Sample Critical Thinking Paper on Ethics

Eudaimonism is one of the oldest Greek theories, which relates to happiness. It is believed to capture the theme of well-being in the Greek traditions. Eudaimonism is thus a social philosophy that highlights happiness. Eudaimonism is one of the principles, which is based on the elements of happiness and well-being (page 56). It is based on the values of egoism. However, the ancient Greeks had principles of egoism and eudaimonism, which were similar. These principles highlighted the Platonic form of eudaimonism, which were the perfectionist objections to hedonism. Hedonism is perceived to be the oldest theories of happiness.

According to the ancient writers, the main difference between eudaimonism and egoism is based on observation. This is an issue based on well-being and happiness. The principle of eudaimonism is perceived to be the greatest good for every person in their well-being. The principle of egoism therefore is based on the element of happiness. It is therefore the highest level of happiness in a person. It is therefore pointless to separate the two theories of eudaimonism and egoism if the elements of happiness and well-being are in equal status. Therefore, if the theory is hedonism is preferred to the other theories, these theories remain equal. This implies that the determinants of how happy a person will be similar to the determinants of the well-being. When perfectionism is the preferred theory of well-being then the principles of eudemonism and egoism will be different. The difference will be based on the preference of the principle of happiness and well-being. However, the determinations of well being are different from the determinations of achievements. The differences are still based on the preferred theories between perfectionism, and hedonism. Perfectionism and hedonism theories are therefore the main theories which dictate the principles of eudemonism and egoism (page 58).


Works Cited

Tassabehji, Rana. “An Introduction to Ethics.” Cambridge Introduction to Philosophy.” Cambridge: Cambridge University. 2010. Pages 55-68. Print.