Michael Sandel and Aristotle

Michael Sandel and Aristotle

Moral behavior and conduct are expected of all people. The meaning of morality will vary between people because their approaches to the definition are different. In recent years, mortality has been linked to harm, which shows an action is considered moral depending on its consequence, which might cause harm to others. Philosophers or moral theorists have stipulated numerous theories that address morality, including Michael Sandel and Aristotle.

I think Michael Sandel is onto something. Sandel based his arguments on the question of what is the right thing to do. In every circumstance, moral actions can be based on the outcome, the consequence, or the action’s intrinsic value (Sandel, 2010). Consistently, moral principles are essential in communities because, in reality, institutions govern people, be it at the family, state, or national level. Therefore, in every decision a person makes, they consider the right thing to do, and based on moral principles and their virtue, they act accordingly. Thus, I think this argument has merit because individuals must consider numerous factors, including their virtues, principles, and institutions, when making a decision or a choice that influences their behavior or actions.

I think Aristotle was also onto something with his theories. Aristotle presented a moral theory involving eudemonia (Bartlett & Collins, 2012). Eudemonia is linked to the good life, which is the best moral and virtuous life a human can lead to attaining eudemonia, a form of happiness or flourishing. Additionally, Aristotle stipulated that people acquire virtues through habits they indulge in regularly, and people are born with a human soul, which introduces intellect, and actions represent the soul’s activity (Bartlett & Collins, 2012). I believe that the continuous practice of behaviors becomes an individual’s character, such as being kind, having a positive mindset, or having a healthy lifestyle; with repetition, some traits become representations of an individual, including virtues.

References

Bartlett, R. C., & Collins, S. D. (2012). Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. University of Chicago Press.

Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Today, we think of morality by and large by way of the harm principle. Do what you want, as long as you don’t hurt or offend someone else.

But as you read, Michael Sandel, following Aristotle, argues that this isn’t enough. We can’t just stay out of people’s way. We have to cultivate virtue. That’s how we build community and find real flourishing.

Michael Sandel and Aristotle

But this will necessitate considering nature, argues Aristotle. It will require us to consider the nature of reality and human nature in much more detail.

So…we are a far cry from utilitarianism and a far cry from moral skepticism. We are in a very different place than where Shafer-Landau suggested society is today, what with its default moral skepticism.

So what do you think? Is Michael Sandel on to something here? And Aristotle?