Aristotle’s discussion of good and evil (why is it said that happiness, as a perfect realization activity, the determining factor depends on the direction of the heart?), is very important in theory and practice. important meaning.

First of all, we believe that it was Aristotle who completed the work of bringing the concepts of good and evil from the ontological realm of metaphysics back to the real world. This turns the question of good and evil into a practical question of human beings, and places the roots of good and evil in the actor himself rather than somewhere external to the person. In this way, no one can escape their own responsibility in the face of good and evil - whether good or evil actually depends on themselves - people must be responsible for their own actions.

Secondly, Aristotle eliminated the origin of evil in the world and people. According to Plato's theory, the world and people naturally contain "evil". Moreover, this kind of "evil" is determined by the nature of the real world and real things, and cannot be completely overcome in the real world. According to Aristotle's discussion, "evil" is not something inherent in the world and people. Good and evil are actually caused by people themselves, which shows that evil can be eliminated in the real world and life.

At the same time, the way Aristotle discusses good and evil itself also constitutes a great deal of inspiration for us.

He does not talk about "evil" directly. On the one hand, it may be because evil is "many" and evil is uncertain. It does not have a fixed nature or characteristics and cannot be expressed directly. And evil is actually shown very clearly through the description of good.

On the other hand, the more important reason may be that ethics is to show people good and beautiful things and tell them how to obtain these things. The less we talk about evil, the better, especially for young people who are undergoing character cultivation.

In addition, Aristotle talks about good and evil in practice, which makes this kind of research not empty at all and has great practicality. Everyone can obtain practical guidance from his theory of good and evil in his own specific behavioral practice. This is probably why Aristotle's entire ethical theory has had such a huge impact on our future generations.

Interestingly, Plato and Aristotle’s discussion of evil was almost completely reproduced by theologians represented by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages. The Platonic theory of "original sin" in the early church fathers' philosophy caused an Aristotelian rebellion in scholastic philosophy.

In modern times, with the rise of empiricist scientific thinking, morality began to be considered from reality instead of existential and ontological meanings. Good and evil are no longer considered from the existence and essence of things. Commentary. However, experience is concrete and individual after all, and is greatly affected by special environmental background.

So, can experience alone provide a universal, unified standard and basis for good and evil? In modern ethics and politics, people no longer believe in a consistent concept of good and tend to have a pluralistic understanding of good. However, if good is not absolute but diverse and changing, how can we identify and get rid of "evil" in reality? How to ensure that some evil will not be transformed into good from a certain perspective, and some good will not be transformed into evil?

Facing this difficulty in contemporary ethical theory and practice, of course we cannot simply return to Aristotle’s theory, but at least we can re-learn and absorb the beneficial elements of his theory and combine them with It is necessary to use realistic theory and practice to find possible answers to practical dilemmas.