Essay Question # 1:
Aristotle’s work that displays his beliefs on happiness and how one should live is his Nicomachean Ethics, which is a conclusive work that governs what he considers to be both the “ultimate” good and specific “goods” attainable for man. He believed that things were directed towards specific ends, and that a virtuous entity was one that stayed true to it’s objective. These things, because of their universal nature, have not changed in their essence, but the world of today is certainly much different than the one that Aristotle was interacting with. This essay seeks to explain his belief on the previously mentioned concepts and compares them with our modern world’s concept of them and how they related to our contemporary notions of the best places to work and how our civic relationships should be governed.
Happiness, Aristotle believed, was one of the goals of the human existence. By goals, he means to say that happiness is an “end” or ultimate reason for human existence. Meaning, that a virtuous person is a happy person. He writes in his Nicomachean Ethics that, “As far as its name goes, most people virtually agree, since both the many and the cultivated call it happiness, and suppose that living well and doing well are the same as being happy” (1095a17-20).
Here he connects the concept of happiness with the concept of living well, or leading “the good life.” But he cautions that most people do not necessarily agree with what exactly is the definition of happiness. He makes a distinction that the masses and wise men come to different conclusions about what this is, and as he considers wisdom to be of the highest rank of virtue, that the wise men’s definition is the correction one: “But they disagree about what happiness is, and the many do not give the same answer as the wise” (1094 20-21).
The masses, believe happiness to be some external thing that elevates them to a higher plain. Aristotle lists external things that give comfort or prestige or wealth, which the masses equate with happiness. He writes the masses believe that happiness in this view relies on things like “pleasure, wealth, or honor” (1094 21-22). He notes however that these things are fickle and subject to change, and the desire of each man to them differs.
The importance for Aristotle in understanding what exactly constitutes happiness cannot be understated since he believed it to be not just a goal worth pursuing, but a central purpose for human life (1095, 1-5). This is not so different from our notions of happiness today. The contemporary belief behind our purpose is that people should be productive and engaged in accurate employment, but also that they should have some stake in the work of their hands.
Our urges must be governed by our rationality. Without that, they are in control of us instead of us in control of them. He writes that “the function of the man is to live a certain kind of life, and this activity implies a rational principle.” The man who is pursuing the “right path” he considers “the good man” (1098a 13). He writes that, the function of a good man is the good and noble performance of these {living a certain kind of life based on rational principle} and if any action is well performed it is performed in accord with the appropriate excellence” (1098a 13).
One of the most important “goods” for Aristotle necessary for the attainment of human happiness is friendship. He places great value on self-sufficiency, but does not count aloneness, or being solitary and away from society as self-sufficiency. He writes that, “Now what we count as self-sufficient is not what suffices for a solitary person by himself, living an isolated life, but what suffices also for parents, children, wife and in general for friends and fellow citizens, since a human being is naturally political” (1097b 9-14).
Happiness then, involves relationships and a person seeking to live out their goals. For Buddhism the goal is not happiness, but the cessation of suffering which is achieved through eliminating desires. Happiness for Aristotle is discovering ones purpose and goals and carrying it out. In Buddhism it is eliminating wants of things one does not currently have.
After a life of painless luxury, the four passing sights had a profound impact on Siddhartha. It caused him to leave everything of his previous life and live a life of meditation and aestheticism. The sights went on to become the means that led to the end of Buddhism philosophy. Before a solution can be reached a problem must be defined. The first three passing sights causes Siddhartha much inner strife, it was more dramatic for him than for others who had lived in a world where pain and suffering were a fact of life. For him, such things were new and shocking.
While the first three passing sights clearly presented a problem that deeply troubled Siddhartha, the third passing sight presented him with a solution to these problems. Seeing this religious aesthetic causes the young prince, privileged in all luxuries he could possible desire, to leave it all in search of a greater meaning, in search of a reason that suffering existed in the world and then after discovering that the search for the nepenthe that could bring an end to it.
The Vedas, Buddhist scriptures, recounts his transition from royal life into that of an aesthetic: “The Bodhisatta (Siddhartha) went in search of a better system and came to a settlement of five bhikkhus in the jungle of Uruvela; when he saw them keeping their senses in check, subduing their passions, and practicing austere self-discipline, he admired their earnestness and joined there company.” (Carus 32)
The teachings of the Buddha, or his Dharma, all systematically lead into one another. This does not make certain elements more important than others. The question of which belief is most important or fundamental to the religion is not the sort of question that the religion or the religious within it could answer. Buddhism is not about the beliefs it holds to be true, but that state of being that makes these truths apparent. Instead of offering specific beliefs that explain reality, it focuses on offering the path towards reaching a state of enlightenment whereby the truth of life becomes evident.
The first step towards enlightenment lies in a clear understanding of the Four Noble Truths. These truths relate self-evident concepts that coincide with human existence. The first truth is to live is to suffer. He looked around and realized that within earthly life suffering was an inevitable reality that is impossible to escape. During the first two watches he was able to see a one certain thing in all of his previous lifetimes and in all lifetimes; suffering. The watches also led him to clearly seeing the cause of every beings suffering; human desire. The second noble truth exerts that the cause of human suffering stems from human desire. The third offers a pathway leading outside human suffering. It puts forth that the way to end suffering is to extinguish the flame of desire. If suffering is the cause of desire, then it logically follows that in order to end all suffering one would first have to end all desire. This led him to the fourth noble truth; the ending of all desire is achieved by following the eightfold path and middle road. The eightfold path is a code of conduct one must follow. The desire to do evil must be completely annihilated from the self. The code of conduct is as follows: Right views, right intentions, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right meditation.
While Aristotle might not accept the Buddhist belief of finding happiness, it is built into Buddhist belief an acceptance of others belief system, so it is possible for a Buddhist to believe in both Buddhism and Aristotelian philosophy but not the other way around.
Works Cited:
Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC.2007. Print.
Carus, Paul. The Teachings of Buhhda. New York: St. Martin's P, 1998.
Cooper, John. M. (1991), 'Friendship'. In L. Becker (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ethics (Vol. 1, pp. 388-391). New York and London: Garland Publishing Company. Print.
Huston, Smith. The Religions of Man. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1958.
Snelling, John. The Buddhist Handbood. Rochester: Barns and Noble Book, 1991.
Essay Question Two:
The difference between consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories of ethics has to do with outcomes. A consequentialist would judge the wrongness or rightness of an action based on the consequences of it regardless of a person’s intention behind it. A non-consequentialist is not concerned with the outcome, even if it is negative, but looks at the action itself. Even with the best of intentions then, it is possible that a person could commit an immoral act if the consequences lead to harm.
My personal belief is that a consequentialist theory is the most practical for the world that we live in. This, essentially, is how our legal system works in some cases. Manslaughter is a charge that can be giving to someone whose actions without intention of harming someone led to that person being harmed. Immanuel Kant was a non-consequentialist and believed that an action must be judged on a person’s intentions. His morality was based around his categorical imperative, which he distinguished from hypothetical imperatives. In this sense, his morality is mathematical, and an action is deemed right or wrong based on the intentions of a person. Kant believed that it was reason alone that motivated good will since if everyone acted immoral, then they would not just be able to harm others but others would be able to harm them.
John Stuart Mill would not have agreed with Kant. He set out a hierarchy of pleasures and saw some pursuits as more valuable than others. As a political thinker, Mill saw man’s place within a society as essential in understanding morality. Mill’s central argument in Chapter 3 of his work “On Liberty” he develops a philosophical justification for the freedom of speech and uses this to explore whether or not man should have the same freedom with regard to the carrying out of his wishes, as long as he does not in the process harm other agents. He then uses this to develop a case for individualism. (Mills, 52).
Work Cited:
Mill, John Stuart. On liberty. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue, 1990. Print.
