Plato Believes Virtue Suffices For Happiness example essay topic

Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Nietzsche all had their own ideas for which one could reach happiness in his / her life. All have similarities in there reasoning except Nietzshe, who contradicts the others entirely. Plato states that to understand virtue is happiness. In turn virtue suffices for happiness and is necessary. Also he intuits that human reasoning prevails over spirited element or a person's appetite. Aristotle's arguments relate with Plato, but he builds more to it and finds his own answers.

He agrees that all people desire happiness and virtue is necessary for happiness. In same mind with Plato, Aristotle says happiness comes from perfecting our minds and characters. Unlike Plato, Aristotle questions and concludes that virtue does not suffice happiness. His definition of happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance with the most perfect virtue. He believes one must be active and make full use of his / her rational capacities to function well.

This perfecting of ones character was Aristotle's key to happiness. Augustine shares with that of Plato and Aristotle that virtue is necessary, but he disagrees that is all of what is needed. He denies that the perfection of one's character suffices for virtue or happiness. His revelation is that the chief good is happiness. Being the highest good, it cannot be attained in one's physical life. Brought forth is the balance of the natural realm and the supernatural realm.

This consists of the Cardinal Virtues and the Faith Virtues. This means to follow and to love God. To Augustine, achieving salvation is the highest good, therefore happiness. Nietzshe shares nothing in common with the other three philosophers. He states that perfection doesn? t come from being morally good nor through religion; rather from self-mastery and free exercise of ones creative powers. His virtues (Master Morality) consist of pride, self-assertion, power, cruelty, honor, rank, and nobility.

The Faith Values of Augustine are Nietzshe?'s? Slave Morality? The conclusion is that we as people make our own happiness and we determine right and wrong. The striving and achieving of power is happiness. I agree mostly with Augustine that happiness consists of our physical life as well as what we determine our supernatural beliefs. He would probably argue for strict Catholicism, but I see no problem with other beliefs as long as one focuses on the morally good.

Although Nietzsche has extreme points, some are legitimate. Self-mastery and the use of creative powers can attribute to happiness if used correctly. I find that all the views are a bit primitive. If any of the mentioned people were alive in the world today his views would be dramatically changed. 2.

The Platonic virtue of justice consists with that of the human soul, the virtues Plato holds important, and personality types of the people. Justice is the virtue of the soul and it allows it to perform its function well. To live happily and morally one must be just. One who understands goodness will comprehend Plato's Idea of the Good. He finds that wisdom and courage are needed virtues. As these virtues are understood they work in harmony and lead to the virtue of temperance.

The soul is now enabled to perform its function well. Justice follows from this harmony. To be virtuous one must be in accordance with the right conduct. Plato states our actions must reflect the desired inner harmony of our soul. Right conduct is that which promotes, sustains, or issues from virtuous character. One must look at the effects of his / her actions and decide if it leads to a virtuous soul and character.

3. Plato and Aristotle reason that ones functions relate to the metaphysical. Plato created the titles of? the world of forms? and? the world of shadows? The world of forms is based on the spiritual and the world of shadows is what is physical.

His focus is on the importance of what is spiritual. His teleology focuses on the soul. Aristotle's views are slightly different. Like Plato, Aristotle shares the idea that human beings cannot find everything they need in the physical world. Aristotle finds the soul as a tool to perform certain functions needed for happiness. This will lead to a virtuous person.

Both Plato and Aristotle are seeking to find what true happiness is and how one can obtain it. They see that humans have the power to reason, which sets us apart from animals. This power leads to the development of virtues we must acquire to find happiness. Teleology is like a big jigsaw puzzle.

All the pieces have to be present before one is able to begin building. From there, there is a process to which one can find where the pieces fit. 4. Plato believes virtue suffices for happiness and vice versa. With this the right character performs the right conduct. Aristotle on the other hand focuses on the habit or right conduct.

Only a person who always chooses the right conduct can reach the state of a virtuous character. The journey to happiness is a search for the good life, which consists of virtuous actions. Where Plato would say? one that does not get angry is a virtuous person? ; Aristotle would respond that a virtuous person is one that does get angry, but only when anger is necessary and not to excess. This would be the mean.

5. When evaluating human activity, it is important to speak of character, conduct, and consequences. The mentioning of just one, or maybe two, would not provide enough information to decide if the act was just or not. The character provides us with the agent, a person's character status, and motive.

With this one does not know the act or its effects. This information would be insufficient. All of the information must be present before evaluation or the act could be falsely categorized. 6. Moral legalism is somewhat of an anal approach to a situation. There is no reasoning involved.

If it goes against a right, it is automatically dismissed. One problem is moral legalism does not accept exceptions to rules; But in fact, there are exceptions to rules. Therefore moral legalism presents a conflict. Moral Particu lism makes exceptions to a rule or law to promote a good. A problem that occurs is that not all moral particularisms have the same intuitions or values. It does not take into effect each individual's sentimental feelings.

7. In regards to capital punishment, a strong de ontologist might say that it may be good for a society to execute a convicted killer, but its not right because we are falling to his level by killing. The utilitarian would argue that it's not right to kill, but this man has committed a horrendous crime and the only justice for the victims is to take his life.