Aristotle's Ethical Theory Of Virtue Analysis

Aristotle believed that reason is the telos, or end goal of being a human being. He feels that way because humans are a more superior species that can function at a much higher level than any other species on the earth. He then reaches the argument because of how humans mainly act upon reason to make their decisions. I however disagree! By looking at examples of how some humans do not use reason, but are still considered humans I will show that Aristotle is wrong. Aristotle would more than likely argue that items don’t always achieve their telos all the time and are sometimes “broken”. He also might suggest that people use reasoning to come to some of these decisions. However, I will argue that the goals should be reachable for all people
To achieve its purpose, it has traits that help the item achieve its purpose. Aristotle uses four terms to describe this process. He uses the terms ergon, telos, eudaimonia, and arete. The ergon describes the purpose or how the item functions. An example of this would be how windows are meant to allow an individual to see the outside without going outside. The telos is very similar to the ergon, because it basically states its identity and what the end goal is. The window’s telos would be the traits that enable people to see outside and still be in the comfort of the indoors. Now, the eudaimonia builds upon that; basically it describes how the item would need to achieve its telos. Back to the window example again, the eudaimonia would be when one can see the outside. Bringing this whole idea together is how the arete works; it describes the characteristics of how the eudaimonia is able to achieve its telos. To complete the window example, the aretes would be like visibility,
Aristotle ultimately describes that humans are superior creatures and can reason like no other creature. Therefore, he concluded that a great telos of humans is the ability to reason. He bases his definition of reason on the conclusion that humans are more superior to all other species. This superior species conclusion is based on three different principles of humans;they have the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong, the ability to think rationally, and finally acting upon what we feel is the best solution. He builds upon this idea of reason by discussing how an individual should try to find the “middle grounds” of every scenario by taking traits and looking at one extreme and comparing with the other and finding the trait that would be in the average of both of those two ideas (like the mathematical idea of adding all the integers up and dividing them by the number of variables). For example, he would look at traits like giving away everything and giving away absolutely nothing and come up with the trait that we should try to strive for, charitable. However, when it comes to this idea of reason being the telos of humans, I disagree to a point because I feel that this theory has some flaws in it. I feel this way because there are too many exceptions in his theory that should be considered but