hughes-aristotel on ethics

8/3/2019 Hughes-Aristotel on Ethics

1/10

Note on the text

For hesakeof havingone standard ystemwhich all scholars se,refeLenceso any work of Aristotleare alwaysgivenaccordingo the.oage.olumnand ine n Bekker'sBerlinEditionof 1831. his editionilas th greatadvantagehat eachreferences quite unique.Thus,ll4?bl0 refers o line l0 of the second olumnon page l4 7 oftsekker. venwith no mentionof the itle of the work,this s unam-biruouslya referenceo theNicomachaean rics, Book VII, chapterl. In this book I have giventhe standard eferences,ut havealsoinciudedhe Bookand chapter f theEthicsas an additional elp oPiacine refelencen its context.The mnsiations reare my own. But since t is alwaysusefullc compare ifferent ranslations f any ancientauthor, he readernight $ sh to consult he other ranslations ivenat the startof theBibliography. o make be sense learer haveoccasionallynsertedrn square mckets word whichdoesnot occur n the Greek, utcanbededucedrotn hecontext.

ts.

Chapter 1

Aristotle's lifeand work

An outline of his life and timesAristotle ameo Athensn 367 BcE at the ageof 17,to go to university.University' in this casemeantthe Academy,he philosophical chool oundedbythegeat Plato,who himselfhad been a discipleofSocrates.thenswas /re ultural entle fthe Mediter-ranean,nd tscitizenswouldhavehad wo reasonsornot being immediately mpressedby the youngfuistotle.He came rom the far north of Greece, romthe ity of Stagiran Macedonia; countryboy, hen,doubtlessacking n cultural efirement. n this, theAthenianrejudice ould havebeenmisleading. othAristotle's arents ame rom familieswith a longtradition fthepractice fmedicine, ndhis atherwascourt hysiciano King Amyntas II ofMacedon.Courtcirclesn Macedon erenot uncivilized, nd he valuefteyplacedponeducations demonstratedy theveryfact of their sendingAristotle to Athns. There was,however, secondeasonAthenianswould havehadfor not welcomingAristotlewith wholly openarms.


2/10

ARISTOTLE'S LIFE AND WORK

He llas connectedwith the royal family of Macedon,and Macedonhad military arnbitions. AmyntasJs son Philip II embarked on a pro-grannreof mil i taristexpansion hich, much o the esentmentfmanyi-. lominent thenians,ed to hi s domination vermuch of Greece, ndevenlually to th subjugation of Athens itseli

Still. for twenty years Aristotle remained at the Academy,stud)-ing,debaring, writing and teaching. Unfortunately, most of hisivrirings from that time have been lost, and we are able to do iittleinore han make educatedguesses boutprecisely what he studied,and,,r,here is own interests ay. But as those years went by, the politicalsituat iorbroughtabout by the policiesof Phil ip of Macedon apidJyworsened.and the climate in Athens becamemore and more nervousand host i le.Against hi s background, ristot le,whose egal statusnAthenswas batofa resident l ien, ound himselfregarded it h suspFciorr.Final ly he c si s came.Phil ip batteredhe city ofOlynthus,on eof Athens's loseall ies, nto submission; nd ,a few months ater, nj,17,Platodied.

Aristot lewas thus doubly isolated.Speusippus, nephewofPlato. ook over as head of the Academy. Would Aristotle havehopedthathe himselfmight have got the ob ? Did his not gett ing t dependupon the fact that Speusippuswas a relative of Plato, or on the factt l 'rato appointAristot lewould havebeen mpossiblen th eprevail ingpcli t icalcl i :nate?Or was t perhapsha tAristot le'sow n philosophicalrieu's r.veLe y this time somewhat out of tune with the prevailingtone in the Academy? Whatever the academic reasons may havbccn.A.ristot lehought t prudent, special ly iven hehosti lepoli t icalsi i i rat ion.c leaveAthensand he Academy.He went o join a groupof Platonists at Assos, a city on the north Aegean coast of what isnori Turke],. The local monarch, Hermias, was himself interestednphiiosophy. nd he philosophers ncoumged im to fulf i l the Platonicideal of becoming a philosopher-king. Aristotle was later to write airl,rnn amenting his untimely death (he was murdered) and praisinghi s ersonal quali t ies fo r which he wil l be raisedby the Muses oinmonali t-r, '.Before that, though, Aristotle had himself manied Pythias,andihcy lrere again on the move. Philip II invited him to retum to\ lrcedonia to become utor o his son Alexander. lexanderaterwa s

to become nown as 'the Great' becauseof his amaztng conquestswhichextendedhe MacedonianEmpire acrosswhat is now Ti:rkey'Eg)?t, much of WesternAsia, and on into India PerhapsAristotlehopid to in"ulcat" Plato's ideals n the young heir to the throne' butin the light of the brutality of some of Alexander's campaigningtactics, ie may wonderjust how completeAristotle's influenceon his

!

:I;:..

irI

pupllwas.Alexandereft for his campaignsn the east, rd Aristotleonceagainetumedo Athens,n 334,under he protection f Antipater',f,. r.g.n, whom Alexanderhad appointed, nd who

was one ofAristotle'slosestriends.At somepoint duringhis time in Mace-donia, ristotle's aughter,alledPythias fterher mother'wasbom'but, ragically,iswiie died,perhapsn childbirth' t wasprobablyohap i-ttt oot


3/10

Hi s worksand phi losophicalackground Plato greedhat ethicsandpoliticshad ultimately o rest on moreseneralonsiderationsf epistemology nd metaphysicsThereareilso some imilaritiesn method Plato, ollowing Socrates' ftenstartsis dialoguesy eliciting he views of oneof his students' ndthen oingon o seehow far thoseviewswill standuP to criticism'Somewhatimilarly,Aristotlehabitually akesas his startingpointsendo:ra,eceivedpinions'.By lhis termAristotlemeanso includeviews hichareheldby everyone, r at least y mostpeople'aswellas hose eldby thewise.2We should tart, hen'with what cornmonsense ightsuigest, r with what earlierphilosophersave hought'and hen ubjecthose iews o criticalassessmentristotle s mores),rnpathetichan Plato o the thought hat most peoplecannotbewhollymistaken.ihe viewmostpopularly scribedo Aristotles thatherejectedPlato'sTheoryof Forms'.Certainlyat one time Platodid believetlat, f wordsike 'beauty'or 'courage'or 'equaliry'or 'good' weretohave nymeaning,hey mustpoint to the correspondingormsreally xisiing,erfect,nstancesf these ropertiesOnly f thereare,u.h Fo*, as Beauty tself,or Goodnesstsell will therebe anysatisfactoryxplanationfthe way n whichwe understandhebeautyand oodnessf this-worldlyhings, mperfectas theyare Only ifthesJ erfect orms xistwill therebe any solidbasis or morality'or rdeedor knowledgetsell So' the popular iew has t' Aristotlehad o ime or suchmetaphysicalpeculations,ndmadea radicalbreak ith Plato. his view is a grossoversimplification'irst'Platohimselfater n his life at leastconsiderably odified he TheoryofFoms,f by that s meanthe kind of viewsadvancedn the Phaedo'Besides,ristotles perfectlywilling to talk about orms' and onsomenterpratationsvenended p by holdinga view of formsnotwholly nlikePlato's. till, heres an mpoftantruthbehindhe over-simplification.he clue ies in Aristotle's nterest.in.iology'.which

!'

Th e r\,.o rear nf luences n Aristot les philosophywere Ptato ndhi sFo.,r researchnto biology, especial lyhe biology of animals.

Plato must have been a hard act to follow. He had developedand transfomred he philosophical method of Socratesand applied ttc an arnazingly wide range of problems, including the immonalityof the soul. the nature of virtue, the meaningof just ice, an d hethory of truth. He had atteltlpted o give a tbeoretical ustification or.,rhathe regardedas the right way to live both as an individual andrs a member of the city-state. n so doing, he had been orced oseek for the foundations of ethics an d poli t ics by developinghighil- original views in tnetaphysicsand in the theory of knowledge.The very scopeand stvle of philosophy tself were thosewhich hadtreconre stablishedn Plato's Academy.The frameworkwas to al lappealances irmly established. Was there any room for genuineof ig inal i ty?

Recall hat Aristotle studiedand debated n Plato's Academy ort\\'er'rq' ears, rom the age of 17 until he was 37. He must surelyhavebeenenonrously nf luenced ot merelyby Plato'smethodan dby th e.L-rnch,rsionshiclr Plato and his studentsbelieved o be beyonddisnuie. ut alsoby theplaces t which Plato'sarguments ere ecog-nizerl scief icient, i ien by Platohimsell [ t is st i l l a matterofdispute'r '.ciherhe young Aristot lestartcdoflby being more in agreement.r th Platoand endedup being much more crit ical;or whether ewa smoie criticaj in his earlier years and only later began o see hat therenl s pe:haps ome$'hat nore to be said for his old teacher's iewsrhan he used o think. I t may also be true that th e bri l l iant youngprrui l inf luencedhis teacher.and that this inf luenceshows up insomeof Plato's ateruorks.r St i l l , at leastsome hingsare easonablyclear.Arislot le etained lato's nterestsn ethicsan dpoli t ics, nd ikeTheprr'blerr s nol made rryeasier y the act halwe cannotwithcertaintyr]:ue rany f Aristotle'sworkseven o the extent f clearlydistinguishinghe

later fom he earlier. n any casemanyof Aristotle'sworksareknown o belcst For a sholtand udiciouscomment n the problems f sayingan)'thingrborrArislol le philosophicalevelopment,ee .H. Invin 1988] ' h l ' $5 ,DD. l lJ. and heanicleseferedo n lrwin's otes-

perhapsad een irstarousedy his parents ith theirmedical ack-gouni "nOpractice.Muchof the researchoneby Aristotleandhisitudrnr,onrirt.d n themeticulous xaminationndclassificationfanimals,ish and nsects,and in the attempt o explain why they were

'Iopics 00b2l;see lsoNicohachaeanthics l43bll-]!4' ll45b2-'7


4/10

as the) \\'ere,and why they behaved as they behaved.Aristotle wasconvinced hat the explanations were to be found not in some super-sensibleworld of Platonic Forms, but in the intemal organization oftle organisms tbemselves. Their patteros of growth, developmentand behaliour were directedby an inbuilt purposiveness, ifferent foreachspecies, he nature of which could be called the 'form' of thatorsanism.and could be discoveredby patient study and inquiry.i\'loregeneraliv, perhaps he nature of every kind of thing could bedrscoveredn a similar way. This quest or the natures f things -for thep/rasrsof each kind of thing - is what Aristotle called Pilsics;and the further underlying truths about explanation in general,uponri hich such nquiries ultimately rested, were what he discussed n his.\.1etahtsics.3

Here, hen, is the original contriburion which Aristotle believedhe could make towardshandling he questionsha t Platohad raised.lnstead f looking to an abstmctdiscipl inesuch as mathematicsoprovide he ultimate explanationof things, as did the Platonists n theAcadem).,, stotleproposed o study in detail the world around him,and o dealwith tbe philosophical implicationsof that study n an inte-grated r'a-v.W}tat,he asks,must be the fundamentalcharacteristics fa iuorld if inquiry into the naturesof things n that world is to bepossible t al l? Like Plato, hen,Aristot leseeks o know the ult imateexplanaiionsfthings; unl ike Plato,he hinks hatquestions bout l t i -mate explanations must arise out of, rather than dispense with,rurun,Janeuestionsabout how we are to explain the shapes nd move-ments and growth of animals, and the regular behaviour of theinanirnatepads of nature. ln particular, looking at how the differentspeciesof organisms are by nafure impelled to pursuewhat is goodfor them, rve can begin to see how valuesare central o the behaviourof iiving things. Once we learn to look at ourselvesas animals, and tounderstandhow animals function, we can begin to glimpse howbiolocy,with its nbuil t values, an n the case fthinking animals ikeouriel\ 'es eadon to ethics.'i'vleta-Ph)rsicsrobabJyelers o an nquirywhich.ofiesaJTermeton Greek)tle direct nquirynto the natures f things,when he nquirer eeshardeeperoue\rior,snust edealtwith.

Aristotle would have thought it astonishing f thinking animalslike ourselves ad no way of expressing o themselveswhat was goodfor them. So, at many points n the Ethics, he startsby consideringwhat people usually or frequently think about va ous questronsconnected ith norality, on the assumptionhat heir views musteitherbe right or at least contain some considemblekemel of truth whichwould explain why people hold them. But is this assumptiona reason-able one to make? Might an entire society not be blind to the rightsof women, or accept acist beliefs quite uncritically? Quite in general,doesAristotle's method not amount to little more than repeating heprejuilices nd unquestioned ssumptions fhis own culture?Aristotlemight reply to this that he has no intention of merely repeating theviews of the ordinary person,nor of the wise, without criticizing andassessinghem. If one asks how this criticism is to proceed'Aristotlewould reply that a good first stepwould be to bring into the open anyhidden nconsistenciesn common beliefs, and try to sort those out'But, he cdtic might press he point, even f that results n a coherentaccount,mere coherencedoesn't guarantee nl&. A person might beconsistently ucist or sexist and still be simply mistaken' surely?Aristotlemight reply to this that even f it is comparativelyeasy o beconsistentwithin a limited area of one's beliefs (say, about the rightsof women), t is much harder o be consistentacrossa wide spectrumof one'sbeliefs. One would have to integrateethics and psychology,physiology, sociology and the rest; and once one t es to do this' atsomepoint the hidden inconsistencieswill reappear.Achieving anoverall fit' betweenone's experienceand one's beliefs is not at alleasy;and when it has been achieved, hat is as close as one is everlikely to come to the truth. This is a very complex issue,and we shallhave o see as we go along whether Aristotle's method seems ikelyto deliverwhat he is looking for.

For the moment, at least, this much can be said. Like Plato,Aristotle s concemed o get behindwhat peoplemight happen o thintin order to assessheir views, to examine heir foundationsand theirjustification.Like Plato, Aristotle is concemedwith how individualsought o live, and how they ought to contribute o their communities.He. oo. is concernedwith the natureofmoral virtues, ustice,personalresoonsibilitv nd moral weakness.Like Plato,he believes hat ethics


5/10

AItI:TOTL'S LIFT ANO WORK

r'nust e rooted n a view of the humansoul.But unlike Plato,hisconception f whata soul s derivesn the irst nstanceiom biology,ratherhan rom religiousviewsabout he ncamation nd eincama-ricn of a disembodiedrue self And this difference as profoundirnlrl icationsor morality.

Chapter 2

Style, structureand aim ofthe Ethics

The Nicomachaean thicsTheNicomachaeant}ics is so calledeitherbecauseAristotle edicatedhework o hisyoung on,or, moreprobably, ecauset was Nicomachus imself whoeditedhe work andgave t its final form someyearsafterhis father'sdeath.Aristotlealsowrote anotherbook n moralphilosophy,heEudemian lhics,whichfor the purposes f our present tudywe may leaveto one side.l I shall here be dealing ust with theNicomachaeanthics, nd or convenienceshall eferto it simplyas the Ethicswhen here s no danger fconfusion.We know that Aristotlewrote stylishdialoguesand therworksonphilosophyntendedor thegeneralrNot only are there the two works: to complicate mattersfurther, hree of the eight books of the EudemianEthics arcidenticalwith three of the ten books of the NicomochaeanEt ics. The more widcly held view is that he EudemianEthicswaswritten irst. How to explain he duplicatebooks?Perhapslhrecof the books were losl from one of the two works, andwere eplacedby the threep3rallel books rom the other work(whichprobably w^s the Eudemian trl.J). However, here s


6/10

>TYtE, STRUCTURE ANO AIM OF THE ETH'CS

l rubl ic.Unfonunately, nly some fragments f thesehave survived,.and n any casemost of theseprobably date fi'om Aristotle's first stayin Athenswhen he was working in Plato'sAcademy.The surviving\rorl(s. in contrast,were not intended for the wider public, and mostof them could not be described as polished literary creations.Moreprobably. hey containAristotle's own notes or lectureshe was giving,0i topics he was working on. The Ethics most likely dates from thepcriodafterAristot ieha dretumed o Athensand ounded he Lyceum.Likc er erlthing else we have from this period, in some places theri,riting is extremely condensed,and would, presumably, have beener1-.iaincd ore at length in the course of the lecture. In other places,th esiyie s moreelaborate nd he ext couldhavebeendeliveredmoreoi less s t stands. herear ealsosome nconsistencies.id heperhapsrevise vhathe wanted to say iD some places,but did not get round tomaking the conesponding corrections elsewhere? Altematively, itrright u'ell be that Nicomachus or some ater editor was responsiblelbr alTalrgingwhatevernraterialshad come down to him from Aristotle,and itredsomebis in as besthe could. vhat ha scomedown o us srt leasi ro solrle extent a record of work in progress,and we shouldfead t in fiat spirit. lt should encourageus to think about the prob-lrrrrs as Aristotle hinself was thinking about them. Rather han beingrjaunrrC y a greatman's f inisheddefinit ivework, we might perhapsthiLrk f th e questjons e night put to a lecturer, r the contribut ionsri c rri3ht tr1 to rnake o a seminar.-l l rc Ctirics wil l strike the modem rcader as, i f not exact lychaolic. rt cnst athcr ooselywrit ten.Fo r a start , he radit ional ivi-. ron nto Books'and'chapters ' is lmost erta in ly ot Al istot le 's, nd$e shouldnot al low it to distEct us.?Sonte opics un over from onebook to anotlrer as fo r example, riendshipstraddles he divrsionno lgrec-llrentbouthe relative atingof the wo works.Thequestionumsononcs estinratef thesignificancefthe differencesetweenhe wo woiks,and\rlrich s moreplausiblyegardedsa revision f theother.A powerful asc orqucslioninghe comnonview that he Eudemiah thicswas written irst hasbernput by AnthonyKenny09781ihis funher eflectionsr o be found nKcnnyl992l,Appendix.I1hilshccn uggesledhata Bookconsistedf theamount ftext whichwouldl ir onro singleol l of papyrus.

l0

STYLE,5TRUCTURE AN D AI M OF THE ETHi C5

betweenooksVIII and X, and hemoralvirtues re reatedn Booksll and V andV). Within a singlebook, oo, successivehapters ftenseemo hop from one topic to another lmostwithoutwaming' Tosome xtent his is the resultof the editing,but it alsoreflects henature fethicsasasubject,omprising s t does everalssues hichareooselyelatedo oneanotheratherhan ightly nterlockingStill,we should ot exaggerate. hethert is Aristotle'sor that of a latereditor,here s at east ome tructure,ndan ntelligible equenceftopics, long he ollowing ines:I Whatdo we aim at in life? what is it that would makelivingworthwhile? worthwhileife mustsurely nvolvedeveloping ur specifically umancharacteristicso thefull. How couldwe find out what hoseare?Upon eflec-tion,we cansee hatwhat s mo$ characteristicallyumanaboutounelves s the way in which thoughtcoloursallour ives not ust our ntellectual ursuits, ut alsoourfeelings ndemotions, ur choices nd elationships'II So rve startby consideringhe ways in which thoughtinfluenceshose mits of characterwhich contribute o

living a wonhwhile, ulfllled ife. Whatare hese raits?How dowe come o possesshcm?And how do ourchar-actcrsn turn nfluencehechoices hichwe make n life'and or whichwe areheld esponsible?III We need o thinli aboutchoiceand esponsibilifyn moredetail.Are we responsibleor all our behaviour, ndalsofor thecharacter e havedeveloped?Wc canuse he examplesf individual irtues o illustratehesepoints,.,Miscussion of severalmoreexamples f virtue'V Thevirtue fjustice which s notquite ike heothers)'Vl Livinga wonhwhileif e requiresot only ha twe havewell-roundedndbalancedharacter,utalso hatwe havedcvelopcdhe intellectual kills neededo gmsPwhichchoiceswe necd o makeas we go along What s it tohavea goodmoral udgement?

l1


7/10

i . IYt '. S- RUiTURE AND A]M OF TH E EIHlC5

Vll Horv ca n people esponsiblymake wrong choices? heconnectionbetweengood and bad choicesand virtues andvices. Pleasureas a possible sourceof temptation

VII! The preceding topics might give the impression that awortlrwhile huuran life fright be lived entirely on one'sown. On the contrary humans are naturally inclinedtowatds various kinds of friendsltip'

lX N4oreou iiiendship: its justification and its importance'X Pleasure gain; or surely a worthwhile life mustsomehow

be fulfiliing and enjoyable? This leads on to a finaldiscussionof the ingredientsof fulfilled life' both for theindividual. and for the individual as a member ot a com-n.runity.

So Aristot le's rain of thoughtgoes more or less ik e this: Tolire a ful l i l led l i fe, we need to be guided by errot ionswhich ar ebalrnced, nd by habltsof thoughtwhich enable s o seewhat s and;s not relevanto our decisions' nd why. In developinghese alancedrntot ionsan d discemingchoices,we ar e presumably ct ingrespon-lriblvi so \\'e need to know u'hat we can properly be said to bercs1. 'tonsibleor . (Digression ere, o eiaborate n th evarious xamplesol Lralancednd unbalanced csponses hich can be fit ted nt o theibor c schenre.) ow much of the foregoingdepends n the notionofir disceming hoice: owe need o discuss ow suchchoices remade'rundwhat kinds of knowledge he y presupposeAgain, obviouslycnough, coplear eotienheld responsibleor wrong choicesBu t ho w..n *,n"on. knowingly do what they know they should not do? AtIhispoint.something f a leap:we havediscussedhe quali t ies fthegooj indi"ldual,bu t what of th e individual 's elat ionshipso others?\ ihi Lrother ith such elat ionships,nd ho w do they contributeo al ir l f i l led if e fo r rte? When we haveansweredhosequestlons' e cantry to sultl up. Ethics has o say somethingabout the fulfilled life' andabout be kind of community in rvhich persons eadingsuch a

li fenrighthope o funct ionbest. us ta sketchof this as tpoint here' sinceaftef the Erllcs conles tlle PoliticJ.

STYLE, STRUCTURE AN D AI M OF TH E ETHlC5

Aristotle's aim in writing the EthicsPlato'smostambitious ork onmoralitywashisRepablic t includednotsimplydiscussionsbout owan ndividual houldive'but'muchror. urntitloutty,ntegnted hat view into a comprehensiveictureof he deal tatePersonal orality,good itizenship' nd hebestwayto organize state ll fit together. ristotle's im n writing heErhicsurndih"Politiurvasno diiferent.He hoped o providean account fhow he goodperson hould ive, and how societyshouldbe struc-ruredn o'rdero makesuch ivespossibleAdstotledid not believethatall thatwasneededor moraleducation as o give people trueunderstandingf whatwas goodand nobleandmorallyworthwhile'Understandirigs not enoughwithoutmotivation'which knowledgeulon..unnotrouide.SoAristotlesets ut o give anaccount f moraltraining s*ell us moral heory.A detailed iscussionf all this canrait uitil lat"r, n Chapter , but the ollowing wo textswill serveogiveusa preliminary utlineof whathe s trying o do:

It is well said, hen' hat t is by doing ust acts hat someonebecomesust, and by doing emperate cts hat they becometemperate. ithoutdoing hese, o onewouldhaveany chanceofbecoming ood.But mostpeople onot

performhese ctronsbut uke eiulc in theory, hinking hat hey arebeingpliloso-phers ndwiii becomeood n hi sway'Theybehave bitl ikepatients ho istencarefullyo theirdoctors' ut dononeof theihing, th.y were old o do.As the atterwill notbe madewellin tiOy ty sucha nethodof treatment,he formerwill not bemadeelinsoul ysuchnapproach" on'iilllli;*r_,r,Our presentnquiry unlikeour othets) s not aimedat theoret-ical knowleclge. e arenot conducting ur inquiry n ordeJoknow hedefinition fvirtue,but n order o become ood'other-wise t wouldnotbenefit s at all so we must hinkaboutwhatconcems ctions ndhow we ought o perform hem '01 ,2, I 103b26-31)


8/10

5TYLE, STRUCTURE AN D AI M OF THE fTHi CS

Aristotle's relace1) :Why do we do anythingat all?Aristotleellsus hat he lrst hree haptersf theEthics re y wayof being a preface o the work as a whole (1095a12).n these hap-ters. he gives an outline of his approach, ndicates he results whichmight be expected,and describes he kind of student for whom hislecturs re designed.

Ethicsand poli t icsar econcemedwith what we shouid o. I f wedo something as dist inct rom havesonethinghappen o us,or froma pieceof purely reflex behaviour), we do it for a reason.So Aristotleitansoff his ntroduct ion y makingsomegeneral bservat ionsn thereasons a,emight give for doing anything. The observations re ndeedvery general:and hat is because e wants o get back o the most basicasslunptionsnvolved in ethics. We commonly try to think out prob-lemssuch as 'Should mother come and l ive with us. or would sh ebe betterwhere sh e s?', or 'Can we really blame him for what herl id?'and so on . k is nruchmore rarely hat we ask What should becloingu ith rry l i fe?', an d even more rarely hat we ask What s theb.st wa v to l ivel ' Aristot le hinks hat o dealwith the more everydayproblcnrs. e have n the end o deal with the very general, ut verylundarncltalssues.Wh y do anythingat al l?' s ndeed strange ues-rron:bu t it might providea clue o what s neededn order o answerlhc others.So, he begins:rl) Sonret imes e moL:ehings (suchas a statue, r a chair),an osometimes 'e simply do things (l ike walking, or discussingphilosophy).(l ) Someof th e things we do, we do for their ow n sake listeningto music,or keepinga promise, or instance).i-r Sor,relimes,we do something, or make something, or the sakeof somethingelse hat we want (we reada book in order to leamabout Aristotle; we paint a picture in order to enjoy looking at

it : we make CDs in order o eam a living).1-l) Somerimeswe do things both lor their own sake and becausethe),al e means o achieving omething lseas well . (W e go fo rl \ talk bccausewe enjoy walking, and n any case he exerciseis gcrod or our health.)1. 1

5TYLE,STRUCTUREND AIM OF THE FTHICSReasons rehierarchicallyordered:we reada book to leam about

Adstotle;and we want to leam about Aristotle becausewe want to geta degrce, erhaps;and we want to get a degreebecause . . and so on.Now, most of the things that we do involve know-how. We need toleamhow to read, and, indee4 how to read Aristotle; know-how isneeded or making a ship, or a CD. These various bodies of know-ledge restructured,ust as our reasonsor individual ctions re.Practical ciences uchas marine engineeringor electronicsare presup-posedby the scienceof commerce(which needsships) or the musicindustry which needsCDs), and these n tum have their own aims.His point is that thesesecond-levelaims explain why the firstlevelaimsarc important to us. He then raises his question: s there somehighest-level ractical science o which all the othersare subordinate?lf there s, its end will be the highestof all ends, and to understand twould be to understandhow ever'4hingelse fits together, and why inthe end we do an)4hingat all.

His answer in l, 2) is that there s indeeda plausible candidatefor heposition ofhighest-level practical science politics. To seewhvhe says his, we need o grasp wo points.The first concems he wayin whichAristot le hinksofthe science fpol i t ics.Th e word 'pol i t ics'doesnot have for him the somewhatambiguous overtones t mighthave or us, where to be a politician might suggestbeing adePt atwheelingand dcaling, manipulating the levers of power, and so onNor doeshe meanwhat we might mean by 'political science',whichis a theoreticel study of how political institutionswork and interact.Like Plato,Aristotle had a noticn of politics which was at once moreidealisticand more practical. The science of politics consists inknowinghow to organize he community for the best.3 Politics' is all-embracing,nvolving all the many ways in which we should interactwithone anothcr n a community. The people whose ask it is to orga-nize he community are the ones who in the end decidewhat is to be

I 'Community'.incet is nrportanto rememberhatat hisperiod hepoliticalunitwasa ccrmparaiivelymallcity - a polis andsuchempires s herehadbecnn Greece ere evefihelesshought fas alliancesf individual ities, venif therewerca dominant artner asAthens adoncebeen, ndMacedon asrc DCCOme.)

: . iLi


9/10

5TiIU'TURE AND AI M OF THE ETHICSt i r0! j t tao d to whom, ho w money s to be spcni,what lawsare to becn3crcd. trat p)ays an d fest ivals o be celebrated, hich types ofbelrir iou r to be encoumged, nd which not. platotoot i t for i ianted,:ud.{risiot le u,ouidno t have disputed, ha t al l thesepract icaldeci_sionshaveas rheir ult imatepurpose he wel)-being f th e cit izens, sindiyidu3ls ndas a community. fw e couldunderstandow to achieverhatgoal. hen,saysAristot le,we could se eho w eachactionof eachirrdiyidualmight be gocd fo r that personan d might alsoconu.ibuteoa f lourishing ommunity.Ethicsan d poli t icsar ealikeconcemedwith$l]at is most mportant o us; ethics ooking at it f rom the point ofirc.x of the individual.and poli t ics from the point of view of theronrnrunit l , s a whole.Th e Ethics, hen,wil l attempt o answer ues_tiorisabout ,vhat ac hof us shoulddo by showinghow thc answencrinbc found;an danswers an be foundby considcring ha t t is thali: rUlt inlarelyrnponant o us.

Aristotle's reface2) :Realistic xpectations\\ i i l lhc sludy of ethics el l us exact lywhat we shoulddo in everysrruirrronn which we find ourselves? ertainlynot, says Aristot le.onl)' s()rtrcouevh oha dno knowledge fthe subjectwouldexpect ha t1.. . . ,1.f , lcrr i lcd larrry.

I lrc discussion il l be quite suff icient f it attains o a s muchclaf iry as the subject al lows. Detai ledaccuracy s not to belookcd br equally n all discussionsany more than n the variousthlngsu, eca n make.f l . 3, t094bl - t2)

In talking about what we should do, we must not expect heprccistonha t we might expect n, say,mathematics, r in the phys-icol scicnccs. nly the l l- infonnedwould expect he samedegree fl iqt.rur. nc eagain,Aristot le s heremaking an introductory emark,lLrrNhichhe u il l give hi s detai led easonsater part ly n Book Il, andpanlv n Book VI). Now, it might no t strikeus as oo surprisingo sa ythal ethics or-poii t ics) s no r an exactscience n the way in whichpn\stcj or astronotly are. We might be incl ined o say that moralpi inci l : , les le very dif lerent from scient if ic aws. At least dealtv.

STYLE, STRUCTURE AI{D AIM OT lHE ETHICS

scientific aws have no exceptions,whereasmoral principles, such as'Youshouldnot tell a lie' surely have all kinds ofexceptions. Someonemight even wish to argue that, whereas he truths of physics shouldbeaccepted y anyone,different ndividuals or culturesneednot acceptthe sameethical principles at all. Despite what he has ust said aboutuffeasonable xpectations n ethics, Aristotle would neverthelessatthis oint rge aution ntilwesee ow he nquiryntoethicsumsout. Ethics and politics are indeed different from physics. Aristotleadmitsha t n contrastwith the naturalworld 'noblean d us t act ions,which arc the subjectmatterof politics, differ and vary so much thatit night appearas f rheydependsimply upon hunan convention atherthannature' 1094b14-16).So it might seem.But, as we shall se,Aristot le oc s not in fact endorse hat conclusion.While ethicsan dpoli t icsma y be inexactby comparisonwith the physicalsciences,tdoesnot follow that there are no natural limits to what should beregarded s morally or politically admirable, or that ethics cannot inanysense e regardedas a scientiflc discipline.We shall have to waitand ee.

Aristotle'sPreface3) :Suitable tudentsAs we saw, Aristotle's aim in w ting the Ethics is not just to teachpeopleheory, t is to help people o becomegood. While in a wa ythatseems air enough thoughperhaps he emphasis s not one whichwouldalways be found in moml philosophy ecturesnowadays!), onemightbe forgiven for thinking that there s nevertheless omething ofa paradoxhere. If, by Aristotle's own account, attending a course onmoral hilosophywill not guaranteehat he studentswill end up beingmorallygood, then why should reading Aristotle's Ethcs or listeningto his ecturesbe any more effective? t's not enough for him simplyto r4_v hat hjs aim is not just theoreticalbut pmctical. How is thatsupposedo work out?Aristotle would tahe the point. No more than a contemporarylecturern moral philosophy rvould Aristotle have thought it his busi-ness o provide the kind of good moral training one might look forfrom arcnls r schools. uc h rainingha s o slan n early chi ldhood,so hat he young personacquires abits of good behaviour.St i l l ,

17

AI\U


10/10

STYLE, TRUCTURE ND AIM OF THE ETHlCSsomeonewho hasbeen weil brought up will typically come to wonder1r'/n they have been trained to behave n this way rather than tbatInGeed hey might well question whether their upbringing has beenalong he right lines at all. Doubtless here were rebellious adolescentrin Arhe)rs oo. Rather than geting hold of them at once, however,Aristotle rvould have considered hem as still too young to profit fronhis lectures.The rebellious adolescentsimply does not as yet havrenough experience of life and its complexities to be able to fornrrature moral udgements. So Aristotle consideredas prerequisites oriris course iat people should have been well brought up, and, furtherIhat they should already have had some experienceof life and of thecomplex problems which life presentsone with. He remarks hat:

Wlile young men become geometriciansand mathematiciansand very adept at suchsubjects we might includc being marvel.lous at dealing with computersl, t is commonly believed ha ta young ma n does not leam pract icalwisdom. ... A youngman has no experience. or i t is length of t ime that givesexpetience.

(VI , 8. I l42al l -15)t lere is a fonhright descript ion f the krnd of student e does.\ young rnan is not a suitableperson o take a course on hovtr-' un a city, for he is inexperienced n the affairs of life (whichare tt e starting point and subject-matterof the course). Besides,since he tends o be led by his feelings.attending he coursewilibe porntlessand unprofitable, since the aim of the course s nolknouiedge but action. [t makes no difference whether he isyoung in years, or immature in character.The problem is nor amafter of time, but a life-style which pursuesone kind of thing:ftcr another as feelings dictate. To people ike this knowledgeis Ito use, any more than it is to people who lack self-controlBut for those whose desires and actions are directed n a well-ordered way, it would be very helpful to have knowledge aboutsuch opics.

(1 ,3, 1095a2- l )

STYLE,5TRUCIUI{!

what Aristotle s trying to do, then, s to give his students nexplanationf why theyshouldhavebeenbroughtuP as hey were'and naccount f how an adult s to go aboutmakinggooddecisions'Hhopeshatwhathehas o saywill have he racticaleffectof crys-tallizingor themattitudes ndways of thinkingwhichtheyhaveasyetnotbeen ble oexplain rjustify for themselves'is ectures ereio providehe inal stagof a process f moraleducation; r' to beror. "*r.,, theywere o give he heoretical acking o a process fmoralrainingwhichhad lreadybeenargely ompleted'n-l doing'heaimedo-producemorally houghtfuladultswho would be goodpeople,ndgoodmembers f the community'' ' in tfte chapters hat follow, I shall not adherestrictly toAristotle's rderof expositionif indeedt is Aristode's) shall ryto explainhe key pansof it 6rst' and hen ill in the sufioundingst"t"r.i *outa sugieit hatagoodplan o followwouldbe o read airlyquicklyhrough-theections f the ext whicharedealtwith in eachctraoterttnis Uoot,whicharegivenat thestartof each hapter:henreadhechapter arefully, ollowingup the referenceso the ext asyougo along.

18 19

hughes-aristotel on ethics

Documents