Aristotle's Moral Theory Analysis
Aristotle posses the moral theory that human activity is directed towards happiness. Humans strive towards the end by yearning for the highest good. He defines happiness as regular contemplation of truth, both universal and eternal. An individual can obtain pure happiness by living a virtuous life. One must develop reason and wisdom, and have opportunity to have actions with virtuous meaning. These acts depend upon making a conscious decision that contain both moral motivation and moral purpose. Pleasure, honor, virtue, and understanding are worthy of choice but are also for the advantage of happiness. It is not chosen for the sake of anything but happiness. One's desire can not be bad if it is contained by reasoning according to the principles
…show more content…
Many believe that they do, but it is also argued by many that there is no clear distinction that makes that statement true. Some have the notion that the earth occurred by a random chance, therefore it would be impossible for it to have a specific aim if it there was no specification of reason in the creation of it. Aristotle's theory is just an assumption, making it difficult to guarantee it's reliability. Also, there is no distinction that a fit end for human life is simply happiness. Christians believe that devoting your life to God and living honestly would be rewarded with meeting Him at the end, not just aiming towards mere happiness and having that consulate as a satisfactory end. Another flaw in Aristotle's theory is that he assumes all humans were born with the tendency to be moral. There is no supporting facts that can back up this claim. Many would believe that you need to experience and learn from these experiences before being able to live in a moral fashion. Humans are born with the ability to reason, but this does not confirm that they are able to reason with morality present in mind. Although it is a nice idea that everyone has the instinct in them to live in such manner, there is no evidence that can prove it. Aristotle states that we must find an ideal role model to mimic, but how would one be able to choose said individual? What is right in one's eyes could be absolutely wrong in another's. Each person would have a bias on who they think should be said person based on their previous experiences and what traits we find
Many believe that they do, but it is also argued by many that there is no clear distinction that makes that statement true. Some have the notion that the earth occurred by a random chance, therefore it would be impossible for it to have a specific aim if it there was no specification of reason in the creation of it. Aristotle's theory is just an assumption, making it difficult to guarantee it's reliability. Also, there is no distinction that a fit end for human life is simply happiness. Christians believe that devoting your life to God and living honestly would be rewarded with meeting Him at the end, not just aiming towards mere happiness and having that consulate as a satisfactory end. Another flaw in Aristotle's theory is that he assumes all humans were born with the tendency to be moral. There is no supporting facts that can back up this claim. Many would believe that you need to experience and learn from these experiences before being able to live in a moral fashion. Humans are born with the ability to reason, but this does not confirm that they are able to reason with morality present in mind. Although it is a nice idea that everyone has the instinct in them to live in such manner, there is no evidence that can prove it. Aristotle states that we must find an ideal role model to mimic, but how would one be able to choose said individual? What is right in one's eyes could be absolutely wrong in another's. Each person would have a bias on who they think should be said person based on their previous experiences and what traits we find