Throughout his life. Aristotle paid peculiarly close attending to the impression of felicity. In Aristotle’s sentiment. felicity is achieved by obtaining the highest good by populating a good life. However. populating a good life in conformity with Aristotle’s positions can be hard. He believes that in order to populate a good life. one must invariably seek to carry through the bodily needs. To make so. one must populate with moral and rational virtuousnesss at all times. Aristotle believed that life with moral and rational virtuousnesss is accomplished by developing a acute sense of reason.
He says that rational judgement is the consequence of life within the appropriate mean of two extremes. There are several illustrations he gives to exemplify this construct. One illustration he provides is the appropriate mean between moving courageously and moving cowardly. He proceeds to explicate that if he was to move excessively courageous so when he was in conflict he would move overzealously and do himself injury. However. if he was to move without adequate aggression so he would look cowardly. Aristotle explains that it is sensible to be confused with this account.
He farther explains that it is non happening the exact mean between two extremes that one must endeavour. but to measure each state of affairs separately. He says that with each state of affairs that arises. one must analyse it and find to what grade of one extreme or another one must react with. Each individual. he believes. will respond otherwise and no state of affairs will be precisely the same. It is through one’s intelligence and practical wisdom that will let them to populate with moral and rational virtuousnesss. By following this construct. Aristotle believes felicity can be achieved.
Although Aristotle’s construct of felicity is a reasonable statement. it fails to account for a figure of state of affairss. Aristotle’s primary thesis concerns the application of the appropriate mean of two extremes. However. there are several state of affairss which do non hold an appropriate mean between two extremes. For illustration. there is no mean found on the issue of slaying. If Aristotle’s construct was applied. would person hold to find the mean between overly slaying and merely somewhat slaying another individual?
In such a instance as this. Aristotle argues that there are some actions which do non necessitate any application of the mean of two extremes because some actions are ever incorrect. With this account raises the inquiry why the construct of a mean between extremes is given if it can non account for all state of affairss? Furthermore. it besides brings into inquiry when to use a mean between extremes or how to find that a peculiar action is an exclusion because it is merely merely incorrect. Therefore. because Aristotle’s construct of felicity fails to account for all practicalities. it is non a good theoretical account to specify felicity.