Nichomanean Ethics Aristotle Flashcards
Aristotle:
Aristotle was Platos most genuine student
Aristotle was born in Stageira
Platos school in Athens was the Academy
Aristotle left the Acadmey after Platos death
Aristotles starts his own school - the students in this school were called the peripatetics - people who walked around - reference to followers of Aristotle
Aristotle was charged with impiety
We have a lot of Aristotles work, but we don’t have all of it
There are some of aristotles dialogues that we don’t have
Aristotles works can be separated into different groups:
Organon ‘tool’ or ‘instrument’ - logic and method, maybe epistemology or philosophy of science
Physical works - works on nature and natural science, biology, chemistry, astronomy, maybe psychology
Metaphysics - questions about what is real, what are causes, Aristotle calls it first pholsopohy or theology
Ethics
Politics
Rhetoric
Poetics - literary theory
Nicomachean Ethics - what is happiness and how is it achieved
Happiness and eudaimonia
fulfillment , flourishing, well-being
Eudaimonia is not a subjective feeling - not a fleeting state, not intentional
No one is eudaimon about anything - like an object
No one is eudaimon one day and not the next - Aristotle thinks you can’t even be called eudaimon until long after your death
only gods and adult humans can achieve this, not kids or animals
Aristotle thinks that happiness is activity of the rational soul in accordance with virtue
We could ask what the point of this inquiry is
Although eudaimonia is not a feeling, it must involve pleasure
Someone who finds everything they do a struggle is not living happily
Not all activities of the rational soul are alike
Theoretical studies focuses on one type of area of study - finding out what is true about the world
productive inquiries - like medicine, music, anything that involves making or doing things
Practical inquiries - action, knowing what to do, point of these inquiries is to learn how to do things
The point of knowing how to get happiness is practical
The end goal of this inquiry is action, not knowledge
We undertake it not for the sake of theory, but for the sake of experience and how to become virtuous and good
Aristotles aims are somewhat ambitious, he is not trying to convert the moral skeptic
He doesnt think you can argue someone into wanting to be good - Unlike Plato
Aristotle thinks that ethical philosophy can not and should not answer the kinds of questions that Plato’s answers within the Republic
Aristotle thinks that young people are not goof audiences, because they are inexperienced in actions that occur in life, while philosophical discussion is about these
That vs why
In any inquiry, one initially proceeds from what is better known to us to what is better known by nature
When we have scientific/epistemic knowledge, it’s explanatory, explaining why things are the case - this inquiry begins with knowing That
In order to know why it is the case, we must know that that is the case
The things that constitute the data for ethical inquiries, like living a virtous or happy life, the thats are going to be reputable opinions or common opinions (endoxa), and so the thats are going to be the idea that most people or wise people think
One thing Aristotle does surveys the existing beliefs about things, and then develops various puzzles and tries to figure out what seems true and what seems problematic
Good theories should salvage as much as Endoxa as they can
But…
Won’t people disagree about the “thats” when it comes to right and wrong
Aristotle thinks that in practical science like ethics it doesn’t matter if it is exact - it’s ok just to have an idea
There is such thing as the human good
Every sort of expert knowledge, or skill and every inquiry and in every action and undertaking, they all seem to aim at some good - because of this, it makes sense to say that the good is something that all things seek
All actions aim to some good - the good is to what every action aims
The good is the end goal of an activity
Human good is the highest end
Every action seeks some good - is that true?
- Not just any old action. Aristotle is talking about Actions
- Aristotle is not talking about involuntary actions, nor is he talking about reactions
- Actions (with a capital A) are things that are prompted by reason
- Arent there lots of different ends
- He makes the assumption that there is only one good
- There could be a whole bunch of ends
Subordinate ends
In all activities the ends of the controlling ones are more desirable than the ends under them, because it is for the sake of the former…
When we have heriarchally arranged ends, the subordinate ones are less choice worthy and less desirable
Eg. i teach class, to get paid, to buy a scooter, so that i can ride the scooter
Riding the scooter is the superordinate end, while the other ones are subordinate
You want to ride the scooter more than wanting to get paid and wanting to get paid more then wanting to teach
Wanting to ride the scooter is wanted for its own sake, while the other ones are wanted for the sake of something else
Ends cannot go on ad infinitum
Whenever we have a hierarchy arranged ends, it must have one end
If there was no single pious end, it would make all other ends or desires empty
Rules out that two things can’t be desired for the sake of the other
Why is desire empty and futile if there is no final, highest end that is chosen or desired for its own sake
Happiness is the highest end and is chosen for its own sake
Happy lives - the human good = the highest end = happiness eudaimonia)
There is indisupte about what happiness is - some say it is a life of pleasure, a life of honour, etc
How is this settled? - laying out the endoxa
A life of pleasure
Life of gratification and satisfying desires/bodily desires
Aristotle says no - this is a life fit for grazing animals - suitable for beasts
A life pursuing honour
Engage in politics and give then honourific titles
Aristotle points out that the aim is honour, but that is too superficial - too dependant on what other people do - other people honouring us - our happiness should be something we can control and up to us - seems to be located in the people doing the honouring
The good should be up to the person experiencing it
The good should reflect our virtue
Not just being honoured, but is to merit honour
Life of being virtuous honour - being the person who deserves honour
Merely being good or possessing excellence is not enough
It’s got to be something more active and exercising those virtuous and acting virtuously
Life spend making money or merely studying is not enough either
How do we settle this
Completeness - happiness is complete
Always desirable in itself and never because of something else
Whatever flourishing is, it is always going to be something that is always most complete or most final
Self-sufficiency
It is what makes life desirable and lacking in nothing
Happiness is like this, it is the most desirable, it is not one among many
Whatever it turns out to be, this flourishing human life, it has to be both of these things
External goods - money, health, food
Without these conditions
Nicomachean Ethics
What does being a good human involve, and how it is achieved? What does success in life look like?
This question is a part of political science - how do we set things up, so people are set up for success - it’s said his work is made for future law givers
Our good is our highest end, that for which everything we choose to do is chosen
What we do everything for the sake of is happiness (eudaimonia) - it is the ultimate end - it is the most choice-worthy - the happy life is not chosen for any other reason, and it meets our needs
And the happy flourishing life must be both complete (not chosen because of anything else that is more choice-worthy and self sufficient it is a life in which all our needs are met; it’s not missing anything
Aristotle recognises that this is vague - that happiness is the chief good
Perhaps we need to look at the function of the human being to be more clear
function/work (ergon)
Characteristic activity of something
What something alone does, or what it does better than anything else
virtue/excellence (arete)
Features or properties that allow something to perform its function well
Whatever allows something to be a good instance of its kind
A good X performs the function of X well, i.e., in a way that expresses or is in accordance with the virtues of X
Eg. the knife’s function is cutting things
Question: is there a human function
something that the human alone does
Our function is going to be given by what we are
Is there a human function of human qua (insofar as, considered as) humans?
There are flute players, sculptors, craft people, the good for all these people reside in their function
Crafts peoples have jobs to do
Aristotle argues that the function of humans is rational activity
Aristotle focuses on the soul (psyche)
There are several parts/capacities that make up the human soul
Humans have nutritive and vegetative capacities, such as self-maintanence and growth
Algae only has the nutrive/vegatative capacities
There is also the sentient soul capacities - they can touch, taste, sense things, also brings with it feelings of pleasure and pain, and thus appetitive desire
And there’s rational capacities - the ability to think
What is it that just people do
Are humans unique in engaging in reason?
The function of a human being is activity of soul in accordance with reason - a good human would perform that action well - something is done well if it is done with the relevant virtues
The human good turns out to be acitivity of soul in accordance with excellence
Function (ergon) argument
- For any F, where F is a kind with a function, the F’s good = performing the function of F well
- So, if the human species ahs a function, then the human good = performing the function well
- The human species does have a function
- So, the human good - performing the human function well
- The human function is activity of the rational part of the soul
- So, the human good = performing activity of the rational part of the coil well
- One performs the function of an F well when one acts in accordance with the relevant function
- For any F, where F is a kind with a function, the F’s good = performing the function of F well
- So, if the human species ahs a function, then the human good = performing the function well
- The human species does have a function
- So, the human good - performing the human function well
- The human function is activity of the rational part of the soul
- So, the human good = performing activity of the rational part of the coil well
- One performs the function of an F well when one acts in accordance with the relevant function
This applies over the whole life - it is the activity over the whole life that is the good - it’s not something you decide to have today, it’s kind of decided at the end of the life
When he’s talking about rational activity - it’s not things just like maths and science, it includes behaving in certain ways and even having emotional responses of a certain sort
Human Good
Human good = ultimate/highest end = happiness
Human good = performing human function well = rational activity in accordance with virtues (or virtuous exercise or rational capacities)
However, what does he mean by the human good
What is good for humans or what humans are good for
What is good for X is happiness
And what X is good for is that for any F, where F is a kind with a function, the good of an F = performing the function of F well
When we talk about living, we are either talking about living enjoyably, or doing a good job of living - do these go together?
Aristotle says that there is no tension between these
background assumptions
Humans have essences (which are both discoverable and normative
Human essence is identified with human soul
Human soul consists of a set of capacities for engaging in a distinctive kind of life
Human souls are distinctly rational, so human good is the activity of that rational part of the soul/rational activity
Aristotle says that by doing a good job, and by nature suited to do, you thereby are realising your potential, and achieving your natural goals, which is better for you than going against your natural tendencies
Conclusion so far: the excellent (virtous) exercise of disntictivly human rational capacities is what being a human consists in
aspects of the soul
One aspect of the soul is rational and one is non-rational
The non rational is the plant-like aspect of the soul (nutritive capacities)
It is also non rational is the capacity to listen to reason - the appetitive and desire part
Nutritive capacities are shared, not unique to humans
So the excellences of nutritive soul capacities are not human excellences
The rational part of the coil possesses reason and is capable of obedience to reason
On one hand, these purely intellectual things are a per of the rational part of the soul, but on the other hand, quasi-rational stuff, like desires, also counts as activities
there are two corresponding types of human virtues:
Intellectual and character virtues
Character virtues - discussed in books 2-5
Character virtue acquisition
Intellectual sort mostly both comes into existence and increases as a result of teaching
Excellence of character results from habituation
It’s a virtue to be a pleasant person to be around - harming people for no reason is bad - we all should agree on that - if you don’t, then there’s no hope for the person
When we talk about how these virtues are acquired, they are not the kinds of things we are just born with - if they are by nature, then no amount of training can change it - with humans, we can be habituated and conditioned into having a certain response to things, and that’s how virtue is developed
We become just by doing just things, moderate by doing moderate things, and courageous by doing courageous things
Why we must learn by doing - you can’t have a guide book to being a good person
Your actions determine your life (actions shape the soul)
Being virtuous involves pleasure
When you first try something it’s hard, only after some experience, you start enjoying it - it’s the sign of a real expert
Problem: how can we do virtuous actions when we are not yet virtous - to become just, we need to be just (in terms of doing just things)
For id they are doing what is just and moderate, they are already just and moderate
Actually, you don’t need to be a builder, or writer, in order to build or write
Does something literate, and does it in the way a literate person does it - I would only be literate if i was able to write and did it in the way that the literate person does it
Also, craft products are importantly different from virtuous acts
Doing a virtuous act vs acting virtously - there’s a difference
If he does them knowingly, if he decides to do them, and decides to do it for themselves, and foes them from a firm and unchanging position - then that is acintg virtouslt
Know what you are doing, have chosen/decided upon, not for some ulterior motive, agent is firm and stable in action
Performing X actions and becoming X
the just person comes about from doing what is just, and the moderate person from doing what is moderate; whereas grom not doing these things no one will have excellence in the future either
Virtues activities need to be chosen for its own sake, not for some ulterior motive
Definition of virtue:
“Virtue, then, is (a) state (hexis) that (b) decides/concerned with choice (prohairesis), (c) consisting in a mean (mesotês), (d) the mean relative to us (pros hêmas), (e) which is defined by reference to reason (logos), (f) i.e., to the reason by reference to which the intelligent person (phronimos) would define it.” NE II.6, 1106b36-1107a2
Virtue is a state that decides or a state that is concerned with choice
It is concerned with the mean or the mean relative to us
State that falls under one of the three kinds:
Affections
Capcaities
A capacity isn’t something that you acquire but something that you are born with the ability to do
Disposition/state (hexis):
…the things that occur in the soul fall into three kinds, i.e. affections, capacities, and dispositions…” NE II.5, 1105b19-20 By affections I mean appetite, anger, fear, boldness, grudging ill will, joy, friendly feeling, hatred, longing, envy, pity— generally, feelings attended by pleasure or pain; NE II.5, 1105b21-3 “..capacities are what people are referring to when they say we are susceptible to the affections, as for example with those capacities in terms of which we are said to be capable of becoming angry, or distressed, or of feeling pity..” NE II.5, 1105b23-5 “…as for dispositions, it is in terms of these that we are well or badly disposed in relation to the affections, as for example in relation to becoming angry, if we are violently or sluggishly disposed, we are badly disposed, and if in an intermediate way, we are well disposed—and similarly too in relation to the other things in question…” NE II.5, 1105b2
- Being virtuous is not a matter of mastering your emotions but is reflected in your response to things
- It is a state that is concerned with choice/purpose (prohairesis)
- Lies in a mean/intermediate state
- This does not mean that virtue is always a medial or moderate state
- Rather that this state issues emotional actions that are appropriate
- All the virtues however occupy a mean state between excess and deficiencies
- The state of one’s soul is also in this mean state
- This is not just some objective mean but a mean that is relative to us
- Aristotle contrast between the objectibbe and what is relative to us to show that the mean relative to each individual person is not the same and depends on said individual
- Eg. the precise mean of food for someone else might be 20 pounds but relative to us it might be 40 pounds
- Facts about the person doing the thing and other factors determines what the precise mean will be
- The correct mean is determined by the reason/thinking (logos)
- And the person possessing the intellectual virtue is called phonesis
Decision/choice/purpose
Doing an action virtously vs doing virtuous action
First if he does them knowingly
Secondly if he decides to do them and decides to do these actions for themselves.
If he does them from a firm and unchanging disposition
Lies in a mean/is intermediate
Virtue is an intermediate state
It lies between two vices - excess and deficiency
Both too much or too little are both not good
relative/in relation to us
by intermediate ‘with reference to the object’ I mean what is equidistant from each of its two extremes, which is one and the same for all
whereas by intermediate ‘relative to us’ I mean the sort of thing that neither goes to excess nor is deficient—and this is not one thing, nor is it the same for all
The mean that is determined by reason/thinking
Now, that one should act in accordance with the correct prescription (orthôs logos) is a shared view
let it stand as a basic assumption; there will be a discussion about it later, both about what ‘the correct prescription’ is, and about how it is related to the other kinds of excellence
Practical wisdom/intelligence
The phronimos - the wise person - possesses the intellectual virtue called phronêsis
Phronêsis - excellence or virtue in Deliberation
Phronesis
Action - praxis
Decision/Choice (prohairesis)
Deliberation (boulesis)
Starting from ends/goals, deliberations is the process whereby one works out how to achieve those ends or goals (Deliberations is not about which ends/goals to have)
Can think of this as represented by a “practical” syllogilism/deduction
Wisdoms, practical intelligence, prudence
Intellectual virtue that has to do with action (praxis)
What determines the right way to act as it pertains to the virtues is decided by phronesis
Ends are being determined by deliberation
“practical” syllogilism
General or universal premise - I want to heal the sick
Particular premise - eg. doing this or that will lead to this goal
Conclusion: decision (or action), eg. do this or that
Division of labour:
Again, the ‘product’ is brought to completion by virtue of a person’s having wisdom and excellence of character
for excellence makes the goal correct, while wisdom makes what leads to it correct
In our decisions there is this division of labour
Reasoning about what to do:
UP (universal premise)
X is to be done/avoided
\PP (Particular Premise)
This is X
Conclusion (Decision/Action)
Do/Avoid X
Character virtue, developed by practice, sets the ends/goals
Phonesis, developed by experience, gives the means to those ends (moral perception, eye of the soul)
Cleverness (deinoeteta)
Cleverness (deinoeteta): ability to engage in means-ends reasoning. The ability to “hit the mark”
If the mark be noble, the cleverness is laudable, but if the mark be bad, the cleverness is mere smartness
Phronesis requires character virtue - it is impossible to be wise without possessing excellence
Phronesis vs cleverness
Cleverness: ability to engage in means-ends reasoning. The ability to hit the mark
Full character virtue vs natural virtue
…just as in the case of that part of the soul that forms opinions there are two kinds of thing, cleverness and wisdom, so with the character bearing part there are also two, one being natural virtue and the other virtue in the primary sense—and of these, the latter does not come about unless accompanied by wisdom.”
Virtue in the primary sense/full character virtue - needs wisdom
Character virtue requires phonesis
it is not possible to possess excellence in the primary sense without wisdom
Impossible to be wise without excellence of character
Is virtue knowledge
- Socrates thought that all the excellences are kinds of wisdom, but in so far as they are always accompanied by wisdom
- Socrates was in a way right and in a way not right when he said that the virtues were all accompanied by wisdom or knowledge
Unity of the virtues:
Is it possible to have one virtue but not others
this is possible in relation to the ‘natural’ excellences, but in relation to those that make a person excellent without qualification, it is not possible, since if wisdom, which is one, is present, they will all be present along with it
Voluntary and Counter Voluntary
Why these notions are relevant to this study
virtue/excellence as a disposition state
Is a disposition state that has to do with decisions - how are our choices related to who we are
Virtue/excellence and vice/badness
Are objects of blame and praise - can we blamed for the characters we have - if so, it seems like we are responsible for them
These notions are often used but require conceptual clarification in order to resolve some puzzles
Relevancy:
- Asking about whether ot not an action voluntary leadas to the question on when does an action reflect a persons character and when does it not
- Because virtues and vices are voluntary they are praise or blameworthy
- A lot of people like socrates used these notions but they require conceptual clarification in order to resolve some puzzle
When is an action voluntary
- Oedipus kills father, not knowing it is his father
- You do X, not knowing X is bad for you. (Alternatively: You do X, not knowing X is wrong.)
- Forced (false) confession
