Quoted By:
For me the most conclusive answer is a realistic interpretation of Aristotle's ethics. The serious answer depends, ethics is an art and all art uses rules that you can follow or not to obtain certain results. In the case of ethics, it is the art to mold a good man, therefore, what place do reason and nature play? Animals are born complete = by simply following their instinctive nature they develop and complete their purpose. While man, although he has sharp instincts, sometimes these can work against him, making him choose, for example, sensible goods (food or sex) over other spiritual goods (discipline or a united family), for this reason appears that helps him to perceive the error and return to the lane. But all of the above for Aristotle depended on one thing: the ultimate goal of man's life, his purpose or "the meaning of living" which is based on which he judged all concrete actions and therefore made him feel pleasure (for the good actions that bring him closer to that purpose) and pain for the bad ones that take him away from that goal. Therefore, your question depends on whether it is more important for you to satisfy your natural demands over your rational ones or vice versa. Whichever you choose, each one brings with it different consequences.
