Martha Nussbaum Arguments Against Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

The way in which Aristotle begins Nicomachean Ethics is with the statement “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision seems to seek some good.” (Aristotle Bk.1, Ch.1). This is a fitting way to begin, as it addresses exactly what the entire book hopes to convey. While at this point in the novel, readers remain unaware what the good that he is referring to means, it becomes clearer and clearer as it progresses why this is such an apt beginning. The Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to the notion that all humans are attempting to seek the ultimate end, which Aristotle describes as happiness, or the Good. If, as he says, everything we do in life is to seek some good, then each action or decision we make brings us closer to the ultimate end.

Therefore, we can state, as James Rachels does on page 24, “there is no objective ‘truth’ in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.” Since no differing beliefs may be considered right and wrong, the only solution is to let cultural relativism take effect. Any rational people understanding this theory will realize that their beliefs are considered to be true merely because it is their own culture’s beliefs. Others’ views must be held just as high as their own even though the two are not in agreement. Ideally, cultural relativism could allow this kind of understanding recognition between societies to develop and bring about coexistent peace.

Moral relativism is a prominent idea in philosophy that asks the question “Who am I to judge?”. This question focus primarily on morals between different people and cultures. As different cultures have different values and ways of life it stands that the morals between two cultures would vary, whether it be minimally or vastly. Midgley believed it was impossible to understand other cultures’ way, and that if we wanted to remain respectful and non discriminatory then we must not pass any form of judgement upon each other.

In this paper, I will summarize the article and offer comments about these selected aspects, identify some relevant and irrelevant issues. I will also suggest areas where addition research findings would help in understanding relativism and common moral values in a simplistic and effective

In this paper, I’m going to discuss the argument that the famous American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, has put forth regarding ‘ethical relativism’. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms and values of one's culture or society. That is, whether an action is classified as right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to

Each individual justifies their actions and wishes by appealing to various moral principles based on the local or individual conception of the good. In the argument of morality and where are those moral judgments come from, brings us to the central question of ethics, that is “What is the good for human beings?” More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle gives his answer in Nicomachen Ethics suggesting that the purpose of morality is to enable us to lead good lives, and it is necessary to acquire virtues to achieve the good. However, this view of ethics based on virtues led to a relativism toward the notion that believes the criteria of ethics is tied up with virtues which the local and individual approves to be good. In other words, the conception of goodness is based on the tradition or custom of the local society/groups or the individual. Therefore, many suggest that the high degree of individualism that was shown in Aristotle’s virtues ethics theory proves that he supports cultural relativism. In this paper, I will defend Aristotelian ethical approach based on virtues and refute relativists argument by showing the objections that against the local ethical objectivity.

As one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Aristotle was one of the greats. He altered history and the way our world views philosophy and ethics. One of his theories of ethics that he written in the form of 10 books was Nicomachean Ethics, this theory consisted of Aristotle’s perspective on the life of man and what makes a good life for man. Personally, I think his theory of ethics is a good outline of how to be an ethical and happy, I think Nicomachean ethics is a valid theory as it makes sense, and as a base line or starting point can be applied to many situations. Aristotle purposes that all human beings work toward a supreme happiness or good, this good is

Cultural Ethical Relativism is a theory that is used to explain differences among cultures, and thus their moral codes. According to cultural relativists, different cultures have different moral codes, and there is no objective truth in ethics. They believe there is no independent standard that can be used to judge one’s custom as better than another’s. In his article entitled “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels offers his argument against the theory of Cultural Relativism by proving the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound and invalid. Further in his article, Rachels reasons against the claims made by cultural relativists, and he argues there are common values shared by all cultures and there exists an independent standard

Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

As one reads though the translations of Aristotle’s thoughts, you begin to realize the complexity, yet the common sense of his work. Modern day people have a goal in life, to achieve a certain amount of success and to live life relatively happy. Most agree that to get to that goal, the populous must conform and participate

The two most prominent arguments for moral relativism include the argument of cultural diversity as well as the argument of tolerance. When it comes to cultural diversity, relativists argue

Aristotle’s work, The Nicomachean Ethics, consists of numerous books pertaining to Aristotle’s Ethics—the ethics of the good life. The first book discloses Aristotle’s belief on moral philosophy and the correlation between virtue and happiness.

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

In the book Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, Aristotle describes various way of living one’s life, the ultimate goal in life, and how to achieve happiness and live the best life. Aristotle describes three different kinds of lives in Nicomachean Ethics. These three lives consists of the life of honor, the life of pleasure, and the life of study. Aristotle, from the first book, insists that the life of study or contemplation is considered to be the best life. He argues that self-sufficiency is required for the life of study whereas the life of honor and pleasure are based upon a need for other people as well as a never ending cycle of pursuing higher goods.