Virtue Ethics Classic
I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.
For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!
You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretį=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.
To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. To be a human being can't be just individual trait. Aristotle says we deploy reason to discover virtues and happiness. Logos=reason, ordering, or arranging. Logos="organization of desire." Virtues are those characteristics that allow humans to achieve eudemonia, which allows this high level of life.
Eudaimonia parsed is Eu="good, demon="sacred force" which is not in our control. Thus eudaimonia originally meaning is "blessing" or "good fortune" good happens to you but not planned or not by your effort. But, EN has to do with our own efforts. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.
Aristotle's many and the wise distinction. What is the aim of ethics or political science? Hoi Polloi=masses believe that the aim of living well and doing well is "happiness" such as wealth and honor and pleasure. Plato thinks it is a higher ideal. Plato believed that people were interested in wealth honor and pleasure, but he also believed in the "Universal, or pure good" which transcended the other "goods" in "pure good" is ultimate "good." Aristotle is saying that there is a variety of opinions of what "the good or happiness" is.
Utilitarian vs. moral philosophy like Kant, who believed in universal principles. Utilitarian is greater good cost benefit analysis. Both have to do with reasoning what is right. Aristotle says that ethics is part of political science or society, we are social animals, and this is our nature. Social arrangements give shape to individuals. Aristotle says we must recognize the difference between arguments from principles and towards principles. He has Plato in mind here who thought that the "pure good" was the ultimate principle, and once you get that, you will argue from that you will argue from principle. Kant thought similarly with Plato. Kant says the universal principle of the categorical imperative is then a universal nation set and once you get that principle that will be your measure, and so you will think from the categorical imperative to find out what is good. Utilitarianism argues in the same way as Plato and Kant. The principle that brings happiness to the greatest number, once you get that principle that will be from which you will argue. Aristotle says difference between arguing from principles and towards them, the second one, arguing towards principles is what he prefers because that is phenomenology. You don't assume a principle ahead of time and then find a way to fashion everything around you into that principle. You start with appearances and work your way towards some principle. Begin with what is known to us or evident to us and then build the idea of what "happiness" is. This is his phenomenology. Some people will say getting pleasure will bring you happiness, he will say well let's examine that and we will see. This is why we must be raised properly, it is the absolute starting point, without this proper rearing, ethics is futile. Thus, EN is a refinement of already functioning patterns, for him child rearing and education of the young is the absolute starting point. Aristotle says without good background people won't learn the virtues, we must rear children in a good way.
There is no one way to have a single principle in ethics or unify all instances of "the good," thus, Plato is wrong in trying to find "the good." Aristotle continues his critique of Plato and Socrates. No absolute universal term must survey different instances. Eudemonia is a climax word gathering all the features of "living well." Eudemonia is a guideword that gathers all the "ends." Ergon="function." One could say function is "its work," achieving something. Function means work, its activity. EN is how to order human life. Important function of human soul is in accordance with reasoning. Function and logos is the peculiar work of a human. Humans have set of capacities. Logos and reason is organization of desires. Logos thus means organizing and gathering capacities. Ordering skills and capacities as in learning a musical instrument. Activity comes in a lot with eudemonia we are truly happy when we are functioning well.
Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. They are the marks of events of health on an organism. Whenever a soul is being fulfilled, it is accompanied by the feeling of pleasure for Aristotle. Pleasure of sex as an example, it insures our reproductive continuance. Thus, on a higher level, like in humans there must be some truth to this as well. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."
Phronįsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronįsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronįsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." Phronįsis has a special meaning especially in contrast of Episteme= "scientific knowledge" where you are able to deduce reliable conclusions by way of following general principles. For Aristotle, Phronįsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronįsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronįsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronįsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.
What are the virtues? Phronįsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronįsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronįsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.
Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Orthos logos= "correct reasoning," or "arranging." EN is not exact answer but an outline. General and particular cases are inexact. Orthos logos is connected to Phronįsis. Aristotle's "mean" is not the mathematical middle. It is more of a balance of the extremes. Orthos logos= "successful ordering."
Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.
1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."
No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
For Aristotle unlike the Christians, pride is a virtue. For example: 1. I did something that merits attention. 2. Self regard. 3. mean between, boastful vice and humility as deficiency. 4. Pride.
A fully developed virtuous person has cultivated themselves through experience and habit so they act effortlessly in living virtuously.
The word decision for Aristotle is a sophisticated adult taking an action, not a knee jerk reaction or child making a choice. Decisions refine people to act in a more sophisticated way. Idea of making a decision is a circumstance about making a choice between several options and picking one to act on, thus we bring it into being; it is not always necessarily the clear choice. Famous Aristotle quote- "We deliberate not about ends, but what about promotes ends." His example is the physician that does not deliberate about whether or not to heal his patient this is his function. He will have deliberated about becoming a physician or not. Many challenge Aristotle's idea on this.
Justice living well can only happen in a political society. Justice is a virtue that is not a individual trait, it is in relation to other people. Justice is other regarding not just self-regarding.
1. Virtue of justice.
2. Lawfulness. This is political society, abide by the laws.
3. Fairness, or distributive justice. There are many goods in life, so the question is who gets what.
Virtue of justice is above the other two. A person must have character traits above just abiding by the law to be considered virtuous.
Five virtues of the soul. These five virtues of thought all have to do with truth.
1. Epistįmį= "Scientific knowledge"
2. Technį= "craft"
3. Phronįsis = "Intelligence" really "Intellectual virtue that ethics is concerned with."
4. Nous= "understanding" (really the minds capacity to have insight into universals).
5. Sophia= "Wisdom." Aristotle says from a technical standpoint, Sophia is a combination of Epistįmį and nous.
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronįsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.
The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:
1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.
5.
What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.
I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.
A Philosophy of Common Sense
Named for Aristotle's father, Nicomachus, this book lays out some very common sense ways of thinking about what is right and what is wrong. This book underlies much of St. Paul's writings (no, not that he plagiarized them, but Aristotle's ideas were part of the intellectual ground of his thought).
The highest achievement for a human being is happiness, for this is something one desires for itself, not for what it can gain (consider the nonsense statement "Happiness can't buy money.") Aristotle frequently explains how ends that are sought for their own sakes are superior to those that are sought as a means to another end.
Happiness comes from achieving excellence, which is the mean between excess and deficiency. Virtue leads to happiness - virtue is the habit of choosing the excellent and finding pleasure in so doing.
There is a nice introduction to Aristotle at the front of the book.
A Helpful Edition of a Classic Work
There are a couple of features about this particular edition of Aristotle's "Ethics" (to be clear, I am referring to the 2004 edition published by Penguin Classics) that I think are praiseworthy and worthy of mention. As some of the other reviewers of this edition have pointed out, the introduction by Jonathan Barnes is most helpful in providing the reader with a sturdy foundation on which to stand while reading this work. At roughly 30 pages long, Barnes' introduction is the perfect length. It provides a great foundation without becoming a full exposition itself. Another thing I like about this book is the editing, which utilizes a number of helpful tools to enhance readability. In particular, the editor (Hugh Tredennick) uses plenty of footnotes and inserts into the text itself (demarcated by angled brackets). In a couple of instances Tredennick even changes the order in which the text has traditionally been found; this he does because the logic of Aristotle's argument flows better if slightly re-ordered. In sum, then, the Penguin Classics edition of Aristotle's "Ethics" is very approachable and I highly recommend it for those who are just getting introduced to Aristotle's works.
Aside from reviewing the specific edition here, I would also like to make a couple of critical remarks about the text itself. This is a difficult thing to do with classics such as this because the historical influence and importance of the text renders such remarks not a little superfluous. Nevertheless, a few limited thoughts might be in order.
First, one other reviewer has commented on the relation of the "Ethics" to Christianity. I, too, am a Christian, and I think it is important to offer reviews explicitly informed by my faith. Nevertheless, I think the other Christian reviewer is slightly mistaken. To be sure, he is right when he says that Aristotle, though not a Christian, got a lot right and some things wrong. For we should not expect anyone, established historical icon or no, to be right all the time (except Scripture, of course). However, the one thing I think the other reviewer is mistaken about is that, although Aristotle suggests that the purpose of life is happiness, I don't think this is per se contrary to Christian teaching. The other reviewer is right to say that the purpose of life, from a Christian point of view, is to glorify God. However, is Aristotle's notion of happiness contrary to this purpose? I think that it is not, or at least that it is not clearly contrary to it. Happiness for Aristotle is found in it purest human form in those whose life is characterized by contemplation. This is so because contemplation, among all human activities, is the activity that most approximates the divine. Further, it is contemplation in accordance with virtue that makes a man happy. And further yet, contemplation, according to Aristotle, should lead us to act; that is to live a virtuous life. Thus, I think Aristotle's message is roughly translatable to the Christian message, which is something like: a man is most happy when his life is characterized by contemplation of the things of God, which leads to acting in accordance with God's commands (i.e., glorifying God). But enough about Aristotle in relation to Christianity...
I would like to end this review with two recommendations. First, if you're looking for secondary reading that will illuminate Aristotle's "Ethics", I would recommend The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Blackwell Guides to Great Works), edited by Richard Kraut. That book is a collection of essays exclusively concerning Aristotle's "Ethics", and is very useful for deeper understanding. Second, a lighter and yet broader (topically) read: On the Unseriousness of Human Affairs: Teaching, Writing, Playing, Believing, Lecturing, Philosophizing, Singing, Dancing by James Schall. If you read Schall's book before the "Ethics", I think your motivation to read the "Ethics" will be enhanced. If you read Schall's book after you read the "Ethics", I think you will better see how Aristotle's work has influenced other important writers throughout the ages.
In any event, happy reading!
The Nicomachean Ethics - - Aristotol
An excellent book to get an understanding of this Greek philosopher's concept of "a good man" and the virtues he felt were required in an individual to be considered as "a good man". Also, it provides some insight into the affect of these Greek philosophic "virtues" from the period of about 300 BC as they predated the "morals and ethics" found in the biblical new testement of about 200 AD and the Koran of about 700 AD.
Early work of social science
Aristotle's Ethics by Penguin classics looks deceptively like a paperback novel. It is nothing of the kind, being a densely packed philosophical treatise on the nature of humankind and our relationships with others.
The book, a translation of the Nichomachean Ethics and not Aristotle's earlier Eudemian Ethics, may seem slightly mistitled to a modern audience. It deals primarily with analysis of character and what good character is and is not. Discussion of ethical issues and moral judgements of right and wrong are largely missing. The reader is expected to develop their behaviour towards others by perfecting their own character. For example, courage in its various forms is discussed but the practical application of courage is not. Much of Aristotle's thesis appears obvious to our modern minds but it is important to remember that Aristotle was systemetizing his description of human nature in an effort to understand it. Unfortunately this makes for a rather dry read.
The book also contains a lengthy introduction by Jonathan Barnes. While it is acessible to the general audience, a background in philosophy would be useful to really understand the issues he addresses. There is also a preface by Hugh Tredennick who explains why this new translation is needed - primarily for readability. Between J.A.K. Thompson (the translator), Barnes and Treddennick we appear to have the crčme de la crčme of Cambridge and Oxford Aristotaleans involved in this little book. The introduction has a substantial bibliography in its own right and the book includes 10 brief appendices which provide background on the philosophical ideas in the text. These are critical to understanding the book if you aren't widely read in the early Greek philosophers. A glossary of Greek words and an index of names proceeds a general index. Footnotes are brief and unobtrusive but usually helpful.
For couch philosophers and serious students looking for an inexpensive edition of the Nichomachean ethics, this is definitely the version for you. It has surprisingly good scholarly resources for such a slim volume. If, however, you had heard that Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor and are trying to conquer the business world this probably won't give you many pointers.
(10 reviews)
