Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aristotelian flourishing (eudaimonia) is indexed to the capacities and circumstances of individual persons, not a single normative life-pattern.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Complete relativism about flourishing undermines ethical guidance; without shared standards, we cannot evaluate competing life-paths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aristotle identifies universal human functions (reason, virtue, social cooperation) that ground eudaimonia across all persons.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If flourishing is purely indexed to individual circumstances, we lose grounds to critique harmful desires or unjust social arrangements.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Humans have radically different natural capacities (cognitive, physical, social); a universal formula ignores these differences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Contextual factors (culture, historical period, available opportunities) make uniform prescriptions about the good life implausible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aristotle emphasizes actualizing one's potential; potential varies by person, so flourishing must be individually indexed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.