• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.141
• /
• pp.63-84
• /
• 2017

In the twentieth century Anscombe's 1958 article "Modern Moral Philosophy" argued that duty-based conceptions of morality are conceptually incoherent for they are based on the idea of a "law without a lawgiver". Concepts such as "morally ought", "morally obligated", and "morally right" require a legislator as the source of moral authority. In the past God occupied the role, but systems that dispense with God are lacking the proper foundation for meaningful employment of those concepts. Aristotle's virtue ethics can do so without appealing to any such lawgiver, and ground morality in the well being of human moral agents. Therefore Anscombe recommends a return to the eudaimonistic ethical theories of the ancients as secular approaches. Eudaimonia is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics, along with the terms "aret?"(translated as virtue or excellence) and "phronesis"(translated as practical wisdom). In Aristotle's works, eudaimonia was used as the term for the highest human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy to consider what it really is and how it can be achieved. Eudaimonia is a Greek word commonly translated as well-being, happiness, welfare or "human flourishing". As Aristotle points out, saying that eudaimon life is a life which is objectively desirable, and means living well. Everyone wants to be eudaimon. And everyone agrees that being eudaimon is related to faring well and to an individual's well being. But the really difficult question is to specify just what sort of activities enable one to live well. Aristotle says that the eudaimon life is one of "virtuous activity in accordance with reason," this is a necessary condition of eudaimonia, the pleasure accompanied by virtuous activities is a sufficient condition. Hence we have a more accurate translation of eudaimonia with a review the practical meaning of eudaimonia, and the correlation between eudaimonia and arete, pleasure.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.189-234
• /
• 2023

The most common and prevailing system of virtue ethics is based around the idea of personality rather than external behavior and it grew out of the Aristotelian system of virtue ethics. The purpose of this study is to find out the characteristics of the virtue ethics found within Daesoon Thought through comparison to Aristotelian virtue ethics. This can serve as a basis to establish the virtue ethics of Daesoon Thought in further studies. The systems of virtue ethics posited by the two traditions are similar in that they are both teleological as the virtues they recognize are related to human nature in the context of certain metaphysical assumption and they both exhibit the characteristic tendencies of seeking to realize the highest human good. Therefore, in the Aristotelian context, virtues can be defined as "characteristics needed for the realization of eudaimonia," and for Daesoon Thought, virtues are "characteristics needed for the realization of the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence." The representative virtues examined in this comparative study will be the Aristotelian Golden Mean, and the the concepts of guarding against self-deception and great benevolence and great justice in Daesoon Thought. In comparison to Aristotelian virtues, these differ in three main ways. First, Aristotelian virtue is not an innate aspect of character the way it is assumed to be in Daesoon Thought wherein the original human heart bestowed by Heaven is already virtuous. Second, mental virtue in the Aristotelian context centers the mind upon reason whereas in Daesoon Thought, the heart-mind exhibits both reason and emotional concern for others. Third, eudaimonia is a concept limited to humans and their societies whereas the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence is a good that includes all beings including divine beings, animals, plants, and Heaven and Earth. Despite the differences, both require practical reason, continuous education, and effort to succeed in the cultivation of virtues and the proper implementation of virtuous living.