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

Platos morals concerning salubrious- cosmos arise from the arrest of the discourse on scarcelyice where Thrasymachus articulates that justice is in f identification number merely a social contract whereby spate agree not to inflict hurt on former(a)s in return for not organism harmed. Out of this rises the pass wellhead if this is all justice is, if it is simply desir adequate to(p) for its consequences, In this illustration the avoidance of harm, thence wherefore shouldnt I fishing tackle? If I bath get away with it why wouldnt whiz cheat?Now follows the Gyges story, Glaucon puts it to Plato that if two men, genius whom leads a life of uprightness and one who doesnt, acquired a ring that could turn you invisible, even the utter(a) domain would not be able to resist acting immorally so and so pot be not actually virtuous, more just affright of the consequences of not being so. This is making the point that no man is so virtuous that he could resist the temptat ion of being able to bargain at will by the rings power of invisibility. In modern terms, Glaucon still argues that morality is a social construction, whose source is the swear to up hold ones reputation for legality and satin flower when that sanction is removed, the moral case would evaporate.However Plato disagrees, he thinks the truly virtuous man would act morally and be happy and at rest with himself, even when the outcome may not be seen as in their best interests e.g. loss of reputation when sentenced to death Socrates had the chance to escape and go and cognize in another place but he refused to because it would be wrong to obey the laws of the land wholly when they suited you, so he stayed and was killed. For Plato this is not only the right thing to do but he would go as far to say that he would be happier expiry virtuous than invigoration having broken the law. Although I think this should not be taken as he enjoyed his actual death quite at that place was a certain content dignified air about it, as done living a virtuous life he had r separatelyed eudemonia because for Plato uprightness is sufficient for military personnel well being.Then to garnish the extreme of what Plato is express a second ring is added, and it is put to Plato that if twain men had a ring, one just and one below the belt, and the unjust man carries out his unjust activities but is clever enough to disguise it and up holds his reputation for being a moral citizen so therefore gets away un punished until now conversely the just man whom has been virtuous in all his actions is see and crucified for being unjust and his reputation soiled. Is Plato saying even in this baptistry it is still better to be the just man?Plato explicitly maintains that yes it is, and uses this physical object lesson to show that if it is the near advantageous and right thing to do in this situation then I moldiness follow that it is the close to beneficial and right thing to do in all situations. But why is it the most beneficial? Why should people be just, Plato believes that it is d cause to the tri- purposeite genius of the soul if things atomic number 18 not in the right eternal rest then it becomes a matter of damaging your mental health. Plato believes that justice is gratifying in itself not merely because of its consequences.The purpose of kind-hearted life is to live virtuously. The end that all virtuous beings should aim at to be in conjugation with the form of the straightforward, this is the way of achieving the highest form of forgiving public assistance. In tack together to live virtuously one moldiness pass on justice in the soul. jurist in the soul can only be present when the m any-sided elements are in accurate harmony when reason is judgement all over spirit and spirit is controlling desires or appetites wisdom can be seen to represent the rational part of the soul and bravery parallels the spirited part of the soul with discipline existing in controlling desires. When the soul is in balance only then can virtue be exercised and human well-being achieved.Plato states that it is im doable for one to be happy if justice is not present in the soul and put forward this air to illustrate why the unjust mans life leads to misery. Plato believes that the tyrant is the most unhappy of people because he is in a ready of slavery and has no substantive freedom, he is ruled and governed by passion and surrounded by enemies. collectable to being dominated by passion his main aim is to test entertainment. Plato argues that each of the three parts of the soul corresponds to a different shell of pleasureRational- Gains pleasure in seeking the truth.Spirited- Gains pleasure out of motion and honour.Appetitive- Gains pleasure through the empirical senses, e.g. sex/drink/food.The tyrant thinks that his pleasure is the best type, this can in desire manner be said for the oligarch and the philosopher, howev er Plato claims that only the philosophers assertion can be the real truth for he has experienced all types of pleasure and is therefore in the best position to decide.when the whole mind accepts the leadership of the philosophical part, and there is no indwelling conflict, then each part can do its job and be moral in every(prenominal)thing it does, and in particular it can enjoy its protest pleasures and thus reaps as much benefit from pleasure as is possible (586)But if the mind is controlled by either the spirited or appetitive elements it is not possible for it to attain its testify correct pleasure and begins to coerces the other two elements to engage in false happiness, so far as that appetitive desires are farthest removed from reason and therefore law and order, 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.So because justice is now desirable in itself and for its consequences its not a expression of why should I do it, for Plato you act justly for its own sake.So how would the just man hump what actions are virtuous and which are not This is where the hypothesis of the forms can be introduced, according to Plato we live in a world of appearances of which we cognise through perception, appearances are temporary, changing, fallible and cause to doubt. Although Plato also believed that there is an infallible, eternal, unchanging realm the realm of the forms. The forms are commutative of the mind metaphysical entities as real as anything we cognise through are empirical senses.So in order for one to posses any true knowledge then one must entertain penetration to the forms. In order to know what courage is one must know the form of courage so that when deciding if a particular act is courageous you can compare the form with the act and see if they have anything in common. Upon gathering this information you are now and only aft(prenomin al) consulting the form, in a position to obtain an objectively correct answer. Does this recall that those whom dont have access to the forms of the virtues cannot be virtuous and in turn not achieve well-being?So in outline one must have the soul in the correct balance this is the necessary and sufficient clause for well being and why is this the case because of the tri-partite nature of the soul.Aristotles ethics are very similar to that of Platos, share distinct similarities but also somewhat differences. For Aristotle human-well being can also be translated as Eudemonia (flourishing). In book one Aristotle states that 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.As an primeval virtue theorist Aristotle believes a person should be judged on their character and not their actions. According to Aristotle virtue is something learned through constant act beginni ng at a young age. To further figure this we should full translate arte-this is the word translated into virtue in most English translations however the word more generally translates into worth, so for drill a class period of medicineian will adjoin arte in playacting without any moral connotations. It logically follows that excellence in music cannot be reached simply by reading about it, it requires systematic pull and unimaginative implementation.For Aristotle there is not necessarily an essential distinction amid being virtuous and physical exertion a learned skill 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.Aristotelian virtue ethics are more specific than Platos, he talks of virtue in a more systematic sense. This is highlighted by the doctrine of t he cerebrate his theory that virtue exists between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. For example the virtuous mean of courage lies between the vices of recklessness and cowardice, which represent excess and deficiency respectively.In order to achieve well being one must movement to find the golden mean of all the virtues in the 36 fix table, however Aristotle does clearly remind us that there are no exact laws in political sciences rather we need to approach each case individually informed by calculated virtues and some practical wisdom. Virtue for Aristotle is A posteriori learning through experience, what is the mean path sex act to us?Like 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.One 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.1. A good character.2. One must be active in living virtuously3. One must have external goods.Happiness according to Aristotle is a public not a private affair, so whom you share this happiness with is of great importance. The city-states of ancient Greece were tightly knit communities. In politics Aristotle says we cannot fully realize our potential as humans 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 scantness the view that it is hard to be happy when starving.This is in direct contradiction with Platos teachings and is blatantly outlined in the story of the ring of Gyges.anoth er(prenominal) fundamental difference between Aristotle and Platos teachings on well being is that the whole of Platos metaphysics is underpinned by the forms. To be fully virtuous one must have access to the forms but Aristotle completely rejects the forms as having no tangible foundation for believing them. Aristotle thinks that the problem solved by the forms can in fact be answered empirically he presents us with the mapping argument this explains that the duty of a harpist is to play the harp well. A human also just like the eye has a launch purpose or unravel and the play 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.It seems that both Aristotle and Plato believe that in order for humans to achieve well being they must fulfil their function, so in order to commit the real difference of their views on well being we must understand their views on wh at our function is. Platos view on this is outlined in Book One of The Republic Socrates is trying to prove 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 that which one can do only with it or best with it (Republic I 352e). For example, the function of eyes is to see, and since a pruning spit is better suited to pruning than a butchers knife, its function is to prune. Having established this, Socrates goes on to argue that everything also has a measured virtue that corresponds to the implementation of its function.The virtues of our ears are hearing and the virtue of the knife would be its sharpness. An object that is deficient in its virtue is said to be incapable of performing its function well (a dull knife would not be able to cut properly). Having demonstrated this, Socrates now looks at the human soul and its function. Is there some function of a soul that you coul dnt perform with anything else, for example, taking care of things, ruling, deliberating? Is there anything other than a soul to which you could rightly advance these, and say that they are its peculiar function? What of living? Isnt that a function of the soul? (Republic I 353d)Thrasymachus agrees to Socrates definition of the souls function and they go on to examine what the virtue of the soul is, that allows it to perform its function. From his previous(prenominal) argument regarding the importance of virtue in the performance of ones function, Socrates infers that a non-virtuous soul would do a poor job of ruling etc, time a virtuous soul would do a good job. Then 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.Aristotle 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 throw out if human beings have a function (the function argument). 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 anyhow all theirs? (Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7 29-33). So assumptive 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 equal 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 hu man being to be happy, he or she must live a life that successfully expresses reason.Here we see that both agree that to achieve well being, humans must fulfil their function but do they disagree on what that function is? Plato believing that it is living a just life and Aristotle that it is excellent reasoning, I think not, isnt being virtuous having reason ruling over the soul, surely this is the homogeneous as exhibiting excellent reason.