Finalist Theories

ARISTOTLE'S NICOMACHEAN ETHICS

is the name normally given to Aristotle's best known work on ethics. The English version of the title derives from Greek , transliterated Ethika Nikomacheia, which is sometimes also given in the genitive form as , Ethikn Nikomachein. The Latin, which is also commonly used, is thica Nicomacha. The central concept in Aristotle's ethics is "virtue." His ethical inquiry began with an empirical investigation of what it is that the human being fundamentally desires. One strength of his ideas is that they are grounded on very real situations, covering actual activities and pursuits of men. According to Aristotle, happiness is man's highest good. But while some people would identify bodily pleasures like food, drink, among others, as the defining factors of happiness, Aristotle insisted that it should instead be understood in terms of man's distinctive function. For him, life of reason is the happiest. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle focuses on the importance of continually behaving virtuously and developing virtue rather than committing specific good actions. This can be opposed to Kantian ethics, in which the primary focus is on individual action. Nicomachean Ethics emphasizes the importance of context to ethical behavior what might be right in one situation might be wrong in another. Aristotle believed that happiness is the end of life and that as long as a person is striving for goodness, good deeds will result from that struggle, making the person virtuous and therefore happy.

JOHN STUART MILL'S UTILITARIANISM

is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness", by whatever means necessary. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences.

When a man regards a particular human action as good or bad depending upon whether or not the said human action brings happiness, then he subscribes to Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is popularly known as the "greatest happiness principle." It holds that happiness is the very yardstick of morality. Those actions that bring happiness are considered morally right while those actions that inhibit happiness are considered

morally wrong.

IMMANUEL KANT'S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES

is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, as well as modern deontological ethics. Introduced in Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action. According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to benecessary.

Kant's concept of what is good totally contravenes Mill's Utilitarianism. Kant adheres to the philosophical belief that only good will can be considered "good" per se or without qualification. An act is good not because of certain consequences that occur in its performance, or on the basis of its end-result, but because of the "willing" that accompanies the act. Kant considers the human being as an end in him/herself.

Most Appealing Finalist Theory

I find Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics as the most appealing finalist theory. This finalist theory appeals to me because it is holistic, balance, and more spiritual. It is concerned with the development of whole person, particularly his character and his intellect. In determining what is moral, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism uses the heart while Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperatives uses the head. Utilitarianism focuses on feelings to determine what is right. Anything that makes a person happy is considered good or moral. And any action that makes more people happy is correct. But it seeks to please the self first without much regard on how an action affects others. This theory doesnt appeal to me because it doesnt give strong standard of morality that applies to all people. It could lead to chaos because what could make one happy could make others unhappy. The account in the Bible about Adam and Even shows us that the Fall of Man started when Even saw the fruit and it looked so fresh and delicious. She probably thought that doing something pleasurable as eating of the fruit couldnt be wrong. But God was unhappy of the couples

disobedience and humanity followed their action ever since. Categorical Imperatives relies on what one thinks. It is mans own rules that become the basis of his actions. Whatever mans will dictates is good regardless of the result of the action. Morality is dependent on what he determines promotes good will. A person, therefore, should develop his mind and utilize it to determine for himself what is right and wrong. This theory also reminds me of Satan when he offered Adam and Eve the fruit of the tree of good and evil. After eating of the fruit, the couple thought they became wise, capable of determining for themselves what is good and evil. Since they have rejected God by their disobedience, they have relied on themselves for knowing what is good. Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics is also known as Virtue Ethics. This is more appealing to me because it is more concerned with virtue. Although it is also humanistic in its approach, meaning without God in determining what good, it is nevertheless more spiritual and balance. It talks about the development of ones character and intellect. Happiness is achieved by thinking as well as by feeling. What the mind says must always agree with what the heart feels. This unity alone determines if an action is virtuous or moral. Since man is left to himself to determine for himself what is wrong and right, Aristotle, though considered as one of the wisest man who ever lived, also was not able to determine a constant or mean state that should tell us what is moral. Thankfully, God has not totally left man ignorant of his standard of morality. He gave us the Bible, his instruction manual on how to live, and reveals to a few his divine purposes for man. One searches for an end different from that which other desires. There is an instrumental end, which is a means to another end. There is the final end, which is inherently good but is either embraced or rejected for something greater, the supreme end. I believe that supreme end is living a good life. It is a life, not based on any riches, fame or power, but on doing what our Creator wills. Most Predominant Finalist Theory Mill's Utilitarianism predominates the world of computing. I think that the most predominant finalist theory in the world of computing today is John Stuarts Mills Utilitarianism. For example, the Internet has become a medium of entertainment and commercialism, which aim mostly to gratify the senses. Many sites offer different products that please the eyes (movies), ears (music), mouth (food), flesh (gadgets, pornography), etc. Any thing that makes people happy or satisfies the senses is found in the Internet. It is where one finds no boundaries in doing whatever he wants without thinking of rules to follow. For example, many are happy breaking rules on relationships (infidelity in chat rooms), killing other people and conquering the nations (brutality in games), and stealing confidential and private information (hacking). Computing is utilized to gain happiness because it has the capability to bring pleasure without violating existing rules or set morals.

Many times we hear people say these: "I want to be happy." "I am happy with this, then this is good." "Do whatever makes you happy." Most people choose to do what they think would make them happy. Money, honor and satisfaction are among the things people believe as the things which bring happiness. But being happy doesn't necessarily mean being morally right.