Aristotle

overall summary

good is eudaimonia which we achieve by fulfilling our ergon which is to live in accordance with reason → we do this by habituating our virtues (arete) → we develop virtues in the same way as a skill, by observing a role model and practicing their virtue until it becomes habit → we know when to be and how to be virtuous through the doctrine of the mean → from habituating virtues, we learn phronesis that helps us achieve our end of eudaimonia and live moral lives → we are only responsible for voluntary actions, not involuntary or non-voluntary

good for humans

Aristotle is teleological in his view of the universe, believing that everything is aimed toward a final good

• p1 - everything we do is aimed at some good; p2 - each good is also done for the sake of a higher good; p3 - this cannot go on forever; c - therefore there must be an ultimate good, which everything we do is aimed towards

  criticisms - what about actions with no purpose e.g. day-dreaming or doodling?

  fallacy of composition - all humans have a mother therefore there is one mother all humans have

eudaimonia as a final end

• empirical approach leads Aristotle to believe eudaimonia (flourishing) is our final end and eudaimonia is not pleasure (animals have this), wealth (means to an end), honour (depends on other people’s recognition), goodness (compatible with a life of suffering)

• conceptual approach also leads to it - ultimate good or final end must be: a) an end and not a means to one; b) the ‘most final’ end for the sake of which everything else is done; c) self-sufficient so that nothing can make it even better; d) the most desirable of all things -> Aristotle says eudaimonia (flourishing or the good life) is all of these

eudaimonia and pleasure

• according to Aristotle, pleasure is not the good as pleasure does not meet criteria above, we are more than pleasure-seeking animals and there are other things we strive for that do not necessarily bring us pleasure

• however, good life does involve pleasure and philosophers who reject pleasure as an important part of eudaimonia are also wrong -> Aristotle hangs between pleasure IS the good and pleasure plays NO part in good; it is part of the good

• we should avoid excessive indulgence in physical pleasures, yet enjoying physical pleasures is something Aristotle sees as a virtue and shunning al physical pleasure is a vice

• pleasure plays a crucial role in developing virtues of character and so enabling us to reach eudaimonia -> as we start to act as a virtuous person, we start to enjoy and get pleasure from being virtuous (being generous etc.)

function arg

• used by Aristotle to show that eudaimonia is only achieved through exercising our reason - the first part aims to show that humans have a particular function, and the second part aims to show that in order to function well we need to develop the right qualities / virtues

  • part 1 p1 - every type of person has a distinctive role or function in society; and every part of the body has a distinctive function; p2 - therefore human beings must also have a distinctive function; p3 - our function cannot be growth / nutrition (shared with plants) or sentience (Shared with animals) - as these are not distinctive to humans HOWEVER being guided by reason is distinctive to humans; c1 - therefore our function is to live guided by reason

    • issue - weak argument from analogy that humans have a function ‘just like parts of the body and just like roles in a society’

    • aristotle may even be guilty of fallacy of composition ‘every part of a human has a function therefore the whole human must also have a function’

  • part 2 p4 - X is good if it fulfils its function well; p5 - X fulfils its function well if it has the right qualities; p6 - therefore a good human is someone with the right qualities which enable them to live guided well by reason; p7 - the good life of a human (or eudaimonia) is the life of a good human (someone with virtues enabling them to be guided well by reason); c2 - therefore eudaimonia is reached by someone with the right virtues which enable them to be guided well by reason

  • if we use reason well we live well and to do this we need to develop all the necessary virtues - our virtues are determined by that which defines us as human which Aristotle calls our sole -> aristotle concludes eudaimonia is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue

soul for aristotle

• aristotle says the soul is split up into rational and non-rational -> rational is practical reason and theoretical reason whereas non-rational is  growth and nutrition and desire and emotion

• rational part of the soul and desire / emotion are influenced by reason

• through exercising our reason and using reason as our guide, we can develop virtues within each part of the soul - virtues are usually thought of as character traits relating to our emotions or our desires - resulting in dispositions such as courage, honesty, generosity

  • but there are intellectual virtues of practical reasoning (practical wisdom) and of theoretical reasoning (contemplation)

virtues and vices

• virtues as character traits or dispositions - humans have habitual ways of behaving and these dispositions form our character -> when reason guides our emotions and desires, we develop positive dispositions (virtues) which enable us to use eudaimonia; when reason does not shape our emotions and desires we develop flawed dispositions or traits (vices)

• virtue is not innate - we have potential to develop virtues but we have to develop them over time through learnings and practice -> but virtue is not absent-minded habit as it requires reason

  • virtue is like developing a skill (skill analogy) as we are not born with a skill but we have the capacity to learn it e.g. learning the harp playing the harp or being brave by performing brave acts

  • to be virtuous, you must act in a virtuous way and act as a virtuous person acts (choose to act for the right reasons)

• feelings as important - actions are all a display of some emotion e.g. desire, anger, fear 

  • virtue is expressing the right amount of these feelings - not too little or too much: the ‘mean’

  • virtuous people have no inner conflict - do not have to overcome their feelings to do the right thing

doctrine of the mean

• virtue lies between too much / too little of a particular emotion e.g. fear and confidence are natural responses but too much fear is cowardly and too much confidence is rash 

• reason helps us be driven by the right amount of these and we act courageously - if we continue to do this over time, we develop the virtue of courage

• people with lots of virtues and no vices have moral virtue (ethica arete)

issue - aristotle’s doctrine of the mean packages our emotions too neatly - each feeling is supposed to be exhibited in a character trait that can be ‘too much’, ‘too little’ or ‘the mean’ BUT these quantities aren’t always on a single scale e.g. cowardice (fear), rashness (confidence) and courage -> and something don’t even have a mean e.g. murder

voluntary actions

• voluntary actions - for aristotle, moral responsibility is tied to whether action is freely chosen or not -> understanding which acts are voluntary help us make moral judgements / assign praise or blame, whilst also helping us understand what actions are relevant to virtue or character development

  • voluntary action is intended action and only these contribute to our character and virtues

    • one that is intended and origin lies within us

    • we carry out in full knowledge of what we are doing

    • one that we freely choose

  • if a knowing, intended action flows from our desires, this is all freely chosen: it is wrong to say we have been forced to act by our desires as we must bear full responsibility for these actions

involuntary actions

• two types - in ignorance (non-voluntary) and under compulsion involuntary (mixed vs straightforward)

• straightforward compulsion involuntary - no intention or responsibility for ones in which external causes and lack of agency is caused

  • mixed compulsion involuntary e..g. sailor forced to commit robbery or children will be murdered -> unclear as there is agency but compelled agency to act in one certain way - we are morally responsible though we can be forgiven when bearing in mind context

• in ignorance / non-voluntary - unintended because it was done from ignorance e.g. if we do not know all the facts or we misunderstand situation

  • in these, we can be given responsibility and yet forgiven if we regret our actions, or if we do not regret our actions and would not change our actions we can be given responsibility and judged

phronesis

• virtues, actions and reasons

  • virtues are dispositions built up from voluntary actions, though not all voluntary actions are relevant to judging character  (e.g. by children) - voluntary actions relevant to virtue are ones that involve choice or prior deliberation on actions under our control

• practical reasoning - Aristotle says there is no simple rule about how to behave, but virtue ethics instead requires us to have a number of practical reasoning skills that mean we will make the right decision in each situation we encounter

  • such as the ability to deliberate, understanding the situation we are in, judging what we need to do (choice) or the intelligence to accomplish our choice

• to reach eudaimonia, we must do these things well and develop phronesis 

  • but phronesis is unattainable without excellence of character (through mean of virtues)  as this establishes the right ends whilst phronesis shows us how to achieve them

issue - aristotle claims in a later book that contemplation is best way to achieve eudaimonia… but this is problematic as contemplation is a narrow life and practical wisdom and virtues of character imply a diverse life - is good life really just philosophy??

issue - no clear action guidance

• doctrine of mean says act moderately in all situations AND do the virtuous thing in all situations -> not really helpful if we want to know what we need to do which Aristotle acknowledges

• virtue ethics requires us to be thoughtful and act virtuously to practise and repeat this - there is guidance: to develop virtues of character and for phronesis

• hursthouse says we know virtues to develop and vices to avoid and these can be turned into rules for action or v-rules

  • issue - relativism as different cultures value different character traits

    • reply - there are universal v-rules for universal virtues like honesty and kindness

issue - clashing virtues

• in moral dilemmas there can be clashing virtues examples e.g. someone you love asks you to let them be euthanised due to terminal illness - virtue of charity vs justice for help vs prevention of death

  • virtue ethicists say you can propose a hierarchy of virtues e.g. justice > charity

  • hursthouse says that if there is no resolution, only virtue ethics has the ability to address the ‘moral remainder’ (guilt after someone dies) as something morally significant -> it impacts us for the future

issue - possible circularity

• aristotle tells us a virtuous act is one done by someone who is virtuous… but how can we identify someone who is virtuous? according to aristotle, it is someone who commits virtuous acts -> does nothing to explain virtuous actions

  • Aristotle reply - virtuous person habitually performs actions that are the result of deliberation and choice and which bring pleasure whilst also avoiding an excessive or deficient response

issue - do traits have to lead to eudaimonia

• says in function arg that we cannot live the good life for humans without being a good human and having virtues -> so by being virtuous i contribute to my own eudaimonia…but can i have a virtue that doesn’t contribute to eudaimonia?

• Aristotle says no as all virtues, whether character or intellectual, contribute to eudaimonia

• Hume disagrees - Hume gives non-aristotelian account of positive character traits without a mention of eudaimonia, arguing that we approve of virtues based on their utility or agreeability -> for hume these arise from our sympathy for others and on this account a trait does not need to count for eudaimonia to be a virtue

issue - individual vs ‘moral’ good

• moral philosophy distinguishes between self-interested actions and actions benefiting others (good for individual vs morally good) -> is aristotles theory self-interested, concerning others or both?

  • self - account of how we can flourish individually; some virtues only benefit me e.g. ambition; even intellectual virtues such as phronesis are self-interested as they help me reach eudaimonia

  • moral good - aristotle has tried to show what is truly good for the individual is to strive for a life of virtue; we would recognise many virtues as moral such as justice, generosity, truthfulness, friendliness and courage since they benefit others; aristotle is clear that some behaviours are unacceptable in all circumstances e.g. murder

  • Aristotle says the good of the individual is the moral good -> moral behaviour does not conflict with self interested behaviour; we must be careful to follow our true self-interest, not our apparent self-interest - aristotle argues that we are wrong if we think that what is good for us isa  life of pleasure or wealth as they do not lead to eudaimonia; the good life is a thoughtful, active life where we develop virtues that benefit both ourselves and others - if each person flourishes, we flourish as a community; this individual pursuit of proper self-interest towards virtue and eudaimonia results in what modern philosophers would call ‘the moral good’