Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
First page of a 1566 edition of the Aristotolic Ethics in Greek and Latin. The Nicomachean Ethics (/ ˌ n aɪ k ɒ m ə ˈ k i ə n, ˌ n ɪ-/; Ancient Greek: Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια, Ēthika Nikomacheia) is Aristotle's best-known work on ethics: the science of the good for human life, that which is the goal or end at which all our actions aim. [1]:
It also formulates a rule by which ethical actions can be determined and proposes that ethical actions should be universalizable, in a similar way to Kant's ethics. [ 52 ] Habermas argues that his ethical theory is an improvement on Kant's, [ 52 ] and rejects the dualistic framework of Kant's ethics.
Honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness (including straightforwardness of conduct: earnestness), along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.
Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not only a theoretical knowledge, but rather that a person must have "experience of the actions in life" and have been "brought up in fine habits" to become good (NE 1095a3 and b5). For a person to become virtuous, he can't simply study what virtue is, but must actually do virtuous things.
[1] [2] In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or earnestness of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy. [3] It regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that people who hold apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter those values.
They form a virtue theory of ethics. The term cardinal comes from the Latin cardo (hinge); [1] these four virtues are called "cardinal" because all other virtues fall under them and hinge upon them. [2] These virtues derive initially from Plato in Republic Book IV, 426-435. [a] Aristotle expounded them systematically in the Nicomachean Ethics.
Famously, James argued that for many people the decision whether or not to believe in God satisfies these four conditions. Such people, James claims, have both an intellectual and a moral right to believe in God, even though by their own admission they lack sufficient evidence to justify this choice. [2] [3]
Buddhist ethics sees these patterns of motives and actions as conditioning future actions and circumstances – the fruit of one's present actions, including the condition and place of the actor's future life circumstances (though these can also be influenced by other random factors). [21]