Aristotle's Function Argument

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle contends that in order to unveil the human good we must first understand the true function of a human. He claims then that the human function is achieved through rational activity, and thus our good is activity performed well (which he understands as being in harmony with virtue). Simply put, according to Aristotle, if something has a function then the good of that thing depends on its proper function; the same way a hammer is not good if it does not properly hammer as it was designed. He holds that most people agree about what the good is “since both the many and the cultivated call it happiness” (Aristotle, 1985 p. 5). Unfortunately that is not the case. His function argument has been widely critiqued at nearly
First, he holds that what is good for a particular sort of thing depends on the thing’s function. The next part necessitates that the function of a thing depends on its own distinctive features. The third claim asserts that what is particularly distinctive about human beings is their ability to reason. The fourth clause is that the function of a human being is to act in a way that expresses reason (and so to act well, in a way that expresses virtue); as Aristotle puts it: “we have found, then that the human function is the soul’s activity that expresses reason [as itself having reason] or requires reason [as obeying reason]” (Aristotle, 1985 p. 17). Lastly, Aristotle argues that the good life (meaning the happy or worthwhile life) for a human being is the life in which the human being consistently acts in a way that expresses virtue. From this he is able to conclude that happiness is therefore an activity of the soul with complete excellence. In principle, our human good is happiness, which consists in being rational, and that entails developing the virtues that Aristotle supports. As such, Aristotle appoints the mere activity of things as signifying their purpose, and specifically for humans it is the activity of reason that truly separates us from other species (like animals). Aristotle is
For Aristotle, if something has a function then the good of that thing depends on its function, and I defend that the opposing objections are fallacious. As demonstrated, someone could try to deny that people and objects have functions to meet the same end and hold that only a higher power function “giver” can appoint functions; but Aristotle would never deny there is a cause of existence outside of humans so the point is negated. Further, the second argument entails that since Aristotle can depict an excellent human and define the human good, does not mean there is any reason for anyone to actually be good or that goodness follows as a function. Both of the responses I provided disprove to this claim and eliminate the argument entirely. The first reply involves linguistics. Aristotle’s argument begins with “if” rather than “because” but he is not claiming his premises are undoubtedly true to prove his point. He explicitly says: “if something has a function, its good depends on its function” (Aristotle, 1985 p.15). The second reply encompasses the denial of the possible shift from empirical to normative is not compelling because it is an “is” statement, but it does not exclude “ought” statements. In short, Aristotle’s function argument lives on under the responses to the proposed objections, and objectors will have to provide much stronger counters to his