Something like that. We are by nature social beings not as influential modern political theorist like Locke and Hobbes claim social atoms. My happiness and your happiness is not separate from the happiness of the community. Some modern approaches to ethics, but not Utilitarianism, begin with the question of what we are obligated to do. I think this is the wrong way to approach the subject. It is not, however, to deny that we have obligations.To try to sum up your position, you think that moral obligations will naturally emerge from reflecting on what brings an individual happiness and fulfilment, because you can't ultimately be happy and fulfilled without doing what you can to help others achieve happiness and fulfilment too?
For Aristotle a good life is not guaranteed. There is always an element of good fortune. Abject poverty, famine, and poor health for example are anathema to a good life. He recognized that most people will not do much study and reflection on what the good life means, and so they may never reach the full potential of what humans are capable of, they will not fully achieve human virtue (this means something different than say Christian virtues) or excellence. But deliberation is only part of the good life. The development of good character and good habits can be achieved through upbringing, training, and education. Short of achieving the highest human potential we may achieve what we are capable of. We may, with good luck, live a good life relative to our capacities.It looks circular - a good life will result from the 'proper' type of study and reflection which results in a good life?
One thing that should be pointed out is the problem of translation. Eudaimonia is often translated as happiness, but happiness connotes things for us that are not part of eudaimonia and leaves out things that are. Some translate it as flourish and here we get some sense of the connection with achieving one’s potential.Good and Happy and Kind just naturally (and conveniently) go together if you think about it the 'right' way. But it's only the 'right' way because then they all go together. ?
I agree and this is one reason why some ethicists have rejected rule based ethics and returned to Aristotle, life is too complex to be covered by some set of rules. He was an astute observer of human behavior, but he’s been dead a long time. Any advances in our understanding of human nature and behavior fit seamlessly with his approach. This is part of the strenght of this approach, it begins with who we are and considers who we can be.But... as we understand human nature better, we realise we're actually extremely complex.
Yes, but he was not advocating a lifestyle. Phronesis or practical wisdom (keep in mind the problem of translation) is by definition adaptive. It is all about how we evaluate a situation and how we might respond in order to achieve a good outcome. Life is messy and involves compromises. Phronesis is about sorting through and weighing options. We all do this to some degree, but not always wisely.Isn't it inevitable that any lifestyle, no matter how rationally based on certain assumptions, will fulfil some needs and desires, but not others?
And simply calling one type of Happiness the 'right one', isn't really getting to some deeper truth?
Yes and no. It is ultimately up to the individual to decide what is best for him or her within the social constraints of others. Some will choose well and others will not, but choosing well is not measured against some absolute standard. For Aristotle the philosophical life is the good life par excellence, but it is the life that only a few will choose and only a few are suited for.
But a psychopath would not be happy as Aristotle understood the term. The psychopath is not mentally healthy and both physical and mental health are fundamental to happiness.An obvious extreme example, a psychopath's happiness simply isn't rooted in other people's happiness.
The question of the good life must be the question of the life that is good for me. It takes into account culture, experiences, learning and so on. It is the life that I want to lead. At the same time the question of the good life can, for those who are so inclined liberate us from the narrow confines of culture, experiences, learning and so on by calls these things into question.So isn't Aristotle making assumptions about others too narrowly based on himself, he being the result of his culture, experiences, learning and so on?
You are asking many of the right questions. It should be kept in mind that it is not intended as a system or solution or methodology.What do you think? Am I not understanding it right? Too crudely? Are these obvious objections which ultimately don't matter because in practice it works pretty well?
No. Have I? We can keep working on it.Have I nailed it and changed your whole outlook on morality?
And my apologies for not giving you more time.Apologies for giving you the impression I ignored you!