other parts. Plato's notion of justice clearly echoes his overall theory of a highest good, or the good in itself. The highest good is constituted by something completely above the sensible world, and understood only within the realm of intelligibility. The truths of the intelligible realm are ordered and unchanging.

3 Quite similarly, Plato's idea of the just life centers on a life characterized by an ordered and stable soul. In the just state, three main categories of people exist - the moneymakers, the soldiers, and the rulers. These three categories correspond directly with the three main divisions of the human soul - the appetitive, the spirited, and the reasonable. 4 Accordingly, a just life is achieved when the parts of the soul maintain their proper functions. After establishing a definition for the just life, Socrates still leaves us, along with Glaucon and Adeimantus, searching for an answer to the question of why the just life is happier that the unjust life.

In a general sense, the answer is obvious. The life of injustice means that conflict exists among the three parts of an individual's soul, thus upsetting one's inner harmony and happiness. Plato does not, however, fail to address the role of the pleasures in producing happiness. In fact, for Plato, happiness is based on pleasure, and each part of the soul has its own pleasure. The lowest division of the soul, the appetitive, derives pleasure from the fulfillment of the most base human desires, or pleasures of the physical body.

The spirited sector of the soul derives pleasure from the attainment of honor, and the highest sector, that of reason, finds pleasure in learning and understanding. 5 Plato believes that the pleasure of the intellect, or reason, is the most fulfilling. Therefore, a life of contemplation is a happy life for people. This relates to the idea of justice as well. The lower appetites of the soul must be kept sated, and the reasonable part of the soul must have control over all the appetites. Allowing the lower appetites to take over causes a condition of injustice, and thus unhappiness.

Reason governs the soul of a just person, as people called philosopher-kings, who represent the highest degree of reason and understanding, govern the just state. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle puts forth a similar argument in the defense of justice and its role in creating happiness. The just life, as he perceives it, is a life in accordance with virtue. Virtue involves a disposition to act and feel in a way that is in agreement with the mean, or in way that does not lend itself to extremes. 6 Therefore, like Plato, Aristotle finds that in order to lead a just life, one's soul must function properly. Furthermore, Aristotle asserts that happiness is the supreme good for human beings.

In fact, in the Nicomachean Ethics, the labels of 'happy life' and 'good life,' may be used interchangeably. In order to understand the relationship between the just life and the good life, Aristotle's criterion for a supreme good must be identified. In order for something to be a supreme good, it should be an end in itself, it should be complete, and it should be self-sufficient. 7 Just as Plato argues that justice is a good in itself, Aristotle finds that happiness is a complete and self-sufficient good. Also like Plato's philosophy, the crucial link between the just life and the happy life in Aristotle's teachings seems to have its basis in the idea of pleasure. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes good functioning of the soul, or just functioning of the soul, as doing something you are able to do well.

8 When this is the case, your life is pleasurable, and pleasure makes your life happy. In assessing the arguments put forth by Plato and Aristotle, I feel that both are very sound and convincing. Clearly, proving that one type of life is happier than another type, is a complex task, and there are several objections one might bring against the theory that the just life is happier than the unjust life. For example, I could easily agree with the objection that some acts of injustice, such as stealing money, will be a source of happiness to a certain extent.

In the stated situation, the injustice would bring me happiness to the extent that I would have the means to buy things that I desire. However, Plato and Aristotle discuss happiness in terms of on overall happy life, not just short periods, or moments, of happiness. In fact, Aristotle makes this distinction quite clear in the Nicomachean Ethics, where he refers to the happy life as eudaimonia, literally meaning the 'flourishing life'. This label expresses the idea that happiness is something that spans an entire lifetime. Next, the idea may be put forth that Plato's and Aristotle's assertions on the roles of wisdom and knowledge in creating a happy life are unreasonable. You may, for instance, pose the following question: why must a person possess some knowledge of the good, or of happiness, in order to be happy?

Obviously, both Plato and Aristotle find fault with the idea that ignorance is bliss, but why is that so? In the Republic, Socrates argues that wisdom is what causes a person to act virtuously, and that without wisdom, a person is ignorant and lives according to vice rather than virtue. Aristotle states that certain knowledge of why an action is good is necessary. Without this knowledge, a person has no internal motivation to act virtuously. Therefore, in response to those who claim that ignorant people can have happy lives, I believe Plato and Aristotle would agree that an ignorant person could believe he or she is living a happy life, but that this person is not truly happy. Like the prisoners in Plato's allegory of the cave, the ignorant person lives in a reality based on images and deception, rather than a reality based on true understanding.

Aristotle's stance is somewhat different in that he comprehends non-virtuous actions as a failure to use knowledge rather than as an indication of ignorance. However, both philosophers contend that the life of contemplation is more virtuous, and thus happier. Finally, concerning the role of human choice in the arguments of Plato and Aristotle on happiness, one could take the approach that both philosophers imply that without a certain degree of good fortune, happiness cannot be attained. For some, this implication would produce many objections, as a strong case for the possibility of happiness under even the most unfortunate circumstances could be made. Admittedly, Plato does assert that not everyone is suited to attaining an understanding of the good. However, his view on this issue is based in the theory that acting virtuously has a lot to do with the type of life you led in the past.

He argues that people desire to correct the errors they made in previous lives. Therefore, leading a just life and achieving happiness is not as much a matter of good fortune as it is a matter of a kind of moral progression throughout each of one's lives. This principle is described in the Republic using a story, called the Myth of Er, in which a man dies and then returns to Earth to tell of his experiences in the afterworld. 9 I believe the Aristotelian point of view would maintain a weaker defense in this debate. Aristotle feels that certain aspects of good fortune, such as a good upbringing and a good education, are only starting points for becoming virtuous. In addition, he does not view virtuousness as something innate.

Rather, nature gives humans only the ability to acquire virtue. However, while choice is certainly an essential part of obtaining virtue, Aristotle does not deny that particular conditions of upbringing and education are also crucial. Despite this specific weakness in Aristotle's assessment of the means by which a person is able to lead a just life, I find that both Plato's and Aristotle's works are convincing in their deliberations over which life is happier, the just or the unjust. Both philosophers succeed in showing that the just life is good in itself, and that for this reason, the just life is the happiest life for humans. Or, as Aristotle urges, "The belief that the happy person lives well and does well also agrees with our account, since we have virtually said that the end is a sort of living well and doing well.".