How does Aristotle conceive of the nature of good and evil, and how is Aristotle’s theory of ethics and politics is rooted in his biological and ontological theory? How is Aristotle’s theory a communitarian theory like that of Macintyre? How does it differ?

Ever wonder why as a person you do certain things or why you are feeling a certain way about something? This is something that is a part of life and as curious human beings we tend to want to know the answer to everything. Well, the fact of the matter is that some things just cannot be explained, they just happen for a reason and that’s the way they are made. There are particular events that make us feel a certain way, and we may have different moods toward others. This explanation, in a small couple of words, is called Human Nature.

Human nature is a concept of having certain characteristics; these characteristics included thinking, and feeling all the things that “normal” humans would have in common. We can’t explain why humans feel or do certain things, all we can say is that human nature is a sociological way of thing.

Aristotle believes that in Human Nature there is good and evil…..

Aristotle believes that if a man does not enjoy doing good acts then he in fact not a good man at all. First, he must know what he is doing, and he must have an understanding of the act that he is doing. Secondly, according to his own personality he must choose to act a certain way on whatever it is that he is doing and he must do this for himself only and no one else.

“It is our contention that people may perform just acts without actually being just men, as in the case of people who do what has been laid down by the laws but do so either involuntarily or through ignorance or for an ulterior motive, and not for the sake of performing just acts.”

Aristotle’s reasons about humanity are most odd, but it is also something that we were meant to achieve according to him. Aristotle mentioned that the idea that human nature was “meant” or intended to be something, has become much less popular in these more modern times. You are either naturally developed to be good or evil in Aristotle’s mind and there is no in between.

Aristotle’s ethical theory is a theory that comes from the theoretical sciences. Its methodology must match its subject matter-good action-and must respect the fact that in this field many generalizations hold only for the most part. We study ethics in order to improve our lives, the way we live and how we live is a main factor of ethics and therefore its principal concern of the nature of human well-being. He regards the ethical virtues as complex rational, emotional and social skills.

He also believed that an organism or natural whole cannot be fully understood unless it has a purpose. He says that the general purpose of any organism is growth towards a mature statue. If this is true, than it is human nature to be greedy.(I’m not sure where you get this from; it is not clear that greed contributes to the mature state of a human being; further, given this idea of maturity, how is “good” different from “evil”) This may be why humans are ether good or evil. Without looking toward becoming a more powerful state, then there is no need to become greedy.

A communitarian idea is based on the ideal of the common good. Aristotle distinguishes between varieties of justice. He first tells the difference of justice as a whole and justice as just partial. In some sense, justice is understood as what is lawful, and the just person is equal to the moral person who follows the rules. Justice is understood as what is fair or equal, and the just person is one who takes only a “proper” share. Aristotle focuses his discussion on justice as a part of virtue. Each of these justices can be understood and concerned with achieving equality.

Macintyre mentions that the forms of liberalism do not fail because the rules define that right action cannot be adequately grounded apart from a conception of the good. For this reason, “Macintyre claims, some version of a communitarian theory of justice that grounds rules supporting right action in a complete conception of good can ever hope to be adequate.

Aristotle’s thoughts of good are different from MacIntyre’s because MacIntyre believes that a good thing is not totally solid. In other words, you can be good in one situation, but the same action may not be good in another, regardless of what the rules are. Aristotle based justice in following the rules, in other words, if the law says it, and you break the law, than you have become unjust.(This distinction is not useful; both Aristotle and MacIntyre respect prudential judgment in differing contexts. Think of this, does MacIntyre have a doctrine of nature like Aristotles? What takes nature’s place in his doctrine?)

Good and evil are left up to the eyes of the beholder. If a man psychologically thinks that if something is good, then it may be good, regardless of the social norms.(This is neither MacIntyre nor Aristotle; it is relativism) This can look strange to other people, who may base good and evil off of a social norm. Whether it is Aristotle’s ideas or MacIntyre’s ideas, good is what you truly make of it, and in the end, it is up to you to choose what is good and evil.