Ethical sectionAccording to Aristotle, the supreme good, or the only thing to which everything should lead is Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is a Greek word meaning happiness or well-being. Thus, the highest good in Aristotle's eyes is happiness. Happiness is something that has intrinsic value, in the sense that it is desired for its own sake. This raises the question: How can we get to this supreme good of happiness? Aristotle says that the path to the supreme good is through virtue. Lists the cardinal virtues, which are courage, prudence, temperance and justice. Through these cardinal virtues we can be led to the supreme good. Furthermore, there are two other types of virtues: moral and intellectual. Intellectual virtues are acquired through teaching and learning. Moral virtues, on the other hand, are acquired through habit and practice. All in all, virtue comes through knowledge, choice, willingness to do so, and enjoyment of virtue. Finally, Aristotle states that the virtues are a sort of “golden mean”. Achieving a specific virtue means not being at two extremes. For example, having too much courage is considered conceited, a negative virtue, while having too little is considered cowardly, also a negative virtue. Overall, finding the middle path of the cardinal virtues, practicing moral virtues, and acquiring intellectual virtues are the ways to achieve the ultimate goal of the highest good, or happiness. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayOne of the cart problems we talked about was the lever problem. The example states that there is a cart hurtling along the tracks and you are sitting on a lever. The path forks and on the current path there are five people, while on the other path there is one. The moral issue is whether or not the lever is pulled. If you pull the lever, one person dies and you save five. If you don't, the five people die and you save one. On the one hand, if you do this, you save five lives instead of one. Many people's moral intuition leans toward this solution, because it seems like an easy decision to save more lives. However, on the other side, things get more complicated. Those whose moral intuitions decide not to pull the lever and let five people die, it's because when you pull the lever you are actively killing someone. There is a situation you can't control because you didn't put the cart on the tracks. Therefore, you will not commit murder if you let the five people die. It's a terrible accident. The patient problem is when there are five people, each of whom has a separate problem with a separate organ. A healthy person corresponds exactly to all five organs. The question is: do we kill the one person to save the five sick people? Most people's intuitions are no, they have nothing to do with them, so we shouldn't kill them. The other side is yes, we should mutilate him and harvest all his organs, just to save the five people. Thought experiments are showing that intuitions are not universal. They can be moved. My intuitions are mixed, as I would pull the lever, but I wouldn't kill the only healthy person. There is no clear solution to this, as there are more and more cases with conflicting intuitions. Practice Section The original position describes an agreement that everyone would agree on. For a group of people who wanted to establish a political system, they would agree to do so in a way that no one knew their future. No one knows their gender, identity, social class, race or anything else. They live by specific principles, which everyone agrees on. This is because the initial situation is completely e..