Philosophy 361 Ethics Darwall Fall 1997 ARISTOTLE I I The modern “liberal” conception of morality has recently been criticized, partly for Nietzschean reasons, but also for others: A. Some argue that the liberal conception of morality is distortedly individualistic. Moreover, according to liberal theories, moral thinking proceeds from a perspective that transcends any actual community. But to think in this way, it is argued, is to be alienated from the connections and shared communal meanings that are necessary to realize what really matters in human life. B. Others argue that the modern idea of morality focuses too much on acts (on the question, what is the right thing to do?) and not enough on character and feelings. C. And some argue with Nietzsche that the very idea of morality is fatally flawed. They maintain that either Kant or the theological voluntarists are right about what kind of foundation morality would have to have, but deny that it can be given such a foundation. II It is no coincidence that many who make these criticisms look to the ancient Greeks, and, especially, to Aristotle, for contemporary inspiration. A. Aristotle wrote under very different social and political conditions than characterized the early modern period. The Athenian city state was hardly at its peak during Aristotle's life (384 BC--322 BC), but it was still more a community of shared values. Writers in the early modern era had just come through a period in which many had fought and died for conflicting religious beliefs and where the problem was how to conceive of a moral order between persons who were deeply divided on these matters. Aristotle, on the other hand, writes as though a consensus on what matters in life is much likelier, at least among those he is willing to take seriously. B. The modern conception of morality plays no apparent role in Aristotle's thought. The word 'moral' certainly appears in our translation of Aristotle's text, but it simply carries the meaning of anything relating to character in the broadest sense. C. Aristotle's question in the Nicomachean Ethics is what is the chief good, what is ultimately worth aim at? The idea of morality has no apparent role in his thought. D. Finally, unlike at least Kant, Aristotle does not distinguish sharply between science and ethics. In trying to discover what is the good for human beings, he is not asking an ethical as distinct from a scientific question. According to Aristotle, we do not know the nature of a thing until we know its final cause, its telos (purpose or end). Here we are like all natural creatures--to have an Aristotelian nature is to have a telos. III Aristotle begins, then, with the question of what is the chief good for human beings. "If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good." (1094a 17-20) How is he reasoning here? We can't simply conclude from the truism that all chains of desire must end somewhere or other that they must all end in the same place, that there must be one chief good. Maybe they end in different places. Moreover, Aristotle himself must accept that if there is a single, chief good, there must still be a number of things are desired in themselves and for their own distinctive reasons. He announces a major difference with Plato, who held all good things were so by virtue of their relation to a single Form of the Good, that "of honour, wisdom, and pleasure, just in respect of their goodness, the accounts are distinct and diverse. The good, therefore, is not something common answering to one Idea." (1096b 24-26) Perhaps his thought is something like this. Even if there are several distinct final ends (ends desired and desirable for their own sakes), there must be some basis for deciding what to do when these conflict. If there is to be some basis for thought and action in the case of conflict, that must be in virtue of some overarching conception of a most final, or chief, good. "Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what is right?" (1094a 21-24) IV Aristotle says there is broad agreement that the chief good is eudaimonia (Ross translates this as happiness, but it’s better understood as flourishing or doing well). Beyond that there is disagreement [Note the role that consensus plays . Aristotle takes common opinion seriously, develop his views dialectically from within it.]. Some say it eudaimonia is a life of pleasure, others of honor, others a wealthy life, others a virtuous life. Aristotle will defend some version of the last view. His method: A. Dialectical--show how what is plausible about other answers can be explained by the view that the best human life is a virtuous one. B. Direct--the "function argument" IV Dialectical A. Pleasure is an effect or manifestation of the good (virtuous) life, not its substance. Excellent activity is inherently pleasurable to the virtuous person. B. Honor is not desirable simply for its own sake; rather what we really want is to merit honor, etc. V. Direct: The Function Argument 1. For anything that has a function or a characteristic activity, "the good and the well is thought to reside in the function." 2. As naturally functioning beings, human beings must have a function. 3. Their function must be whatever is distinctive about them. [Think about what why a teleological view of nature would lead Aristotle to this proposition.] 4. The distinctive activity of human beings is "activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle." 5. This is the function of human beings. 6. Human good is "activity of soul exhibiting excellence [arete or virtue], and if there are more than one excellence, in accordance with the best and the most complete."