Artistotle Janet Jones Code of Ethics Research Paper Class number 409 Frank Sams Aristotle was a great thinker who used his reasoning ability and knowledge through others to draw ethical assumptions and principles. Aristotle was once in favor of the teachings of Plato until he began to question his philosophy. These ideas lead Aristotle to years of writing and teaching his work.
Aristotle was a professor for twenty years at an academy called Lyceum. Lyceum is where Aristotle began to pursue a broader range of subjects.He believed that a man could not claim to know a subject unless he is capable of transmitting his knowledge with others.
Simply, teaching for Aristotle was as a manifestation of knowledge. By the end of the 19th century scholars at the academy questioned his works. This genus was alive during a period of havoc and corruption but he did not allow the ethics of man to stop his hunger for knowledge. I will attempt to explain in detail some of the ethics that Aristotle established.Evidence has proved that Aristotle influenced all areas of logic from art, ethics, and metaphysics just to name a few. Art is defined by Aristotle as the realization in external form of a true idea, and is the pleasure, which we feel in recognizing likenesses. Art however is not limited to mere copying.
It idealizes nature and completes its deficiencies: it seeks to grasp the universal type in the individual phenomenon. The distinction between poetic art and history is not that the one uses meter, and the other does not. The distinction is that while history is limited to what has actually happened, poetry depicts things in their universal character.Therefore, poetry is more theoretical and more elevated than history. Such imitation may represent people either as better or as worse than people usually are, or it may neither go beyond nor fall below the average standard. Comedy is the imitation of the worse examples of humanity. However, not in the sense of absolute badness, but only in so far as what is low and ignoble enters into what is laughable and comic. Tragedy, on the other hand, is the representation of a serious or meaningful, reaching action.
Portraying events, which excite fear and pity in the mind of the observer to purify these feelings to extend and regulate their sympathy until it fits. It is thus a homeopathic curing of the passions. Insofar as art, in general universalizes particular events, tragedy, in depicting passionate and critical situations, takes the observer outside the selfish and individual standpoint, and views them in connection with the general lot of human beings. This is similar to Aristotle’s explanation of the use of orgiastic music in the worship of Bacchas and other deities: it affords an outlet for religious fervor and thus steadies one’s religious sentiments. Religion can define an individuals moral principle.
Aristotle viewed ethics as an attempt to find out our chief end or highest good: an end, which he maintains, is really final. Through of life are many ends that furthers, our aspirations and desires must have some final object or pursuit.A chief end is universally called happiness. But people mean such different things by the expression that I feel necessary to discuss happiness. For starters, happiness must be based on human nature, and must begin from the facts of personal experience.
Thus, happiness cannot be found in any abstract or ideal notion, like Plato’s self-existing good. It must be something practical and human.It must then be found in the work and life that is unique to humans.
Nevertheless, this is neither the vegetative life we share with plants nor the sensitive existence that we share with animals. True happiness lies in the active life of a rational being or in a perfect realization and outworking of the true soul and self, continued throughout a lifetime. Aristotle expands his notion of happiness through an analysis of the human soul that structures and animates a living human organism. The human soul has an irrational element, which is shared with the animals, and a rational element that is distinctly human. The most primitive irrational element is the vegetative faculty, which is responsible for nutrition and growth.An organism that does this to perfection may be said to have a nutritional virtue.
The second tier of the soul is the appetitive faculty, which is responsible for our emotions and desires (such as joy, grief, hope and fear). This faculty is both rational and irrational. It is irrational since even animals experience desires. However, it is also rational since humans have the distinct ability to control these desires with the help of reason.The human ability to properly control these desires is called moral virtue, and is the focus of morality. Aristotle believes that there is a purely rational part of the soul, the calculative, which is responsible for the human ability to contemplate, reason logically, and formulate scientific principles.
The mastery of these abilities is called intellectual virtue. Aristotle continues by making several general points about the nature of moral virtues. First, he argues that the ability to regulate our desires is not instinctive, but learned and is the outcome of both teaching and practice. Second, if we regulate our desires either too much or too little, then we create problems.Third, he argues that desire-regulating virtues are character traits, and are not to be understood as either emotions or mental faculties.
The core of Aristotle’s account of moral virtue is his doctrine of the mean. According to this doctrine, moral virtues are desire regulating character traits, which are at a mean between more extreme character traits (or vices). For example, in response to the natural emotion of fear, we should develop the virtuous character trait of courage. If we develop an excessive character trait by curbing fear too much, then we are said to be rash, which is a vice.
If, on the other extreme, we develop a deficient character trait by cutting fear too little, then we are said to be cowardly, which is also a vice.The virtue of courage, then, lies at the mean between the excessive extreme of rashness, and the deficient extreme of cowardice. Most moral virtues, and not just courage, are to be understood as falling at the mean betw …