Taryn Marquis
PHL102 – Mr. Shea
10/10/16
Analytical Reading: Nicomachean Ethics
A. Analysis:
I. Classification: Ethical philosophy
II. Summary: Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle’s foundational argument that he uses to address his main ethical concern of politics, the central determining factor in achieving the highest good as a society within a city. His primary focus is on understanding the meaning of virtue, what a virtuous life implies, and how happiness is related to this. He divides the virtues into character/moral virtues and thinking/intellectual virtues and describes in detail what each of these entails. Aristotle determines that happiness, the being-at-work of the soul in accord with complete virtue, is the highest good and therefore the goal of life.
III. Structure:
a. Part 1: Introduction to Ethics (1094a.1 –1103a.10)
i. The highest good (1094a.1 – 1095a.11)
ii. Discussion of happiness (1095a.12 – 1102a.5)
iii. Divisions of the soul and of virtue (1102a.6 – 1103a.10)
b. Part 2: Discussion of the Virtues (1103a.11 – 1145a.11)
i. Understanding of virtue and doctrine of the mean (1103a.11 – 1115a.7)
ii. The character virtues (1115a. – 1128b.38
iii. Justice (1129a.1 – 1138b.19)
iv. The thinking virtues and practical judgment (1138b.20 – 1145a.11)
c. Part 3: Additional Factors that Contribute to having a Happy Life (1145a.11 – 1181b.24)
i. Continence/self-restraint (1145a.11 – 1154b.35)
ii. Friendship (1145b.35 – 1172a.19)
iii. Pleasure and happiness as a mean to an end (1172a.19 – 1179a.33)
iv. Contemplation (1179a.19 – 1181b.24)
IV. Problem: Is there a single highest good for humans?
• Is happiness the highest good?
• How do you achieve happiness?
• How is virtue related to happiness?
B. Interpretation/Logic:
I. Terms:
a. Good, the: That at which all things aim, the end goal of life. Aristotle concludes that happiness is the highest human good and is achieved through living a virtuous life.
b. Happiness: The condition at which all human beings aim. A condition which is “complete and self-sufficient, and is, therefore, the end of actions” (1097b.20-21). Aristotle also characterizes it as a “being-at-work of the soul in accordance with virtue, and if the virtues are more than one, in accordance with the best and most complete virtue” (1098a.16-18)
c. Mean: The average condition that characterizes a moral virtue in that it avoids both the vice of excess and deficiency. “The mean in relation to us is what neither goes too far nor falls short, and this is not one thing nor the same thing for everyone” (1106a.32-33). The mean condition is always praised, but in order to reach the mean, one must sometimes incline towards excess and sometimes towards deficiency, until the mean is met and the virtue is achieved.
d. Politics: An active condition alike to practical judgment that is a main determining factor in attempting to reach the highest good. It aims to achieve the highest good not for an individual, but for all citizens within a society. Ethics is a key part of understanding how to be successful in politics
e. Virtue: “An active condition that makes one apt at choosing, consisting in a mean condition in relation to us, which is determined by a proportion and by the means by which a person with practical judgment would determine it” (1106b.35 – 1107a.3) Aristotle divides virtue into two parts, the character/moral virtues, which arise from a mean condition, and the thinking/intellect virtues, which are derived from knowing and calculating.
II. Proposition:
a. Claim I: “Virtue is an active condition that makes one apt at choosing, consisting in a mean condition in relation to us, which is determined by a proportion and by the means by which a person with practical judgment would determine it” (1106b.35-1107a.3).
b. Claim II: “A human being is the source of action and [that] deliberation is about the things to be done by oneself, while the actions are for the sake of something else” (1112b.32-34)
c. Claim III: It is possible to behave without restraint knowingly. (1147b.19)
d. Claim IV: “The pleasures that differ from those of the activities do something very much like pain, since they ruin the activities.” (1175b.23-24)
III. Argument:
a. Claim III: Aristotle claims that it is possible to behave without restraint knowingly. His argument begins with addressing the notion of whether it is true opinion or knowledge that acts as the motivation behind behaving without restraint. He concludes that it makes no difference, that “knowledge will be no different from opinion, since some people believe in their opinions no less strongly than others believe in the things they know” (1146b.27-31). He then continues on to say that “behaving without restraint results in a certain way from a proposition or opinion, which, while not in itself opposed to right reason, is opposed to it incidentally, since the desire, though not the opinion, is opposed” (1147b.1-5). Here he is saying that although it is the desire or unrestrained behavior that is opposed, not the original opinion, it is the opinion that results in behaving without restraint. Since there is no difference between opinion and knowledge, behaving without restraint is done knowingly.
b. Claim IV: Aristotle claims that when two pleasures that originate from different sources are present, the pleasures ruin the activity in question. He builds this argument by first stating that “pleasures make the activities grow, and what makes something grow is of its own kind; but things that are alike in kind with activities different in kind are themselves different in kind” (1175a.37-1175b.2). He continues on with an example of a passionate flute-player trying to have a discussion, and then becoming distracted when the playing of a flute is heard. He argues that because the flute-player was more passionate about playing the flute than about the discussion they were having, the pleasure that could possibly be derived from the discussion is ruined. By ruining the lesser pleasure, a person is essentially causing himself or herself pain.
IV. Solutions:
• Main: Is there a single highest good for humans?
o Is happiness the highest good?
o How do you achieve happiness?
o How is virtue related to happiness?
Aristotle effectively answers the main question and first subsidiary question when he concludes that happiness, the condition at which all human beings aim, is in fact the highest good, since the good is that at which all things aim. Each of his arguments throughout the work supports this conclusion. The last two subsidiaries questions are related to one another as well. He addresses these in multipart arguments in a somewhat successful attempt to answer them. It seems as though he is not fully confident in the strength and cohesiveness of his conclusions.
C. Criticism:
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is a dense philosophical work that addresses the main question of whether or not there is a single highest good for humans. He does this through a number of different arguments, pertaining especially to happiness and virtue. Virtue is at the core of what Aristotle constitutes as happiness. He distinguishes between character and thinking virtues and how each contributes to happiness. He also discusses how self-restraint, friendship, and pleasure tie into reaching the highest good.
On Aristotle’s discussion of friendship, I understand his argument that friendship is a certain type of virtue and is necessary for life. He divides friendship into three types: that which is based on use, that which is based on pleasure, and that which is based on goodness and virtue. I agree with his conclusion that the ultimate type of friendship is “that between people who are good and are alike in virtue, since they wish for good things for one another in the same way insofar as they are good and they are good in themselves” (1156b.7-10). Friends of this type are in a way an extension of ourselves, an echo of the golden rule: “treat others the way you want to be treated”. When I think of my best friend, this is the type of person I think of. I want her to be happy, to do well, and be successful for her own sake, not in any way my own. These are the most significant friendships in our lives; they are the ones that contribute the most to our well-being.
I believe that Aristotle’s understanding of the other two types of friendship falls short on some points. Although these friendships are not based off of an ultimate goodness, they are just as important to someone’s life as the most complete friendship. I agree that they may be more fleeting, and may end when the circumstance changes, but I believe that it is also possible that they transform from a friendship based simply on use or pleasure into one of virtue/goodness. Aristotle discusses the three types of friendship as distinct and exclusive, but I believe that he fails to address that there is a possibility of overlap as a relationship between two people develops. For example, a friendship that is based off of use may be between classmates who have multiple classes together and often study together. This is a mutually useful relationship that benefits both parties, but does not necessitate that they have more of a friendship than they do. But there are cases where after spending a lot of time together, these people learn more about one another’s values, gain each other’s trust, and their friendship gradually develops into one more similar to that based off of goodness/virtue. Although this is not the norm, it is a possibility that I feel Aristotle fails to point out.