Reference no: EM132756721

According to Sebastian Purcell, there was a general agreement among

Aztec thinkers that happiness is not a sensible ethical goal. This stands in some contrast to Aristotle, who reports a general agreement among Greek thinkers that 'happiness" (eudaimonia - flourishing) is the best good. Aristotle acknowledges, however, that this agreement on terminology hides a deeper lack of consensus on what 'happiness' is and how it is to be achieved. And in Book I, Chapter 5, Aristotle criticizes a number of popular conceptions before settling, in Book I, Chapter 7, on a view of happiness that is tied to 'virtue' (arête) as the excellent activity of the human 'function' (ergon), which is reason.

In drawing a contrast between Aristotle's view and those found among the Aztecs, Purcell emphasizes this rationalism, claiming that while "the Aztecs were interested in how to lead a good life," they "did not start with the human ability to reason," and they did not make happiness the necessary or even probable outcome of a "worthwhile" life.

As Purcell's article develops, it becomes clear that (if one understands happiness as human flourishing, as Aristotle did, rather than as a feeling of bliss) there are both resonances between it and the developed Aztec view as well as sharp divergences.

Questions

-Based on your current understanding of Aristotle and the Aztec views Purcell describes, how do you understand their differences? Is this difference a matter of fundamental incompatibility, difference in emphasis, one view including things that the other does not in the conception of 'best good,' or something else? Explain.

-Do you think 'happiness' is the right way to understand the best good achievable in a human life, or should we have something else in mind? Explain.