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 Aristotle's eudaimonia requires virtues as constitutive of flourishing, not merely instrumental means to a biological survival end.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Aristotle grounds virtues in natural human capacities and telos; virtues ultimately serve biological flourishing and functioning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without health, safety, and basic resources, virtue becomes impossible to practice; these biological needs are constitutive, not instrumental.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aristotle ties eudaimonia to actualizing human nature; our nature is partly biological, making survival a constitutive component.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Aristotle defines eudaimonia as activity of soul in accordance with virtue, not mere living or biological functioning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A virtuous person who lives poorly still achieves eudaimonia; survival alone without virtue does not constitute flourishing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Virtues like courage and wisdom are intrinsically valuable and chosen for their own sake, not reduced to survival tools.
?
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.