Aristotle believes that we need virtue, both of thought and of character, to achieve that completeness leading to happiness. This is the function: activity in the soul in accord with virtue, where soul is defined as what is in us that carries out our characteristic activity. Aristotle is right in believing we need virtue. The end of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics Book I introduces the idea that since happiness is “a certain sort of activity of the soul in accord with complete virtue, we must examine virtue,” because doing so will allow us to closer analyze and understand how to study happiness.
He goes on to identify two areas: virtues of thought and virtues of character. I believe the philosopher is right when he thinks that a good life requires harnessing both kinds of virtues. Virtues of thought are simpler to identify, as they include excellence in problem solving skills, abstract and rational thought, mathematics and the like. Virtues of character, which are also called ‘moral virtues’, seem to be more complex and are also an integral part of the completeness that Aristotle said was necessary for a good life.
Some examples of these virtues are generosity and patience. Virtues of character are definitely good for the possessor as Aristotle states in chapter 6, “having these feelings at the right times, about the right things, toward the right people, for the right end, and in the right way, is the intermediate and best condition, and this is the proper virtue. ” Finding that mean or middle ground, that balance or yin and yang, is essential to establishing a completeness which ultimately lead to happiness. One problem may be actually the path to virtue.
The Essay on The Better Morality: Kant and Aristotle on Happiness
Because Kant and Aristotle hold practically equal definitions of happiness, the difference must arise from the respective relationships between happiness and each author’s framework of morality. Because Kant offers a more universally accessible route to morality, whose end is the happiness of others, the world as a whole would be both happier and more virtuous if it operated under his philosophy. ...
The idea of pleasure without pain is not realistic in the mortal world. Everything on this plane is relative. Take, for example, two dogs: Dog A lives on the street and has all of his life. He has to find himself food everyday in alleys and has to deal with the weather. This life is good to him because it is his world and he does not know any better. As far as Dog A is concerned, he is in ‘heaven’. Dog B lives in a mansion with air conditioning and gourmet steaks that are given to him on a regular basis.
This is all Dog B knows and he is not aware of anything else out there better than this (even though it surely exists), so this dog is in heaven also. Imagine their own individual and relative differences if they were to switch places. Dog A would go to a mansion atmosphere and the comfort of his life would dramatically improve, while Dog B’s life would be hell all of a sudden. This relation of pleasure to pain and how it is all relative makes one take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Nelson, W. Philosophy 1305 Proteus Classics Readings. Thomson Custom Publishing, Mason. pgs 81-122.
