Eternal things, Aristotle claimed, must be good; there can be no defect in something that exists necessarily, because badness is connected with some kind of lack, a not-being of something which ought to be there, an absence of the actuality that Aristotle thought God most perfectly has.
Aristotle's ethics is an ethics of the good life. How does one achieve the good life? In order to answer this question, we must have some understanding of what is meant by "the good". We begin with a description of "the good" as it is commonly understood by most of us. We speak of a good pen, a good computer, a good pair of skates, a good car, a lousy car, a lousy computer, etc. If we look very carefully, the good is directly linked to a thing's operation. When a thing has a proper operation, the good of the thing and its well being consist in that operation. The proper operation of a pen is to write, and so a good pen writes well. The proper operation of a knife is to cut food, so a good knife will cut well. The proper operation of a car is to drive efficiently, safely, smoothly, etc. So, a good car is one that drives well, that is, efficiently, safely, smoothly, etc.
At the end of this line of argument, Aristotle comes to the conclusion that God knows only himself; so he does not know this physical world that we inhabit, he does not have a plan for us, and he is not affected by us.
True, the first settlers of bohemia -- which was then identicalwith the avant-garde -- turned out soon to be demonstrativelyuninterested in politics. Nevertheless, without the circulationof revolutionary ideas in the air about them, they would neverhave been able to isolate their concept of the "bourgeois"in order to define what they were not. Nor, without the moralaid of revolutionary political attitudes would they have had thecourage to assert themselves as aggressively as they did againstthe prevailing standards of society. Courage indeed was neededfor this, because the avant-garde's emigration from bourgeoissociety to bohemia meant also an emigration from the markets ofcapitalism, upon which artists and writers had been thrown bythe falling away of aristocratic patronage. (Ostensibly, at least,it meant this -- meant starving in a garret -- although, as wewill be shown later, the avant-garde remained attached to bourgeoissociety precisely because it needed its money.)
Aristotles concept of the Prime Mover found its way into the medieval theology of Thomas Aquinas and his cosmological proof for the existence of God.
The finding is the latest in a series of related discoveries in the field of social genomics. In 2007, John Cacioppo, a professor of psychology and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, and Steve Cole, a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, among others, identified a link between loneliness and how genes express themselves. In a small study, since repeated in larger trials, they compared blood samples from six people who felt socially isolated with samples from eight who didn’t. Among the lonely participants, the function of the genome had changed in such a way that the risk of inflammatory diseases increased and antiviral response diminished. It appeared that the brains of these subjects were wired to equate loneliness with danger, and to switch the body into a defensive state. In historical and evolutionary terms, Cacioppo suggested, this reaction could be a good thing, since it helps immune cells reach infections and encourages wounds to heal. But it is no way to live. Inflammation promotes the growth of cancer cells and the development of plaque in the arteries. It leads to the disabling of brain cells, which raises susceptibility to neurodegenerative disease. In effect, according to Cole, the stress reaction requires “mortgaging our long-term health in favor of our short-term survival.” Our bodies, he concluded, are “programmed to turn misery into death.”
This then has to originate from a person having the right beliefs and values that conform to the norms of the society.
Aristotle and Plato were philosophers who lived thousands of years ago.
Therefore, if this virtue is necessary in securing blessings, then having a good moral fiber will lead to a good life.
Likewise, different organizations have diverse ethical standards that members of that profession follow strictly.
This combination is what gives rise to a good life as envisioned by Plato and Aristotle.
A large majority of the world population belong to different religions.
It is assumed that whoever does not break the rules lives a happy life, as he/she does not worry about arrests or lawsuits.
Currently, the perception of the good life is largely materialistic.
Success, which is an achievement of a lifelong ambition, therefore becomes a reward for living a good life.
As a result, it is indisputable that man is always trying to figure out his/her purpose on earth.
Finally, Aristotle underscores the importance of a proper upbringing. A child that is brought up well is well disposed towards goodness. It does not mean that he or she will necessarily turn out well. But a child that is habituated towards sense pleasure will mistakenly think that the purpose of his life is nothing but pleasure, which is a false notion of happiness. And a child that is habituated towards a quest for fame and power will mistakenly regard honors as the chief end or purpose of human life, or the principal means of happiness. But the pursuit of honors is fickle, and those people who are satisfied with the recognition of excellence rather than the excellence itself are deceived. Only a person brought up properly will recognize the kalon in the virtuous activity of the noble person. So it is true that good parenting does incalculable good. In fact, one could argue that in this light, parenting is probably the most important work in the maintenance of civilization.
The good life also includes secondary aspects that add to the happy life. Many people today confuse the secondary instances of the kalon with the primary, which is virtue. But happiness is found in virtue, not in these secondary instances, which only add to it, as salt adds flavor to food that is already good. These secondary instances include pleasure, good health and appearance, proper nourishment and sustenance, a full life span, friendships, sufficient wealth and enough time for leisure, and respectable family origin.
What Aristotle argues here is really, when you think about it, more in accordance with the facts. Recall the questions we asked earlier about whether being happy is necessarily the result of having a spouse, house, good job, etc.,. For only a virtuous person will be able to be a good husband/wife, a good parent, and a person committed to the good of the state. And so it is not enough to have these things in order to be happy. And it isnÕt doing what you want that renders a person happy, but willing the good, the noble, the beautiful. For it is impossible for a virtuous person (character) to be unhappy.