- According to Aristotle, happiness consists of living a life of virtue and contemplation, and it is achieved by engaging in activities that are in line with one’s nature and pursuing the highest good. Aristotle defines two kinds of goods, primary goods and secondary goods. Aristotle defines primary goods as goods pursued solely for themselves, and not to achieve a goal. Secondary goods are pursued in order to obtain other goods. Some examples of primary goods are wisdom, friendship and pleasure. Wealth and fame, however, can be considered secondary goods. Aristotle argues that primary goods are necessary for happiness because they are intrinsically valuable and can bring pleasure and fulfillment to a person’s life.
Aristotle was right about the primary goods. They provide more satisfaction and meaning in life. While pursuing wealth and fame can bring you temporary satisfaction, it does not provide a lasting source of happiness. Building and maintaining close relationships with family and friends, and seeking wisdom and personal development can help you live a fulfilling life.
Plato suggests in the Myth Gyges that people would act less virtuously if they could do anything they wanted without consequences. This implication is inconsistent with Aristotle’s thoughts on happiness because Aristotle believes that virtuous actions are necessary for happiness. A person who acts immorally is not living a virtue-filled life and will not achieve happiness. Therefore, I believe that Aristotle’s view on happiness is more convincing because it emphasizes the importance of living a virtuous life and pursuing things that have intrinsic value.
- John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty argues that freedom of expression is necessary for a flourishing society because it allows individuals to share their opinions and ideas freely, which in turn leads to the exchange of ideas and the progress of knowledge. Mill argues that suppressing someone’s opinion is wrong even if that opinion is false because it is only through the free exchange of ideas that the truth can be discovered. Plato’s Ship of Fools implies that freedom of expression can lead to chaos and that some people are not fit to participate in public discourse. The Ship of Fools is an allegory that represents a world where everyone can express their opinion, regardless of knowledge and expertise. As a result, everyone ends up drowning and the ship crashes.
While I think we should have the freedom to say what we want, we must also use words that are respectful of others. Although there’s a chance that people will abuse their freedom of speech, i believe the benefits that come with a more open and free society far outweigh any risks. Education and encouraging people think critically of their opinions as well as those others’ is the best way to make sure that freedom of speech is exercised responsibly.
- The Trolley Problem presents a choice between saving many by harming one person, or staying out of the situation. According to a consequentialist, saving the most people is the right thing to do because the outcome will be the highest good for everyone. A deontological view would say that it’s wrong to hurt one person, even if saving many would result in a greater good. This would go against the principle not to use others to achieve an objective.
Personaly, I think that saving the most people is the right thing to do in this situation. It is hard to take a risk that could harm someone. However, in this situation I think that not taking action would be just as harmful because it might result in many deaths. It is best to choose the option that will lead to the greatest good.