Three Ethical Theories By Aristotle example essay topic

Ethics " What are we like, and what should we do?" As humans we are faced with many decisions in life, which in and of itself, distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. I'm sure other animals make decisions, but as humans we take into account our values and morals. In choosing which path to take with some of life's decisions, ethics, are often at the center; heavily influencing our choices between what is right and what is wrong. Which are usually defined by society, as to what is acceptable and what is not. As time goes on, society evolves, so do the right and wrongs, our values and morals, and ethics.

In philosophy, there were three ethical theories by Aristotle, Kant, and Bentham & Mill and they were the "Golden Mean", "Categorical Imperative", and "Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" respectively. Aristotle believed the one goal everyone strive d for was "happiness" for one's own self. If you were a happy person, that would eventually lead to being a good person. He also believed that all living things had certain capacities, and that if one lives up to their full capacities, they will have lived well and had a fortunate life.

He went on to state that the perfection of reason leads to the development of two desirable "virtues", Moral and Intellectual. Moral virtues dealt with emotions. A person must keep these in balance, to go in either extreme of too much and too little, would be called "the excess" and "the defect", respectively. The balance would be the "mean". For example, courage is the mean between rashness (excess) and cowardice (defect).

The golden mean is further analyzed in NICOMACHEA N ETHICS. The RHETORIC, is where Aristotle sums up the three categories in an analogical description of life with the Youthful Man (excess), the Elderly Man (defect), and the Man in His Prime (golden mean). The Intellectual virtues dealt with foresight and wisdom. Aristotle stated the attainment of these virtues could only be done by a select few.

For one to be highly intellectual, is to be practically divine, next to the gods. With that being said, it discouraged a lot of people of that era. That's when his theory was challenged and questioned. What about the artists or craftsmen?

Are they denied happiness, because they haven't attained intellectual perfection? Is intellectual perfection the only path to happiness? This is where Kant's theory of ethics opposed Aristotle's. Whereas, Aristotle concentrates on attaining one's own happiness through fulfillment of one's capacity. Kant disagrees with, Good Will, as being the path to becoming a good person. The act of doing a "good" deed is defined by using one's capacities and virtues in the service of duty, and not to gain personal satisfaction, but for "pure reason".

To carry out acts of good for reason alone, as it "dictates" and to go against desire or inclination. These influences on one's will to do good were called, categorical imperatives. As stated in class, if one does their duty, they will have a "good life". In the 1700's times were changing both socially and politically, along with those changes were ethical theories. Jeremy Bentham came up with the theory of utilitarianism. James Mill was Bentham's follower, he shared the same ideals with him.

Hedonism is what they theorized, as humans, we should pursue happiness through pleasure. Which contradicts Kant's theory of service with duty for reason alone and not for one's own personal gain. It also differs from Aristotle's theory as well, as utilitarianism seems to err on the "excess" of life, always seeking pleasure in the pursuit of happiness. There are many theories on human motivation as it concerns ethics. As many theories as there are, there are many unique situations. Not one theory can always be correct, because it may not be right for one person.

In retrospect, it all seems to be biased, which is based on the philosopher and the era they were living in. All searching for answers as to "why" do we make the choices we make? I think every person at one time or another, including myself have applied these theories in a variety of life's decisions. To say that one theory is the absolute answer as to what drives our ethical decisions, is wrong. It's impossible.

To live a life pursuing the "Golden Mean" is an ongoing process, only towards the end of one's life would finding the mean for every decision be possible. The experiences one goes through would be either in "excess" or "defect". Not until after the experience can one gauge if their actions were excessive or not enough. Aristotle even stated that only a very few would be able to achieve such a state. Kant's theory is difficult to live by also. To do things for "pure reason" alone.

One would have to be a practical Saint, even they would not be categorized as a 'Kantian'. The world we live in today, is a rat race, someone is always out there to take advantage of someone else to get ahead. There always seems to be an ulterior motive behind every action. I believe it's very few and far between that people act out of "pure reason". As in emergencies or random acts of courage or kindness.

For myself, coming into the military was a last minute decision, as I did not apply for college. So, instead of living at home without a job, I joined the Navy. It's very rare to find someone today, if any, that joined just to "do their duty", to serve their country, because it was the right thing to do. We would like to think that, only after the fact of our enlistment bonus or 'stepping stone', does "duty" come to mind, if ever. Utilitarianism is probably the most widely accepted and practiced theory today. This theory would most accurately describe society today.

Most everyone is in the pursuit of happiness through life. The ethical decisions almost always reflect this theory. Living in a fast paced society and dog eat dog world, it seems that another evolution in ethical theories is on the horizon. Gone are the days of chivalry. Today there's road 'rage', school shootings, same-sex marriages and so on.

It seems we " re in a shift of paradigms with the myriad of societal changes and acceptances. Is the solidarity of the human race degrading or evolving. Will today's ethics, be the same tomorrow or in the future? Will they evolve? It seems the chaotic world we live in, the right and wrong seem to favor those in power, or at least be influenced by those people.

It also seems, we lower our standards to suit the masses. For example, the carrying of back packs in uniform, before it was prohibited for a Sailor to throw a bag over their shoulder. Only if it was a sea bag and only if both straps were on the shoulders. That standard has been altered, to allow plain black back packs to be carried with both straps over the shoulders. There are too many people carrying the backpacks with one strap on the shoulder, presenting a relaxed unprofessional appearance. Is the same happening to society with what is right and wrong?

Are we lowering our standards?

Bibliography

THE STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY 5 TH EDITION, S. MORRIS ENGEL ARISTOTLE ON THE MEAN, G. ZINIEWICZKANT, DUTY, AND RESPECT, P. STRATTON-LAKE THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ROUTLEDGE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY VOL. 7, C.L. TEN.