In Aristotle 's argument for the ultimate human good and how it relates to virtue is not so much a search for good for goods sake but for the highest good that a human being can ascertain in that persons experience and travels in life. So then how is it that Aristotle argument has validity to an over all understanding or relation to virtue? It is not an easy philosophical quandary to disseminate considering other philosophers have studied Aristotle 's teachings and spent the most part of their careers arguing against (in cases) this very prose. Then if one were to attempt to justify Aristotle 's argument that it would seem that, fist we must understand that in Aristotle 's mind that ethics is not a theoretical concept but an attempt to a more complete understanding of human good. This is to say if a person is better to understand human good it is not simply because to know human good in a quantified understanding is the end goal, or for the simple sake of knowledge but rather a process to that understanding. It is further assumed that a list of human good (at least by Aristotle 's thinking) is easy to list but this is not really the point, if after all human good in its ultimate state can be categorized, and quantified neatly into a lists of right or wrong, yes or no 's to a persons understanding then there are still gray areas that are still not answered, so as Aristotle argues that human good is not that simplistic in the whole scheme of things but rather it is more attuned to thinking that the parts are not greater than its whole but a more linear understanding to the process. There are essentially three characteristics in Aristotle 's argument for the higher human good, and these three characteristic brake down to: is it best desirable because of its own self, is it not desirable for some other good, and the culmination of all other good is best and desirable for itself?
…show more content…
What these three characteristic have in regards to human good is that in the end from Aristotle 's perspective is that a person does not live ethically or well for some sort of goal later on but rather from a understanding of positive virtues such as obtaining resources, ones health, and a better financial situation for example. This is not the real reason that a person aspires for the higher human good, but for the over all happiness obtained from these virtues is what drives a person or to put in another way a sense of personal hedonism is the driving factor or goal to why a person strives for a higher good. A person can only wonder if the effort in striving for a sense of ultimate human good must have something to do with a persons own interpretation of what humanity is? If this is true then what makes a person unique in the whole cosmic scheme is that humanity is capable of striving for improvement as well as the functionally of of understanding in both logic and reason this is probably Aristotle 's strongest argument for human good, however from someone trying to understand this concept from the outside looking in should understand that there is a difference between Aristotle 's interpretation of human good and the classical definition of virtue and even morality, these are indeed very different entities. Block B: In terms of the moral theory the most sound both practically and augmentative appears to be Immanuel Kant 's deontology. The reasoning for this is because of the available list of moral theories to choose from deontology or modern deontology defines that all things that are considered good should be right. To further strengthen this Kant uses his Categorical Imperative rule to interpret what is right and anything that is immoral goes against this rule is incorrect. An example of this which runs very much parallel to christian religious doctrinaire of the “Golden Rule” that can be found in Kant 's first formulation “ Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction” or in other words “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Kant 's definition also suggest that the moral act must have a sense of
What these three characteristic have in regards to human good is that in the end from Aristotle 's perspective is that a person does not live ethically or well for some sort of goal later on but rather from a understanding of positive virtues such as obtaining resources, ones health, and a better financial situation for example. This is not the real reason that a person aspires for the higher human good, but for the over all happiness obtained from these virtues is what drives a person or to put in another way a sense of personal hedonism is the driving factor or goal to why a person strives for a higher good. A person can only wonder if the effort in striving for a sense of ultimate human good must have something to do with a persons own interpretation of what humanity is? If this is true then what makes a person unique in the whole cosmic scheme is that humanity is capable of striving for improvement as well as the functionally of of understanding in both logic and reason this is probably Aristotle 's strongest argument for human good, however from someone trying to understand this concept from the outside looking in should understand that there is a difference between Aristotle 's interpretation of human good and the classical definition of virtue and even morality, these are indeed very different entities. Block B: In terms of the moral theory the most sound both practically and augmentative appears to be Immanuel Kant 's deontology. The reasoning for this is because of the available list of moral theories to choose from deontology or modern deontology defines that all things that are considered good should be right. To further strengthen this Kant uses his Categorical Imperative rule to interpret what is right and anything that is immoral goes against this rule is incorrect. An example of this which runs very much parallel to christian religious doctrinaire of the “Golden Rule” that can be found in Kant 's first formulation “ Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction” or in other words “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Kant 's definition also suggest that the moral act must have a sense of