1

Social and Political Sciences

Ethics

Student Name

University/College

Date
 2

The Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Bioethics are two ethical doctrines written by

Aristotle. He does not use either one of these titles deliberately, however in the Politics (129,36),

he identifies to one of them—probably the Eudemian Ethics—as "ta êthika," or "his character

works." The terms "Eudemian" and "Nicomachean" were later inserted, possibly because the first

was revised by his associate Eudemus and the second by his son Nicomachus. In any case, these

two books cover a wide range of the same ground: they start with a description of contentment or

prosperity and then move on to a look at the essence of virtue or distinction and the personality

traits that people need to live their best lives. Both discourses look at whether commendation or

criticism is appropriate, as well as the basis of satisfaction and companionship; towards the close

of each book, there is a detailed overview on the correct connection between humans and the

supernatural.

Although every work expresses the same overall perspective, there are many minor variances

in arrangement and substance. The Nicomachean Ethics is definitely a remodelling of the

Eudemian Ethics, and while no one source of research proves their order, it is usually considered

that the Nicomachean Ethics is a subsequent and enhanced version of the Eudemian Ethical

principles. The fact that the Nicomachean Ethics explores a concept about which its Eudemian

counterpart is unclear in multiple instances is the most revealing proof of this ordering. Only the

Nicomachean Ethics analyzes the tight connection between ethical investigation and governance;

only the Nicomachean Ethics critically analyses Solon's contradictory statement that no one

should be deemed satisfied until he is dead; and only the Nicomachean Ethics presents a series of

reasons for the intellectual life's supremacy to the political life.

Although Aristotle owed a great debt to Plato's moral philosophy, particularly Plato's core

finding that ethical thought and sensibility must be linked, and that the training for such character
 3

integrity should develop over time, the methodical nature of Aristotle's study of these subjects

was a significant invention. Aristotle was the first to write ethical dissertations. For example,

Plato's Republic does not address ethics as a separate discipline, nor does it provide a proper

analysis of the nature of conduct and consent. To be sure, major analyses of these phenomena

may be found in Plato's works, but they are not put together as united.

The main point with which Aristotle commences is that there are different views about what

is best for humans, and that we must overcome this dispute in order to benefit from ethical

investigation. He maintains that ethics is not a speculative practice: we are questioning what is

suitable for human beings not only to acquire knowledge, but since we will be better able to

attain our goals if we have a greater grasp of what it means to flourish. Aristotle isn't seeking for

a list of things that are excellent when he asks what is the excellent.

In his study on ethics, Aristotle proves that there is some ultimate good that this good is

sufficient. He further affirms that this good is happiness. Human action is done for a reason and a

given goal, and therefore there must be an ultimate end. As we all know, not all actions

performed by a human being is human action per se. This action includes digestion and

respiration, which occur in both animals and human beings and therefore do not differentiate

from animals. The actual human action is the one that requires a little bit of reasoning and

intelligence, which is absent from the animals. Some actions are done for a measurable goal for

the sake of a larger goal, which is a way to another larger goal, and so on until the desired

ultimate goal is reached because of the actions.

Happiness is the thing that looks complete without anything else because in many cases, it is

always our priority not because of something else but because of itself, Anlike, things like

pleasure, honor, and understanding that seem to Cause happiness to human beings (Pakaluk,
 4

2005). A high percentage of people support this idea that supreme good is happiness since in any

chance does not Cause dispute as per Aristotle. It is better to know that the Greek word

"eudamian," which is normally translate das "happiness" In English, is not correctly translated

since it means a good way of living and can also be "blessedness."

Many philosophers find themselves in an argument when defining what happiness or what brings

happiness. Aristotle's definition of happiness is through identifying the functions that are fine to

man. Aristotle further explains that these functions are common in plants and animals, but that is

specific to human beings. Also, man's functions should be practical, especially to his life and the

rotational part which affect their behaviors which is only applicable for a rational being. The

happiness itself comprises of the action. This action should be of the rational part of man and

also the soul. The good of a man is normally drawn from proper performed function as explained

by Aristotle theorizes (Pakaluk, 2005). In addition, the good of a man can be realized be through

excellence or virtue, and this must be several and persistent and constant throughout the year.

According to Aristotle, the life of reasoning is the virtuous life for humans and even the function.

When it comes to function argument, one should ask him or herself if the subject contains

function eudaimonia look upon to performing the same function well, which means that the

happiness of a thing is affected badly if it poorly performs its function. For example, an athlete

will automatically not be happy if he does not run well because he does not perform his function

well (Pakaluk, 2005). Since an athlete's life is not only about running, he can be happy even if he

is not running well. An athlete is also a human, and therefore according to Aristotle, he has a

function and eventually practicing his reasoning.

Question 6: What role, if any, does reason play in our moral judgments according to the Second

Enquiry? Do you find Hume’s position on this question a persuasive one?

 5

The reason is essential when making a judgment on what is helpful because reason alone can

determine how and why something is important to us. In the argument, Hume explains what

moral judges add in their list of moralities, what they exempt, and how they create the list. He

further explains that reason does not cause any action, but morals or passion motivates us to do

it. Hume states that our efforts are driven by what we all care about the outcomes of a struggle.

Reason has a significant role to play in moral evaluation. According to Hume, in the second

Enquiry, he argues that reason is required to verify the facts needed to establish an appropriate

view of the person getting evaluated, making it a requirement for correct moral evaluation.

However, our determinations of morality and immorality usually depend on an internal feeling.

He further argues that reason alone cannot influence human actions because a person can

differentiate the character from evil. Therefore, moral differentiation is not the product of reason

alone.

Reason can be demonstrative or probable. In the Divide and Conquer Argument, Hume divides

reasoning into two; emotional and probable. Demonstrative reasoning is a type of reason which

cannot influence action because our will is inspired by what we believe in having a physical

existence. It only familiarizes us with abstract concepts and ideas. Probable reasoning involves

making conclusions based on experience. In Hume's argument, he said that our judgments of

causes and effects involve recognizing the continuous concurrences of some objects as seen in

our affairs. Probable reasoning influences the will because it can inform us which actions have

ongoing coincidences with pain or happiness.

Reason establishes how to satisfy and fulfill our desires and needs. For example, my belief that

doing a specific exercise every morning is good for my health seems effective in motivating me

to do that exercise every morning. However, Hume argues that this kind of belief must be
 6

accompanied by passion, especially the desire for good health, making the will move. We would

not care that exercising every morning is good for our health if it was not our intended goal.

Hume creates a picture where by the motivational force to fulfill a purpose must come from

passion, and reason informs us of the best ways of fulfilling that goal.

The reason establishes truth and falsehood. Hume explains fact as the natural effect of our

justification. Anything investigated or exposed through defense must make sense to get an

evaluation as true or false. Philosophers usually call them "truth-apt." Truth-apt is a claim that

can agree or disagree with some conceptual relation of the idea about existence.

Hume's position on the role of reasoning is a persuasive one because he claims that sense gives

an ultimate difference between immorality and morality. However, both morals and reasons play

a crucial role in our establishment of moral judgment. He also begins by giving the differences

between impressions and ideas. We get images through our senses, emotions, and other mental

ideas, whereas ideas are beliefs, thoughts, or memories connected to our impressions.

Hume gives a difference between relations of ideas that are commonly mathematical truth.

Hence, a person neglects them without contradiction and matters of facts, which are the common

truth we get to know through our daily experiences.

Question 7:“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should

become a universal law”. Does Kant make a good case for thinking this imperative expresses the

supreme principle of morality?

Immanuel Kant is a German Philosopher who believed that everyone had a clear moral

responsibility for being truthful. He said that individuals reason makes our lives demands. If

people think well about how they should behave, they will see that other actions are so
 7

unreasonable. He argues that any form of dishonesty is very unreasonable. Kant goes extra to

formulate a supreme rational principle that tells people exactly which action is right and which

one is wrong. He says that this principle is called the categorical imperative. According to the

categorical imperative, it is very wrong to lie as he won't act in that way.

Kant gives an example of breaking a promise to explain this. Suppose categorical imperative

becomes successful in being a true test in moral conduct, so it is an important contribution to

moral philosophy. All the moral controversies could be resolved quickly, and ignorance would

not be claimed over their moral obligations (Kant, 1949).

Kant makes a good case for thinking categorical imperative expresses a supreme principle of

morality by believing that morality does a task of informing people their duties to ourselves and

others. Kant offered an ethics course; his lectures got transcribed by his students. From his

lectures, he assigned two textbooks written by Alexander Baumgarten, a German philosopher,

and Christian Wolff. Baumgarten gives a discussion on the moral duties we have with God, other

people, and ourselves. For instance, we all have a duty to pray to God and also believe in it. To

also have our intellectual abilities be benevolent to the other people. Wolff said that morality

involves making ourselves and other people to be so perfect. One makes himself perfect by

improving their mind and body and helping them out, and harming them.

The most important part of Kant's theory is 'act only on that maxim by which you can

simultaneously will that it should become universal. This theory offers a step-by-step procedure

that determines someone's moral status on their actions. Kant gives a specific notion of mind

reasoning, which has specific indicators on whether the rule is irrational or rational. He gives

four formulations of the categorical imperative, which reflects different human rationality. The

first one is the Formula on the law of nature. This states that one should act like the maxim of
 8

their actions became through their will a universal law of nature. Kant states that we should

consider if the maxim is a law of nature and free from contradiction (Goldmann, 2011).

Kant also makes a good case for thinking categorical imperative expresses the supreme principle

of morality by saying that acting out of respect for moral law should be moved to act by

recognizing that moral law is authoritative and binds people to experience some feeling.

Although we are not moved by it, human beings usually respect the moral law, and we do not

usually comply with them. A moral maxim implies an absolute necessity. Kant analyses moral

concepts of goodwill and duty; this made him believe that human beings are free as long as

morality is not an illusion. Kant also analyzes common sense ideas and says that it begins by

thinking that the only good thing without qualification is goodwill. Goodwill relates so well to

good people as that defines how good they are. The principle of goodwill is the fundamental

which holds morality according toKant(Kant, 1949).

As a result, the study of the human welfare has led to two interpretations: the best life is not

found in politics. However, the well-being of entire communities is contingent on certain

individuals' desire to live a second-best life—one dedicated to the study and application of

governance, as well as the display of those characteristics of thinking and compassion that

demonstrate our simple self.

 9

References

Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics. Clarendon Aristotle Series: Nicomachean Ethics: Books

VIII and IX. doi:10.1093/oseo/instance.00258595

Hume, D. (1777). An enquiry concerning human understanding. David Hume: Enquiries

Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals (Third

Edition), 5-5. doi:10.1093/oseo/instance.00046350

Ruensiri, T. (2016). Immanuel Kant, Lucien Goldmann. 2011. New York: Verso (240

pages). MANUSYA, 19(2), 109-111. doi:10.1163/26659077-01902006

Watkins, E. (2010). Immanuel Kant: Theoretical philosophy. Philosophy.

doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0061