Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Nietzsche all had their own ideas about why you could achieve happiness in your life. Everyone has similarities in reasoning except Nietzshe, who completely contradicts the others. Plato states that understanding virtue is happiness. In turn, virtue is sufficient for happiness and is necessary. He also senses that human reasoning prevails over the lively element or appetite of the person. Aristotle's arguments refer to Plato, but he builds on it and finds his own answers. He agrees that all people desire happiness and virtue is necessary for happiness. In the same mindset as Plato, Aristotle states that happiness comes from the improvement of our mind and character. Unlike Plato, Aristotle questions and concludes that virtue is not sufficient for happiness. His definition of happiness is the activity of the soul according to the most perfect virtue. He believes that one must be active and make full use of one's rational abilities to function well. According to Aristotle, this improvement of character was the key to happiness. Augustine agrees with Plato and Aristotle that virtue is necessary, but he does not agree that it is all that is necessary. He denies that perfection of character is sufficient for virtue or happiness. His revelation is that the supreme good is happiness. Being the supreme good, it cannot be achieved in physical life. The balance between the natural realm and the supernatural realm is brought to light. This is composed of the Cardinal Virtues and the Virtues of Faith. This means following and loving God. For Augustine, achieving salvation is the supreme good, therefore happiness. Nietzshe has nothing in common with the other three philosophers. He claims that perfection does not come from being morally good nor through religion; rather by self-mastery and the free exercise of one's creative powers. His virtues (master morality) consist of pride, self-affirmation, power, cruelty, honor, rank and nobility. Augustine's faith values ​​are Nietzshe's "slave morality". The bottom line is that we as people create our own happiness and determine what is right and what is wrong. Striving and achieving power are happiness. I mostly agree with Augustine that happiness consists in our physical life and what we determine in our supernatural beliefs. He would probably support strict Catholicism, but I don't see any problem with other beliefs as long as you focus...the middle of the paper...gives us agency, a person's character status and motive. The act or its effects are not known. This information would be insufficient. All information must be present before the evaluation otherwise the act may be incorrectly classified.6. Moral legalism is somewhat of 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. Therefore moral legalism 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. It does not take into consideration the sentimental feelings of each individual.7. Regarding capital punishment, a strong deontologist might say that it might be good for a society to execute a convicted murderer, but it is not right because we are falling to his level by killing. The utilitarian would argue that it is not right to kill, but this man committed a horrendous crime and the only..