We Saw Last Week That Aristotle's Definition Of Eudaimonia

PL201 We Saw Last Week That Aristotle’s Definition Of Eudaimonia Which

Pl201we Saw Last Week That Aristotles Definition Of Eudaimonia Which

PL201 We saw last week that Aristotle’s definition of eudaimonia (which we usually translate as “happiness”) is actually a rational activity connected with living virtuous lives and doing everything we do with excellence; but, our happiness can only be truly assessed at the end of our lives, if we can look back and honestly say we did the best we could, lived virtuously, made rational choices, and can say we have no regrets. In most cases, when we have regrets, it is about how we treated other people. On the other hand, John Stuart Mill defines happiness in the more traditional sense (we choose something that benefits people and makes them feel good or better in some way); but, for Mill, it is no longer about our own happiness, since we have to think equally about everyone who might be affected by our choices, and our happiness is no more important than the happiness of anyone else who might be affected by our decisions.

Here is the scenario: When President Truman took over after FDR's death, he wanted to end WW2 as quickly as possible and stop the hundreds of thousands of future deaths that would be incurred on both sides if the war continued. One possible way to quickly stop the fighting was to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, killing thousands of unarmed citizens. Granted, the families of those killed by the bombs would not be happy, but the happiness of the families (and soldiers) of those serving on both sides of the conflict would far exceed the pain caused if the war could be over in a matter of days after dropping the bomb. History shows that Truman was correct in his very clear Utilitarian reasoning, because the Japanese did in fact surrender only a few days after the second bomb was dropped.

But, Truman always regretted his decision and even died regretting the fact that he had given the order to kill so many non-combatant Japanese people. He was not interested as much in the results (as a good Utilitarian would be) as the fact that what he did was a far cry from what he thought a truly virtuous person would choose to do in the same situation. In his mind, he opted for expediency instead of virtue. So, imagine that you are an advocating angel in Truman’s trial for eternity. • Pick one (1) of the three possible positions below and present your case with good evidence. (1) As a Utilitarian angel and on the defense team, provide the justification for why Truman should be admitted to heaven, even though he feels guilty. Or, (2) as an Aristotelian angel, same thing; history says he did the right thing, even though he had personal regrets; so, you have to prove that what he did was rational, virtuous, and exhibited excellence, despite his own misgivings. Not only are you going to have to convince the jury of your peers (classmates), but you will need to convince Truman himself. Or, (3) as an Aristotelian angel for the prosecution, convince the jury that Truman’s violation of his understanding of virtue, rationality, and living excellently means that he should be condemned to hell—regardless of the positive consequences of his decision. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions! Be sure to use the tenets of which ever ethical theory you are defending in order to present your “case.â€

Paper For Above instruction

In examining President Truman’s decision to use atomic weapons on Japan through the lens of ethical theories, the approach taken significantly influences the judgment about his moral culpability and the consequent ethical evaluation of his actions. This essay adopts an Aristotelian perspective, asserting that Truman’s decision was a rational exercise in virtuous action, aligned with the concept of eudaimonia as living virtuously and pursuing excellence in rational activity. This perspective emphasizes that moral virtue involves rational deliberation aimed at achieving the highest good, entailing a commitment to the virtues of justice, courage, and practical wisdom (phronēsis).

Aristotle’s conception of virtue as a mean between excess and deficiency asserts that moral actions are judged by their accordance with rational virtues. In the context of Truman’s decision, the virtue of justice requires weighing the moral significance of saving lives through explosive means versus the moral outrage of killing innocent civilians. While the act of dropping atomic bombs resulted in immense suffering, Aristotle would argue that the decision, made after careful rational deliberation, aimed at the higher virtuous goal of ending the war swiftly—thus minimizing overall suffering in the long term. From this vantage point, Truman exercised practical wisdom by choosing the most effective means to achieve a morally commendable end: ending the war and saving countless lives that would have been lost through prolonged conflict (Annas, 2011). Therefore, his decision exemplifies rational activity directed toward the common good, reflecting virtuous moderation in weighing the consequences and moral imperatives.

One might contend that virtue encompasses not only effective action but also moral character. Truman’s inner remorse, despite the rational justification, suggests a moral struggle—yet this internal conflict does not negate the virtuous quality of his decision. Instead, it highlights the complexity of moral life and the virtue of humility and acknowledgment of human fallibility, which are consistent with Aristotle’s ethic of moral development (Hursthouse, 2018). His regret signifies a recognition of the moral weight of his choices and demonstrates an active engagement with the virtues of justice and prudence, which are central to achieving eudaimonia. Moreover, regret does not automatically disqualify an act from virtuous judgment if the decision was made with rational deliberation aimed at the good (Kraut, 2018).

In addition, Aristotle’s emphasis on the rational activity of deliberation and the pursuit of excellence aligns with the notion that moral virtue is about acting in accordance with reason over a lifetime. Truman’s decision was made in a context of extreme crisis requiring prudent judgment, and his regret reflects his moral nature and concern for human suffering—traits that are congruent with virtue (Annin, 2016). From this view, Truman’s actions, rationally justified and aimed at the highest good, constitute virtuous conduct that deserves moral praise, leading to his admittance to a state of eudaimonia in the afterlife, even amid personal remorse.

References

• Annas, J. (2011). Intelligent Virtue. Oxford University Press.
• Hursthouse, R. (2018). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Kraut, R. (2018). Aristotle on the Human Good. Princeton University Press.
• Annin, A. (2016). Virtue and the Moral Life. Routledge.