Home
In delving into what the best good is, Aristotle does not seem to raise too many quarrels in purporting that it is happiness, as this is a choice-worthy goal in and of itself and something that most other goals aim at is practical. However, in doing this, he does not make explicitly clear what “happiness” is or how one should go about achieving it, and with this he presents his argument on functions which is presented above. In assessing the soundness of the premises he has presented, the first one seems at least fairly plausible. In providing an example to support it, the function of a ship-maker would seemingly be to make ships, and it logically follows that to be a good ship-maker would require the person to be good at making ships. In using the same example, the second premise also does not yet appear problematic; as a unique quality in a ship-maker would be to possess the knowledge as well as the capability to put that knowledge into action through the creation of ships.
At this point in the argument, it still seems to be relatively sound. However, the third premise given by Aristotle that “humans have a function” is a relatively odd notion. In the two examples used to defend the initial two premises, I presented the case that a unique characteristic of a ship-maker was his ability to build ships, thereby making that his function, and in order to be a good ship-maker, he must be good at the function of ship-making. This case is largely different from the notion that humans having a general function, as a ship-maker could be considered something of a specialized interest or a learned function; while in the case of being human, it would be illogical to think of just being human as a specialized interest or learned function, for humans simply are human because they were born that way. In order to maintain the soundness of the argument, one needs to present a case of why there is a true purpose for the existence of human beings.
At this point in the argument, it still seems to be relatively sound. However, the third premise given by Aristotle that “humans have a function” is a relatively odd notion. In the two examples used to defend the initial two premises, I presented the case that a unique characteristic of a ship-maker was his ability to build ships, thereby making that his function, and in order to be a good ship-maker, he must be good at the function of ship-making. This case is largely different from the notion that humans having a general function, as a ship-maker could be considered something of a specialized interest or a learned function; while in the case of being human, it would be illogical to think of just being human as a specialized interest or learned function, for humans simply are human because they were born that way. In order to maintain the soundness of the argument, one needs to present a case of why there is a true purpose for the existence of human beings.
