In his novel The Brothers Karamazov, the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky writes, “The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for,” (Dostoyevsky). Dostoyevsky offers his ideas concerning the human function, believing that our purpose is something greater than just biologically functioning. In “finding something to live for,” we as humans are able to live fruitful and pleasant lives. The simple act of staying alive does not bring us pleasure, but living a meaningful life could offer a sense of found purpose that so many hope to achieve. Just as Dostoyevsky, Aristotle deals largely with the issue of the uncertainty of the human function, especially in his work the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle subscribes to the belief that humans uniquely have a chief good, pursued for its sake only. In Aristotle’s case, this good is happiness, and possession of the chief human good allows humans to flourish and succeed as “good” humans. Even though at first glance Aristotle’s argument for the function of humans appears to commit the fallacy of composition, his argument is defended by the fact that all actions undertaken by humans have an end goal, aiming for the achievement of happiness for its own sake, and the function argument holding its conclusion true even with the fallacy of composition.
According to Aristotle, in Book 1 of the Nicomachean Ethics, the human function is to attain happiness. The human function leads to happiness, as we are flourishing as humans if we are able to live towards our function. Happiness is a special goal because it is never a means to achieve some other goal. Thus, happiness is the highest good (Aristotle, 124-125). To show that every human action aims at some good or goal, Aristotle describes three different types of sciences. Aristotle defines sciences as arriving at necessary and universal truths and being realist, meaning that if a science is about a certain x, x must be real. Theoretical science, the first outlined, includes physics, math, and theology, and has the goal of simply understanding. These aim at understanding the world around us, applications of numbers, and the gods respectively. The second science discussed, productive science, includes medicine and shipbuilding. Productive sciences aim at making some product, such as a ship in shipbuilding and health in medicine. Lastly, practical sciences are the third and highest forms of sciences that have the goal of action and include politics and ethics. Since politics uses all other sciences and regulates the rules of society, the end goal of politics and ethics are the good of man, as they must include the end goal of the other sciences (Aristotle, 125). By describing these sciences, Aristotle shows that all things have an end goal, and furthers this argument with his example of bridle making and the distinction between higher and lower crafts.
Through his bridle making example, Aristotle furthers his argument for humans pursuing one common end goal and thus having a function. The goal of bridle making is to produce bridles, which are the headgear used on the head of the horse. The goal of the bridle itself is to allow people to ride on horses by controlling the horse’s movements. Aristotle claimed that the goals of the higher crafts were greater than the goals of the lower craft, and in these bridles this can be seen. The goal of this riding would be to better employ strategy in war, and this strategy would lead to victory. If this were as infinite as it appears to be, one would constantly chase something just over the horizon and would have desires in vain. However, nature does not do things in vain, so it is irrational that nature would give us desire if it were pointless (Aristotle, 127-128). There must thus be an end goal that is pursued for its own sake only, and pursuing this goal is our human function.
With a disagreement as to what happiness consists of, Aristotle utilized his function argument. This argument states that for any x, if x possesses some sort of function, it is flourishing when it performs its function well. Aristotle attempts to show that humans have a particular function that would result in happiness. The idea is used by Aristotle and leads to his two arguments for the existence of a function for humanity. The premise of the first simply states that if every craft has a function, then the human has a function. Thus, it can be concluded that since every craft has a function, the human has a function. This thinking follows along the same lines as the bridle making example, as both imply that the functionality of lower crafts has the same main goal of the functionality of higher crafts (Aristotle 129).
In his second argument, Aristotle’s premise states that if every body part has a function, then the human has a function. Aristotle then concludes that every body part has a function, and thus the human has a function. However, Aristotle appears to fall into the fallacy of composition. This fallacy occurs when one claims that because each part has some part or feature of the whole, it must have the entire feature. For example, it is not correct to say that because an elephant eats more than a human, all elephants collectively eat more than humans. Even though he does commit this fallacy, he is not invalidated. Aristotle expresses that the human function is rationality, and striving towards this leads to happiness. According to Aristotle, the soul has both a rational and irrational principle. The irrational principle is made up of a vegetative and appetitive element, where the vegetative does not affect the rational side, but the appetitive is where all desires stem (Aristotle 134). However, exercising our rationality can keep these desires in check and allow us to function well as humans. Happiness is connected to rationality, our human function, by the fact that humans live their lives by wanting to achieve their primary human function, which would result in happiness. When one exercises rationality, appetitive desires are kept in check, happiness is gained or becomes closer to being achieved, and humans are able to work towards the human function.
Although Aristotle presents a somewhat weak argument for the human function, the possible arguments for humans having no function are even weaker. No evidence can be strongly given for not having a purpose, and if life has no purpose or meaning with nothing to live for, humans could not maintain happiness. Even if it were true that humans had no purpose, the question would be better left untouched, as the world could descend into utter chaos. Since nothing would matter, there would be no reason to control oneself, and the world would be a much unhappier place. In the world of Aristotle, where there was much more of a serious following and belief in god, his ideas were much more readily accepted because they are easy to accept with belief in a divine being. The theory of evolution and the emphasis of science and facts in our world make Aristotle’s theories harder to accept, as humans can be viewed as just another animal that wants to survive (albeit quite invasively). However, evolution could also aid the theories that Aristotle put forth, as our rational thought made us evolve into more complex organisms to better gain happiness.