In the Nicomachaen Ethics, Aristotle claims that pleasure is a bi-product
In the Nicomachaen Ethics, Aristotle claims that pleasure is a bi-product of virtue, and material wealth (money, success, love, beauty, charisma, popularity, etc) are tools that make the path to virtue easier.
Do you agree with this evaluation? Do you think there is a different way of looking at pleasure and material wealth in correspondence to virtue? Is it possible that pleasure and material wealth are unrelated to virtue?
Remember, that you are allowed (and encouraged) to disagree with established philosophers. Be honest. Tell me what you think.
Make sure that you post your answer, and also respond to a classmate’s post. Use proper grammar and spelling.
your answer should be at lest 4 sentences
a classmate’s post
I agree with Aristotle’s evaluation. For most people, doing virtuous things bring them pleasure. In the community, virtuous people are usually admired. People are grateful for virtuous people who help them. In return, virtuous people feel good people they are thanked by others. That’s the pleasure of feeling virtuous by doing good things to others. That is one of the reason why people do charity work, volunteer work, or donate their money to the poor, the neediest without asking anything in return. In our society, some rich people are willing to donate thousands dollars to others who are in difficulties. This is why I agree with Aristotle that material wealth can ease the path to virtue. When people are in thirst, in hunger, they only think about how to quench their thirst, how to feed themselves. How can a hungry person think of helping others when they cannot help themselves. If a person has enough material wealth for their life, they are more willingly to share to others.
the respon should be at lest 4 sentenses
"96% of our customers have reported a 90% and above score. You might want to place an order with us."
