More simply, the objection asks why one ought to want to be happy. For Aristotle this is sophistry. Humans do want to be happy, just as fish do want to be in the water. It's just the way we are. "We don't necessarily want to be happy," is nothing more than a debater's argument. — Leontiskos
I don't think the thesis that society is experiencing decay in some important aspects can be easily written off by pointing to progress in other areas. — Count Timothy von Icarus
By “moral decay” I mean that we are in a period of time where morality is being by-at-large supplanted with hyper-individualism — Bob Ross
Telos is cast aside because final causation is most easily thought of in terms of practical reason*, whereas the is-ought gap only exists under the tyranny of the "objective." (Like I said, the third objection I don't see as actually following from Aristotle's philosophy.) — Count Timothy von Icarus
Modern society is decaying; and this decay is a direct result of moral anti-realism. It is hard to say why moral anti-realism has caught wind like wild fire, but I would hypothesize it is substantially influenced by Nietzschien thought.
With this moral anti-realism, society slowly loses it’s ability to function rationally (since it has cut out The Good from its inquiry) and begins to cause people to damage themselves in the name of “you-do-you!”. — Bob Ross
Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion) — Wikipedia - Moral Realism
I suggest society by-at-large goes back to Aristotle’s ideas (for the most part) to live a better life. — Bob Ross
The chief good for a human being is to be a eudaimon (viz., to embody the chief good [for human beings] of eudamonia [i.e., of a deep and persistent sense of happiness, flourishing, and well-being]); and this is the most persistently satisfying and deeply rewarding pursuit a person can endeavor on. Everything else is, if it does not relate somehow thereto, a mere distraction...
...the virtue of a human being too would be that characteristic as a result of which a human being becomes good and as a result of which he causes his own work to be done well. — Bob Ross
“The happy [eudemian] life also seems to be accord with virtue, and this is the life that seems to be accompanied by seriousness but not to consist in play...If happiness [eudaimonia] is an activity in accord with virtue, it is reasonable that it would accord with the most excellent virtue, and this would be the virtue belonging to what is best” — Bob Ross
A key aspect of living well for a human being (and, arguably, any member of a rational kind) is living a (morally and intellectually) virtuous life; but it is important to note that, for Aristotle, “virtue” is not a morally-loaded term. For Aristotle, “virtue” is a sort of excellence which is relative to the subject, craft, etc. in question; whereas “moral virtue” is the subtype of virtue which is about moral excellence—i.e., doing well at being moral. It can be seen more clearly now that a person who wants to fulfill their nature must excel in every regard to that nature (i.e., must be virtuous); and a part of this is being moral, as morality pertains fundamentally to how to act best in accordance with what is good. — Bob Ross
What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu
Telos was cast aside by Democritus about 50 years before Aristotle. 'Things do not come into existence for a purpose, but having come into existence, they find a purpose.' Both outlooks are parts of our heritage, and they're both still with us. I expect that if humanity exists 2400 years from now, that will still be the case. Don't you agree?
. possibly I've hung out with the wrong people but the idea that "humans necessarily want to be happy" is extremely implausible to me. Here, for instance, is a person named Pat. Pat suffers from a variety of psychological, physical, and spiritual maladies that produce a kind of chronic frustration, depression, resentment, and lack of ease -- in short, what we mean by "unhappiness." If you ask Pat if they "want to be happy," the answer you will get is: "Nonsense. What you call 'being happy' is for sheep. I operate on a higher plane. Of course I'm miserable, but that is what happens when a person of true intellect sees the world aright. — J
It is misleading for many people to think of themselves as having no design and instead having to create their own purpose: that leads to radical individualism. — Bob Ross
The OP is about Aristotle and the claim that his moral ideas are better than those that prevail in our own time. — Leontiskos
I don't know . . . possibly I've hung out with the wrong people but the idea that "humans necessarily want to be happy" is extremely implausible to me. Here, for instance, is a person named Pat. Pat suffers from a variety of psychological, physical, and spiritual maladies that produce a kind of chronic frustration, depression, resentment, and lack of ease -- in short, what we mean by "unhappiness." If you ask Pat if they "want to be happy," the answer you will get is: "Nonsense. What you call 'being happy' is for sheep. I operate on a higher plane. Of course I'm miserable, but that is what happens when a person of true intellect sees the world aright. I wouldn't trade one minute of my unhappiness for a fool's paradise of Smiley Faces." Pat, you could say, would rather be Happy (their sense) than happy, but surely that's stretching what "happy" means. Let's face it: Pat just doesn't want to be happy, and they can give you their reasons why.
The form of moral anti-realism taking prominence, is this “Nietzschien kind”. Not only is it bad for a human to think they can acquire happiness through fulfilling their desires but this sort of thought leads to the crumbling of society into arbitrary, narcissistic power-struggles. None of which is good for people. — Bob Ross
Philosophy follows society, not the other way around
As for that, I don't see that you've provided any evidence or argument that Aristotle's moral formulations are in any way objective.
As I see it, impossible to implement, unlikely to solve the problem you've identified, unnecessary, and damaging to societies and individuals.
Maybe this is the my biggest disagreement with you and Aristotle in this regard. The meanings of "good," "virtue" and "happiness" are in no way objective facts.
Happiness without play? That is not my experience or, I think, that of most people.
Again, you haven't really defined the key words in this statement. Does Aristotle?
By "intrinsic virtuosity" Chuang Tzu means our true nature, to oversimplify - our hearts, conscience. My first take is that this is exactly what you meant when you said "moral anti-realism," but as I thought about it, it struck me that's not true at all. They really are very similar, at least as you've described Aristotle's ideas.
I am not sure what you mean here? Nietzsche talked about acquiring happiness through fulfilling desires?
When we get what we want, doesn’t that automatically make us happier than we would have been had we not achieved that thing that we wanted? — Joshs
Nietzsche's moral philosophy is that there is no morality (in the traditional sense) but, rather, we create our own values and subject ourselves to our own created moral law. — Bob Ross
I am getting a bit lost: I never suggested people should create their own purposes, so I am confused why you asking me about that. Am I missing something? — Bob Ross
It is misleading for many people to think of themselves as having no design and instead having to create their own purpose: that leads to radical individualism. — Bob Ross
When we get what we want, doesn’t that automatically make us happier than we would have been had we not achieved that thing that we wanted?
— Joshs
This is a psychological question, not a philosophical one, I would say. For what it's worth, my answer is No. All too often, as I know from my own experience, getting what you want can be a bitter disappointment (and bad for you too!). — J
Philosophical idealogies are the guiding forces behind societial norms — Bob Ross
This thread was not meant to provide an argument for why Aristotelian ethics is a form of moral realism: that’s common knowledge. — Bob Ross
Ah, so you are a moral anti-realist? — Bob Ross
Aristotle is noting that the happy life consists in hard work, in being virtuous, and not chasing desires or passions; he is clarifying for those who conflate happiness in the richest sense with the superficial kind that kids have. — Bob Ross
Aristotle kind of does—it depends. What words do you need me to define for you? — Bob Ross
Following one’s moral intuitions is not necessarily incompatible with moral realism, and, as a virtue ethicist, Aristotle is going to agree that a moral compass is more important than moral principles; but he will warn against blindly following one’s heart: one has to cultivate a virtueous character or otherwise they have no reason to believe they are morally sensitive and wise enough to intuit properly in nuanced situations. A psychopathic narcissist probably isn’t going make the right decision following their heart, without first reshaping it. — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.