Question One:

            Throughout Socrates’ life, he repeatedly reminds others that he was in a constant state of learning and therefore he cannot make any claim of attaining big-T Truth on what is morally right (Plato.et.al., 50). However, throughout his discussions, he depended on some societal perceptions on the definition of virtues that can guarantee a person’s happiness. One could argue that Socrates was on a journey in search of truth and hence he was able to say for positive ethics based on his findings in his conversations.

In Socrates’ argument for the importance of virtue to a person’s happiness, he tried to look past the society’s definition of happiness such as wealth, status and power. Instead, he focused on what society deems to be good traits such as courage, prudence, and justice. Consequently, he (Plato.et.al., 79)exhibited a dependency on small-t truths that he deemed worthy in his journey of gaining self-knowledge. Therefore, Socrates’ utterances about ethics can, therefore, be carefully examined and critiqued over time as they come from someone who is “learning.”

However, Socrates presented an intriguing school of thought that seems to cause confusion rather than consensus. Socrates emphatically stated that individuals who engaged in criminal activities were mainly motivated by ignorance. The ignorance arose from these people failing to understand the negative implications these acts would cause to their souls (Plato.et.al., 59). The confusion originated from the point that Socrates made such definitive remarks yet he had no way of determining the truth that they hold. Consequently, it would be prudent to conclude that Socrates’ utterances were mainly motivated by his curious mind and the small-t truths available to him rather than facts that cannot be challenged. Therefore, his teachings should not be taken as factual findings, but instead they should be carefully examined over time and refined to make them more accurate.

Question Two

            In the described passage, Aristotle was able to argue that humans are different from the dog characterized due to their capacity to make rational decisions on their actions. An animal acts on instinct to what makes it happy or content whereas a human being can make a decision based on what is benefits him or her. The ability described is vital since as humans, there are certain moments when pleasures have been known to be detrimental to our well-being. Aristotle argues that virtuous acts can fill both needs of enjoyment and benefit (Aristotle, 45).

However, the arguments presented by Aristotle fail to take into account the aspect of a person’s personality. The individuality feature of humanity reduces the chances of universally accepting a definition of happiness for all human beings. It assumes that the society’s definitions of virtues are big-T truths which can be misleading (Aristotle, 67). Therefore, a philosopher such as John Stuart Mill appears to be more accurate by providing a vague, simplistic view on happiness rather than limiting the definition of joy to a specific set of rules that human beings ought to follow.

Aristotle’s view of the world can be perceived as accurate on paper because it operates on the belief in the good nature of human beings. Consequently, a considerable number of people may show support for this school of thought. However, over the years, human beings have been known to draw pleasure from things that are in conflict with their benefits and therefore keeping a vague and simplistic definition of happiness can prove to be more accurate.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books I, II & III. 5th ed., Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co, 1893.

Plato, et al. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Hackett Publishing, 1938.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?