Intellectual Goodness, Religion, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Religion

Intellectual Goodness

Intellectual Goodness In the reading “The Way of Reason” Aristotle tries to define the good that is within mankind. He moves through a variety of exercises that narrow down and simplify the ideas that man is inherently good and that his tendency for it is deliberate and pre-destined. He looks at different activities, then breaks them down and finds the part that leads toward the final happiness. He feels that if man is truly good within his soul that he will be happy. Not necessarily happy as joyful, but, more like content or satisfied. He spends a large amount of time examining different virtues and behaviors and then determines what the outcomes of these activities are. Some examples are behaviors of men that may not link directly to the man himself. Things like bravery and cowardice. He uses fear, rashness, and courage to define what makes a man brave or a coward. It is each of these in varying degrees that create the description of a man’s actions. One with too much courage and rashness becomes foolhardy and takes unnecessary risks. One that might have too much fear and not enough rashness becomes the coward. For Aristotle, finding the mean of these values is what give the best measure of the man. If he has this balance then he is working toward the improvement of a situation without regard to himself. This might also be explained as; if a man has just the right amount of courage, rashness, bravery and fear, he will do what it takes to make things better for his fellow men. But, he does not make any actions that serve to create a better impression of himself to his peers. He does the things to “save the damsel in distress” but isn’t doing it to get approval from other men, he does it because it’s the “right” thing to do. By helping out he attempts to achieve a better place for those around him. And so he gains happiness knowing that he did the right thing without resorting to being foolhardy and selfish. Another example that Aristotle uses is physical pleasures. While these may make one happy, one needs temperance to draw the line between doing something for a greater good or doing it because it feels good. He creates a break between “a) pleasures of the soul and b) pleasures of the body.” (Gill, pg 359). Aristotle want to define that while people may derive pleasure from the senses, they need a temperance to prevent them from breaking away from the mean of pleasurable experiences and creating a desire that tries to draw them away. By enjoying the smell of a rose or incense at just the right degree instead of forsaking other things just for that physical pleasure. If a person makes every effort to recreate or prolong a physical sensation, then it becomes wrong. It pulls one away from being temperate and pulls away from attaining the right balance. Just as there is a balance for Aristotle of emotions like fear and rashness, there is a balance between enjoying something and being driven by the results of the experience. One thing that Aristotle does is refuse these feelings and behaviors from animals. He says that they are too low to truly identify and enjoy these feelings. “And if we extend our observation to the lower animals, we note that they, too, find nothing intrinsically pleasant in these sensations. A hunting dog gets no pleasure from the scent of a hare. The pleasure is in eating it; all the scent did was to tell him the hare was there. It is not the lowing of an ox that gratifies a lion but the eating it, though the lowing tells him an ox is somewhere about.” (Gill pg. 359-360) Some would disagree with this idea. They feel that many of the animals do harbor these emotions and feelings and would thus also have an innate goodness. There have been sociological studies that show primates have definite emotions and van do things for the good of others. This means that they would not behave based on the assumption that each animal was out for its own good. While social animals may behave together for a common good, these studies look deeper and have found emotions such as empathy and sadness and remorse. These are feelings that would drive an individual to do things that moved toward a goodness or happiness without being strictly self-benefiting. Frans de Waal looks at primates from a societal view. He wonders how could, through evolution and the survival of the fittest, empathy exist? This conclusion makes the assumption that the “emergence of morals must be a transcendent process beyond the bounds of scientific explanation.” (Moral Kin, review by William McGrew GOOD NATURED: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals). Waal wants to prove this assumption wrong. He looks at the general presence of moral systems across all of humanity. This state assumes that all societies have ethics, ethics are integral to human nature. He uses the reaction to a situation as his definition of an “expectation”. The definition is “The familiarity with a particular outcome to the degree that a different outcome has an unsettling effect, as reflected in confusion, surprise or distress.” (Moral Kin, review by William McGrew GOOD NATURED: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals) This mental state caused by the situation is determined on the basis of observable acts. Unexpectedly, […] about 200 animals gathered in silence around the mother-to-be, who soon squatted and delivered the newborn into her hands. The mother’s closest companion, an elder female named Atlanta, screamed in reaction to the birth, embraced two other chimpanzees, and spent the next several weeks closely attending the mother and offspring. (Interdisciplinary Study of Nonhuman Primates Gains Ground, Bunk The Scientist, vol. 12, #10). “It is quite possible that the emotional reaction of Atlanta reflected empathy, that is, identification with the understanding of what was happening to her friend.” (F.B.M. de Waal, Good Natured: Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals) If an animal such as the chimpanzee can identify a situation and then project an expectation of the outcome, then above that place itself within the situation with a reaction to its outcome, would that refute Aristotle’s claim that animals are not capable of goodness? One can look at these examples and begin to question his beliefs. If the chimpanzee can identify the actions of another then modify its’ behavior to work toward a better situation for its fellow animals, then one should come to the conclusion that this is the same as the man coming to the aid of the damsel. The individual forgoes any benefit to himself and acts only for the benefit of the other. Then ultimately will lead to happiness for all. So Aristotle’s claim isn’t completely without fault, there is a potential for beings other than man to have an innate desire to move toward a general happiness. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1176