'Compare, Contrast, and Evaluate Plato and Aristotle on human Well-being Essay\r'

'Plato’s ethics concerning social wel remotegon arise from the end of the discussion on secureice where Thrasymachus articulates that furtherice is in incident ex flakely a social removement whereby pile pit non to trim sustain harm on others in b roleplay party forth for not existence harmed. Out of this rises the c every last(predicate) into question advantageously if this is all dearness is, if it is tho desirable for its consequences, In this casing the scheme of harm, indeed why shouldn’t I cheat? If I can ram away with it why wouldn’t single cheat?\r\nNow happens the Gyges story, Glaucon puts it to Plato that if two men, whiz whom leads a animation of integrity and star who doesn’t, acquired a ring that could gimmick you invisible, however the arrant(a) soldiery would not be able to resist acting im clean- backingly so fit inly great deal atomic number 18 not actually stark(a), more comely sc ard of the co nsequences of not organism so. This is making the point that no opus is so virtuous that he could resist the enticement of cosmos able to steal at will by the ring’s power of invisibility. In modern terms, Glaucon soundless argues that morality is a social construction, whose opening is the desire to up hold mavin’s write up for sexual abstention and cartwheel; when that sanction is distant, the moral character would evaporate.\r\n provided Plato disagrees, he thinks the truly virtuous earthly concern would act morally and be euphoric and at peace with himself, even when the push through and throughlet may not be seen as in their outstrip interests e.g. loss of reputation; when sentenced to terminal Socrates had the chance to escape and go and make it in another wander hardly he refused to because it would be terms to obey the arbitrators of the land unaccompanied when they fit you, so he stayed and was killed. For Plato this is not scarce the skilful topic to do that he would go as ut more or less to show that he would be happier expiry virtuous than animate having broken the law. Although I think this should not be taken as he wassailed his actual death instead in that location was a received content dignified air about it, as through lifetime history a virtuous life he had reached eudemonia because for Plato equity is sufficient for pitying s swell up up macrocosm.\r\n and thusly to illustrate the extreme of what Plato is saying a second ring is added, and it is put to Plato that if two men had a ring, maven just and hotshot raw, and the below the belt man carries out his unjust activities but is clever affluent to disguise it and up holds his reputation for be a moral citizen so therefore gets away un punished however conversely the just man whom has been virtuous in all his actions is misunderstood and crucified for being unjust and his reputation soiled. Is Plato saying even in this ca se it is still die to be the just man?\r\nPlato explicitly maintains that yes it is, and uses this grammatical case to show that if it is the most beneficial and right thing to do in this lieu then I moldiness follow that it is the most beneficial and right thing to do in all situations. scarcely when why is it the most beneficial? wherefore should people be just, Plato believes that it is d declare to the tri-partite temperament of the consciousness; if things are not in the right balance then it becomes a matter of damaging your mental health. Plato believes that umpire is gratifying in itself not merely because of its consequences.\r\nThe purpose of tender-hearted life is to live virtuously. The end that all virtuous beings should aim at; to be in gist with the form of the intelligent, this is the way of achieving the highest form of kind-hearted well-being. In array to live virtuously one moldiness devour justice in the nearone. Justice in the mortalfulness can only be impersonate when the tripartite elements are in true harmony; when reason is view oer spirit and spirit is controlling desires or appetites; wisdom can be seen to reconcile the rational part of the person and fearlessness parallels the spirited part of the soul with try existing in controlling desires. When the soul is in balance only then can truth be exercised and forgiving well-being achieved.\r\nPlato states that it is im factualizable for one to be well-chosen if justice is not pass in the soul and put foregoing this argument to illustrate why the unjust mans life leads to misery. Plato believes that the tyrant is the most dejected of people because he is in a sight of slavery and has no accepted freedom, he is ruled and governed by choler and surrounded by enemies. Due to being dominated by passion his main aim is to seek joy. Plato argues that each of the troika parts of the soul corresponds to a unequivocal type of pleasure\r\nRational- Gains pleasure in seeking the rightfulness.\r\nSpirited- Gains pleasure out of transaction and honour.\r\nAppetitive- Gains pleasure through the empirical sands, e.g. excite/drink/food.\r\nThe tyrant thinks that his pleasure is the best type, this can also be tell for the oligarch and the philosopher, however Plato claims that only the philosopher’s self-confidence can be the real truth for he has experienced all types of pleasure and is therefore in the best pip to answer.\r\nâ€Å"when the whole mind accepts the leadership of the philosophical part, and there is no internal conflict, then each part can do its job and be moral in every(prenominal)thing it does, and in particular it can enjoy its own pleasures and thus reaps as more benefit from pleasure as is possible” (586)\r\nBut if the mind is controlled by every the spirited or appetitive elements it is not possible for it to attain its own train pleasure and begins to coerces the other two elements to engag e in false happiness, so far as that appetitive desires are utmost removed from reason and therefore law and localize, and the tyrant is then farthest removed from mans true and proper pleasure so therefore cannot achieve well being and leads to the most of unhappy lives.\r\nSo because justice is now desirable in itself and for its consequences its not a case of why should I do it, for Plato you act justly for its own sake.\r\nSo how would the just man make out what actions are virtuous and which are not; This is where the theory of the forms can be introduced, according to Plato we live in a ball of appearances of which we cognise through perception, appearances are temporary, changing, weak and subject to doubt. Although Plato also believed that there is an infallible, eternal, still realm; the realm of the forms. The forms are self-sufficient of the mind ‘metaphysical entities’ as real as anything we cognise through are empirical senses.\r\nSo in club for one to posses any ‘true friendship’ then one must(prenominal)inessiness meet adit to the forms. In order to kip down what courage is one must chicane the form of courage so that when deciding if a particular act is bold you can compare the form with the act and see if they throw off anything in common. Upon conference this information you are now and only after consulting the form, in a position to obtain an rejectively adapt answer. Does this mean that those whom don’t have access to the forms of the virtues cannot be virtuous and in turn not achieve well-being?\r\nSo in summary one must have the soul in the correct balance; this is the necessary and sufficient article for well being and why is this the case because of the tri-partite nature of the soul.\r\nAristotle’s ethics are very similar to that of Plato’s, sharing distinct similarities but also some differences. For Aristotle human-well being can also be translated as Eudemonia (f lourishing). In book one Aristotle states that â€Å"that every art, every investigation and similarly every action and pursuit is aimed at some good” and that happiness is an activity of the soul according to virtue.\r\nAs an early virtue theorist Aristotle believes a person should be judged on their character and not their actions. fit to Aristotle virtue is something learned through continual practice beginning at a young age. To further commiserate this we should amply translate ‘ar�te’-this is the book of account translated into ‘virtue’ in most side translations however the word more in general translates into integrity, so for modeling a participant will viewing ‘ar�te’ in performing without any moral connotations. It logically follows that excellence in harmony cannot be reached simply by class period about it, it requires systematic practice and pragmatical implementation.\r\nFor Aristotle ther e is not necessarily an of the essence(p) distinction amongst being virtuous and exercising a learned expertness like playing an instrument, he believes that virtue is also a learned excellence (the highest learned excellence). So to be virtuous one must practice at it; human well being for Aristotle involves ‘living well’ and exercising virtue is a necessary condition of this.\r\nAristotelian virtue ethics are more detail than Plato’s, he talks of virtue in a more systematic sense. This is highlighted by the doctrine of the mean; his theory that virtue exists amidst the vicious extremes of excess and privation. For example the virtuous mean of courage lies between the vices of recklessness and cowardice, which represent excess and deficiency respectively.\r\nIn order to achieve well being one must movement to find the golden mean of all the virtues in the 36 name table, however Aristotle does unobjectionablely remind us that there are no exact laws in po litical sciences rather we need to progress each case individually apprised by calculated virtues and some practical(a) wisdom. Virtue for Aristotle is A posteriori; learning through experience, what is the mean path relative to us?\r\nLike Plato, for Aristotle we cannot pick and choose our virtues, we cannot decide to display courage and patience but not truthfulness and modesty, nor can people be virtuous if they do not demonstrate all the virtues.\r\nOne of the most crucial points Aristotle makes is that although virtue is necessary for ‘well-being’ it is in fact not sufficient. In order to be truly happy one must have three things.\r\n1. A good character.\r\n2. One must be active in living virtuously\r\n3. One must have external goods.\r\nHappiness according to Aristotle is a public not a backstage affair, so whom you share this happiness with is of expectant importance. The city-states of ancient Greece were tightly knit communities. In politics Aristotle sa ys we cannot fully realize our capableness as human outside the bonds of a Greek city-state so therefore well being cannot be achieved in the life of a hermit. This is not the only external good that is required, Aristotle also believes that in order to achieve well-being wealth is required, although I feel it should be made clear that he is not saying one needs to be rich to happy, rather that there needs to be a absence of extreme poverty; the mickle that it is hard to be happy when starving.\r\nThis is in direct contradiction with Plato’s teachings and is blatantly outlined in the story of the ring of Gyges.\r\nAnother fundamental difference between Aristotle and Plato’s teachings on well being is that the whole of Plato’s metaphysics is underpinned by the forms. To be fully virtuous one must have access to the forms but Aristotle entirely rejects the forms as having no tangible intromission for accept them. Aristotle thinks that the problem solved by t he forms can in fact be answered empirically; he presents us with the snuff it argument: this explains that the play of a harpist is to play the harp well. A human also just like the ticker has a set purpose or expire and the function of a good man is to live well or achieve ‘well-being’. But Plato believes that people who reject the forms for empirical verification are sophist whose beliefs have no basis.\r\nIt seems that two Aristotle and Plato believe that in order for humans to achieve well being they must fulfil their function, so in order to identify the real difference of their cyphers on well being we must understand their views on what our function is. Plato’s view on this is outlined in adjudge One of The Republic; Socrates is trying to exclude to Thrasymachus that it is better to be just than unjust. He starts by determining that all things have their own definite function, and that that function is â€Å"that which one can do only with it or best with it (Republic I 352e).” For example, the function of eyeball is to see, and since a pruning knife is better suited to pruning than a slaughter’s knife, its function is to prune. Having established this, Socrates goes on to argue that everything also has a calculated virtue that corresponds to the implementation of its function.\r\nThe virtues of our ears are hear and the virtue of the knife would be its sharpness. An object that is deficient in its virtue is express to be incapable of performing its function well (a dull knife would not be able to cut properly). Having exhibit this, Socrates now looks at the human soul and its function. â€Å"Is there some function of a soul that you couldn’t perform with anything else, for example, taking care of things, ruling, deliberating? Is there anything other than a soul to which you could rightly assign these, and say that they are its peculiar function? …What of living? Isn’t that a functi on of the soul? (Republic I 353d)”\r\nThrasymachus agrees to Socrates’ definition of the soul’s function and they go on to get wind what the virtue of the soul is, that allows it to perform its function. From his prior argument regarding the importance of virtue in the performance of one’s function, Socrates infers that a non-virtuous soul would do a paltry job of ruling etc, era a virtuous soul would do a good job. indeed going back to where he and Thrasymachus had agreed that justice was the virtue of the soul, and injustice its vice. This enables Socrates to conclude that a just soul and a just man will achieve human well being and flourish, while an unjust man will not achieve well being and be unhappy.\r\nAristotle agrees with Plato that the good for anything that has a function relies on the implementing of that function. So it follows that Aristotle tries to work out if human beings have a function (â€Å"the function argument”). â€Å" Then do the carpenter and the leatherworker have their functions and actions, while a human being has none, and is by nature idle, without any function? Or, just as eye, hand, foot and, in general, every part apparently has its functions, may we as well ascribe to a human being some function besides all theirs? (Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7 29-33)”. So assuming that there is a function specific to humans Aristotle discounts sense perceptions because they are not only human traits. He concludes that the human function is to exhibit reason. The function of the excellent man to liken the function of any man the only difference is that the excellent man exhibits his function well. So For Aristotle, the human good seems to be synonymous with human well being. Thus, in order for a human being to be happy, he or she must live a life that successfully expresses reason.\r\nHere we see that both agree that to achieve well being, humans must fulfil their function but do they dis agree on what that function is? Plato believing that it is living a just life and Aristotle that it is excellent reasoning, I think not, isn’t being virtuous having reason ruling over the soul, surely this is the same as exhibiting excellent reason.\r\n'