Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Nietzsche all had their own ideas that everyone could achieve happiness in their lives. All have similarities in their reasoning, except Nietzshe, who completely contradicts the others. Plato says that understanding virtue is happiness. In turn, virtue is sufficient for happiness and is necessary. He also has the intuition that human reasoning takes precedence over a person's spiritual element or appetite. Aristotle's arguments relate to Plato, but he builds further and finds his own answers. It agrees that everyone desires happiness and that virtue is necessary for happiness. In the same spirit as Plato, Aristotle says that happiness comes from the perfection of our mind and our character. Unlike Plato, Aristotle questions and concludes that virtue is not sufficient for happiness. His definition of happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance with the most perfect virtue. He believes that one must be active and fully utilize one's rational abilities to function well. This improvement of character was the key to happiness for Aristotle. Augustine shares with Plato and Aristotle that virtue is necessary, but he disagrees that that is all that is necessary. He denies that perfection of character is sufficient for virtue or happiness. His revelation is that the main good is happiness. Being the highest good, it cannot be achieved in physical life. The balance between the natural domain and the supernatural domain is highlighted. This includes the Cardinal Virtues and the Virtues of Faith. It means following and loving God. For Augustine, achieving salvation is the highest good, therefore happiness. Nietzshe shares nothing in common with the other three philosophers. He states that perfection does not come from being morally good nor from religion; rather self-control and the free exercise of one's creative powers. His virtues (Master Morality) consist of pride, assertiveness, power, cruelty, honor, rank and nobility. Augustine’s values ​​of faith are Nietzshe’s “slave morality.” The bottom line is that we, as people, create our own happiness and determine right and wrong. The pursuit and attainment of power is happiness. I mainly agree with Augustine that happiness consists of our physical lives as well as what we determine through our supernatural beliefs. He would probably argue for strict Catholicism, but I see no problem with other beliefs as long as one focuses... middle of paper ...... provides us with the agent, the status of a person's character and motive. With this, we know neither the act nor its effects. This information would be insufficient. All information must be present before assessment, otherwise the procedure could be falsely categorized.6. Moral legalism is, in a way, an anal approach to a situation. There is no reasoning involved. If it goes against a right, it is automatically rejected. One problem is that moral legalism does not accept exceptions to the rules; But in reality, there are exceptions to the rules. Moral legalism therefore presents a conflict. Moral particularism makes exceptions to a rule or law to promote a good. One problem that arises is that not all moral particularists have the same intuitions or values. This does not take into account the sentimental feelings of each individual.7. When it comes to capital punishment, a wise ethicist might say that it may be right for a society to execute a convicted murderer, but it is not right because we fall to his level in killing. The utilitarian would say that it is wrong to kill, but this man has..