Function Argument Essay Example for Free

Function Argument EssayAristotle first asserts that happiness is an ultimate approximate that is both complete and self-sufficient. 2) The ultimate good for a thing is its ability to complete its bleed. (3) Human beings must(prenominal) defy a function beyond an occupation in party such as a potter or painter because the ultimate human good must be all encompassing. So the function of a human being cannot specifically be being good at any one position or task.The human function cannot involve mediocre growth because that is essentially the function of plants, and a humans function must be unique in itself. 5) Aristotle claims that because animals and plants cannot reason, a human beings function must have something to do with rationality, the part that involves our soul. (6) Lesser goods like wealth all are meant to lead to happiness, this rises from the first premise that the ultimate good must be self-sufficient. (C) Therefore he concluded that the human function is the completion of a task (the activity) that involves the soul (not the body), and leads to doing what is ultimately the most virtuous or first-class thing to do.The human function is the activity of the soul in accordance with excellence or sexual abstention. I disagree with Aristotles conclusion because I study premise 4 and 5 are false. He asserts that a human being and a plant cannot have the same functions. Here I gestate there is a flaw in his logic, Aristotle makes an unreasonable jump in what a person should do and what a person has to do. Humans may have simply evolved from a cell like any other animal, which would suggest that completing our base physical goals, surviving and reproducing, is the human function.Yes because we have evolved further and our message for reason is greater indeed say chimps or dogs, we have a deeper understanding of morality and virtues. Yet there is still a distinct inequality between what we should do and what we have to do. I also disagree with the 5th premise because I do not believe reason is a virtue only found in human beings. Animals like gorillas and elephants have all been shown to show compassion towards other beings, even those not inwardly its species. Aristotles conclusion suffers from these false premises.He makes the assumption that doing something good is the same as being good and this is not true. What something has to do, its function, does not necessarily equate to what something should do. Aristotle draws on the premise that animals cannot reason. While I believe there is a valid argument in terms of the distinction on a humans depth of reason and an animals understanding of it. I believe the distinction lies in a more complex understanding rather then a complete lack of reason. I disagree with these two premises.