The Argument In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Nicomachean Ethics is an ancient Grecian interpretation of what is now called “virtue ethics,” a philosophical approach to morality that considers character rather than one’s duties in life or rules of one’s government. Aristotle contemplates issues such as a person’s purpose, rational thought, ethical actions, how one should frame one’s traits to be beneficial, and the undoubtedly lovely after-effects of acting on his advice. This seems adequate enough to serve as a useful tool of philosophical thought, but Aristotle’s logic is riddled with holes and inconsistencies with reality. Although Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics has worthwhile considerations in its questioning of indulgence, it also possesses considerable flaws in its logic’s infeasibility for the average person, as well as its’ placement of a rigid “function” of all things, living or inanimate, and subjectivity in it’s standard for what qualifies as an excellence of character. The only purpose Nicomachean Ethics serves in a modern context is as a historical insight to the origins of western philosophy, and
His first endeavor is to say that humans should act wholly rationally in all situations, as rationalism is the highest form of thought that we can aspire to, and therefore would enable us to make the most sound decisions. Secondly, he argues that people have a “function” or purpose which they must fulfill, and said “function” is to achieve the Greek concept of “eudaimonia,” or happiness. Finally, we should aspire to have “excellences of character.” To have an “excellence of character,” one should seek intermediates between traits, an example being that the intermediate of cowardice and recklessness is courage. When combining these three principles, Aristotle believes that a person will achieve eudaimonia, a Greek word meaning overall happiness, or a general satisfaction with one’s own life, a polar opposite to the French word