Plato and Aristotle on Happiness and the Good Essay Example

completely dependent on our place in society. The main deduction that arises from both Plato and Aristotle’s thinking is that happiness is not subjective, but objective.

Neither Plato nor Aristotle defines happiness on its own, but rather they look to the things that can lead to it.So it is important for us to look at such things. Aristotle believes that happiness can be achieved through the cultivation and practicing of virtues. Aristotle managed to equate the intended life for a human being with a virtuous life. But who decides what is virtuous? Virtue is recognized and established by society.

To act in accordance with virtue is to do what is communally defined as “good. ” As Aristotle states in Politics, “anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient, is no part of a city-state—he is either beast or a god” (pg. , line 28-30). Thus we can assume that those who do not conform to society are either “immoral” beast or divinely above the law and consequently can be excluded. He goes on to say that virtue is praiseworthy but happiness is above praise.

“Everything that is praised seems to be praised because it is of a certain kind and is related somehow to something else: for we praise the just man and virtue itself, because of the actions and functions involved…. He is of a certain kind and is related in a certain way to something good and important.No one praises happiness as he does justice, but rather calls it blessed as being something more divine and better” (Ethics I. 12).

It seems to

me, that through this argument, Aristotle is really claiming that by doing good deeds and acting virtuously we are praised, and because we are praised, we are happy. There seems to be no direct linkage between doing the acts and being happy for the sole purpose of those actions. On the contrary, being happy seems to be the result of being praised, which is the result of doing good deeds.So we don’t necessarily do good deeds for the sake of the good, but we do good because we are told that is what we ought to do and that we will be praised for it.

Plato also mirrors this idea in the Republic. A conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus states: “Now we agreed that justice is a soul’s virtue, and injustice its vice? We did Then it follows that a just soul and a just man will live well, and an unjust one badly And surely anyone who lives well is blessed and happy, and anyone who doesn’t Is the opposite. Therefore, a just person is happy, and an unjust one wretched.It profits no one to be wretched but to be happy” (pg.

31). Here again, we see justice and virtue being defined as the means to reach happiness because of the pre-determined definitions of them. It is clear that within such a city-state, the knave or the villain cannot generally flourish, either in the eyes of others, or, ultimately, in his own eyes. As Plato tells Thrasymachus, the life of injustice is apt to be a life of care and insecurity. If someone prospers by thieving or cheating, his prosperity will probably turn to

ashes.

And thus, the underlying fact is that it takes a culture or politics to properly identify a lapse from virtue. And it is the duty of a culture or politics to make sure that these lapses from virtues are limited by teaching proper virtues to all citizens. Aristotle remarks, “None of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. Neither by nature or contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit” (Ethics II. ). It is by learning from an early age and through repetition that one becomes virtuous.

Thus, those who receive an education that instills them with cultural virtues will ultimately thrive, and will ultimately be happier. We should now look at Plato’s idea of virtue and justice more closely. There seems to be a lot of controversy amongst most modern thinkers (Columbia University students) about Plato’s idea of justice and happiness. Many of us struggle with the conflict between the individual’s happiness the happiness of the kalipolis. For Plato, the happiness of the individual is mirrored in the city-state. He considers society to be a whole and thus puts emphasis on the happiness for not just one class, but for all people.

He says that he does not aim to make any group outstandingly happy but to make the whole city (Republic 95). He goes on to define justice as everyone doing his or her own work. “ Or is [justice], above all, the fact that every child, woman, slave, freeman, craftsman,

ruler, and ruled each does his own work and doesn’t meddle with what is other people’s? (Republic 108).Plato proposes the idea that no one in a city can be happy unless the city as a whole is happy, and each citizen is performing his or her specific tasks.

In modern, liberal thought, this seems to be a terrible idea of happiness and justice. For if one was to be confined to his occupation for his only means of happiness, than we would probably consider him to be unhappy. But Plato would believe that this man would be just content performing his duty to society. This is where Aristotle disagrees with Plato's view that individual happiness should be sacrificed for the good of the community.Aristotle believes that individual happiness depends not only upon virtue, but also upon wealth, pleasure and the opportunity for leisure.

I think it is at this point that many of us today favor Aristotle’s view on happiness. Aristotle is an optimist and a realist. He recognizes that the way to happiness is through the golden mean of moderation. He allows for some vice as long as we have enough virtue to balance it out.

From analyzing both Plato and Aristotle’s views on happiness and good I came to the conclusion that happiness is a socially defined word.As Aristotle mentioned earlier no one is self-sufficient, if we were, then we would be more like animals or divine creatures. Happiness almost takes on a Darwinian sort of definition in this sense. The better we are at thriving and flourishing within a society the happier we are.

We may measure our flourishing only amongst ourselves.

The more the society flourishes as a whole, the higher our individual capabilities of being happy are. As much as I hate to admit it, I seem to agree with Plato in this sense.A government, a culture, or a kalipolis, will always be non-extractable from the individual. So it is the primary goal of politics to make as many people happy as possible.

A government decides on how best to do this. Whether it be a democracy, oligarchy, or capitalism, the individual must conform to this structure in some way if they want to even begin to be happy. Of course there will always be those who are possibly happier than others at some points in their evolution but we can only work with what we are given.