Series | History of Ancient Western Philosophy, Pt. 16
Aristotle, On the Art of Associated Living
Love and Happiness in the Ethics and Politics
--
Hello again!
This is the fourth installment on Aristotle… and the sixteenth of the series! Here we’ll be exploring Aristotle’s moral and political ideas. You can also check out what’s come before by clicking here:
As was often the case, Aristotle was the first ever to pen a systematic, philosophical treatise on these topics.
As he puts it in the Nicomachean Ethics, there existed “no prior science of virtue” before he started writing. Of course, other philosophers had offered some views about morality — as the works of Plato demonstrate — but none before had ever treated it with the systematic rigor and attention to detail Aristotle employed.
There are three ethical works attributed to him — the Eudemian Ethics, the Magna Moralia, and the Nicomachean Ethics.
Most scholars agree that of the three, it’s the Nicomachean Ethics which represents Aristotle’s mature thinking on matters of morality.
There’s also some doubt as to whether the Magna Moralia was GENUINELY written by Aristotle. For these reasons, most college courses in ancient philosophy focus on the Nicomachean Ethics — so much so that the title is often shortened to just “the Ethics.”
The Ethics begins in Aristotle’s typical style, with him building on some of the ideas that came before him. By the time he was writing, there were two dominant views of morality.
The first was the consensus view (endoxa) of the common-folk, which emphasized the heroic values of beauty, valor, and honor… what the Greeks called kalos k’agathos (literally “the beautiful and the good”).
The second was an ethical view — espoused by Socrates and Plato — which emphasized the role of the intellect in practical wisdom (or phronesis) and identified virtue with knowledge.
Aristotle also builds on some of the ideas we’ve already seen in his other works, regarding the difference between the experience/skill of craftsmen and the wisdom of the master-craftsman. He stresses how the art of associated living — i.e. living well with others — will involve a kind of POLITICAL expertise, and that’s why he calls ethics a kind of POLITICAL SCIENCE.
These claims may strike us as more than a little strange… as we’ve witnessed in recent history what could only be called the complete DIVORCE of politics from ethical behavior.
But, Aristotle isn’t making a claim about the moral character of PROFESSIONAL politicians. His point is a broader one — viz. that EVERY human life is political by nature, precisely because we’re social beings who rely on others for our survival.
Even those who weren’t official citizens of the Athenian POLIS— which is the basis of our word POLITICS—still led their lives within a household, or OIKOS— a word which echoes still in English terms like ECOnomics and ECOlogy.
So, for Aristotle, a flourishing polis is made up of MANY flourishing oikoi, and each flourishing oikos is comprised of morally excellent individuals.
As he sees it, each of our moral lives is situated in — and directly connected to — the community as a whole.
Or, as the poet John Donne would put it centuries later:
"No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less… any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
The Highest Good
The opening book of the Ethics focuses on a definition of the highest good.
As a science, Aristotle claims, ethics should aim at some specific good, and, since morality is about living EXCELLENTLY, the good at which it aims should be HIGHER than all the other possible goods of human endeavor.
In other words, ethics must aim at something that’s INTRINSICALLY good — or good IN ITSELF — and not at something which is merely a means to some other type of good. That’s why he takes issue with the view of the masses, which holds pleasure, wealth, and honor as the bases of a good life… although each of these MIGHT be considered good, it’s only because people believe they can bring about eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia is one of those words in Greek that we have to take GREAT CARE in translating. Literally, it means “a state of good spirits” and therefore is sometimes translated as mere HAPPINESS.
But, as Aristotle states,
“One swallow does not make a spring, nor does one day… make us blessed and happy.” (1098a19)
So, eudaimonia means something deeper and longer-lasting than a mere fleeting emotion.
For that reason, it’s also sometimes translated as FLOURISHING — which is closer to what Aristotle intended.
The botanical undertones of that translation are appropriate, too, not only because of Aristotle’s deep biological interests, but because the plant metaphor had already been used by other Greek authors — like the poet Pindar.
As he put it in his Nemean Ode #8,
“But human excellence like a vine tree grows, fed by the green dew, raised up, among wise men and just, to the liquid sky.”
Just like a seedling or a sprout, human beings need to be nourished in order to flourish. People aren’t born good, but they have a POTENTIAL for goodness that can be ACTUALIZED through the right combination of healthy environment, proper action, and a little bit of luck.
In this regard, Aristotle points out that a rigorous science of ethics should NOT ONLY be concerned with determining the best way to ACT… but also, and perhaps MORE IMPORTANTLY, with determining the best way to LIVE.
So, Aristotle’s moral philosophy is really all about living the “good life”… but he breaks with the consensus view (both of his day AND our own) that associated such a life with gratification, power, and wealth.
That’s not to say these three ends have to be ACTIVELY AVOIDED… after all, Aristotle wasn’t asking us to live the life of an ascetic.
He’s just pointing out how these things are NEITHER necessary, NOR sufficient, for the kind of life he considered best.
INSTEAD, the best sort of human life is the one that’s well-rounded AND the one that afford enough time for deep contemplation.
The Potential for Excellence
Now that we’ve set up the aims of Aristotle’s Ethics, we can turn to HOW he tries to draw those two moral concerns (acting rightly and living well) together through his analysis of virtue.
You may recall from earlier entries that the Greek word for virtue —ARETĒ— literally means “excellence of function.”
A “good” watch is one which keeps time well — since that’s its main function.
And, although human beings do lots of things well, thinking is what we do more (and better) than any other species. It’s the main way we navigate this precarious world.
Consider for a moment your choice to read about Aristotle right now — rather than pursue any of your more basic drives — and how it demonstrates the way you can use your mind to delay gratification in favor of higher goods.
So, according to Aristotle, the virtue of a human being must involve the excellence of this sort of intellectual function.
In fact, Aristotle identifies two interrelated types of virtue in the Ethics— viz. those of the intellect and those of character.
He claims that since character, or ēthos [ήθος], derives from habit, or ethos [εθος], it’s appropriate to call his analysis an “ethical” one, and it should therefore be obvious that the character virtues arise in us naturally… in the habits created though repetition.
He points out how nobody’s EVER been called virtuous simply because of a feeling they’ve had… and they aren’t considered good just because they have the CAPACITY for excellence.
Rather, what we praise in others when we call them virtuous is most often an excellent DISPOSITION.
The word he uses is hexis (ἕξις), which translates to something like “an active having and holding”
Perhaps it’s best to think of it as a kind of continuous effort toward persisting in a condition.
We’ve already seen how Aristotle stitched this concept into his description of entelecheia (having one’s purpose in-built) in the way things “become what they are.”
To use a folksy metaphor from my Southern roots, it’s kind of like climbing a greasy pole… unless you keep climbing up, you’re liable to slide back down.
Now that Aristotle’s located the genus of virtue in this kind of disposition, he’s now ready to give a more specific definition of what virtue is.
The Definition of Virtue
In Bk. II of the Ethics, Aristotle lays out the 5 components in his definition:
1. Virtue is a disposition that decides (hexis prohairetike)…
2. that lies on a mean (i.e. an average) between excess and deficiency…
3. which is relative to each person...
4. defined by reason…
5. as a prudent person would determine.
Let’s unpack those a bit…
It’s important to keep in mind that the kind of dispositions involved here aren’t thoughtless habits. They come from conscious DECISIONS. In this way, Aristotle might even be seen as offering a forerunner to mindfulness practice.
His advice was to always keep MODERATION in mind, since the qualities people usually praise as virtuous — e.g. courage, wisdom, friendliness — lie somewhere between excess and deficiency, between too much and too little.
For instance, when I was a kid, I’d sometimes get annoyed with my younger sister, who EXCELLED at unintentionally pestering me. My mother would often say: “Remember, Chris, patience is a virtue.”
For Aristotle, though, patience is definitely NOT a virtue. In fact, he considered being some kind of wishy-washy pushover to be a VICE, because it lacked the proper amount of “righteous indignation” — a virtue he considered vital for living well.
On the other hand… TOO MUCH righteous indignation can lead to vice in the opposite direction. After all, folks who blow their tops at every little thing clearly suffer from a sort of vicious excess.
Aristotle also recognizes how different types of people need different levels of moderation — and he uses the eating habits of wrestlers to illustrate. Here’s a contemporary version of Aristotle’s analogy:
If you took someone like André the Giant to an all-you-can-eat restaurant and asked him to only eat a moderate amount, it’s a safe bet that he’d make more trips to the buffet than you or me.
That’s why Aristotle says the moderate amount of virtue will always be “relative to us.”
After all, you’d probably expect a kindergarten teacher to have less “righteous indignation” than a political activist, or a soldier to have more courage than an accountant!
But, Aristotle suggests even THIS sort of RELATIVE MODERATION will change according to the circumstances in which someone finds themself.
Whenever a soldier is away from the battlefield, the right amount of courage for her should probably be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than when she’s engaged in combat.
And, although we may want our accountants to be exceedingly cautious — especially around tax season — we wouldn’t expect them to carry those same levels of caution throughout their daily lives!
That’s why Aristotle says the virtuous mean will always need to be determined by reason… as a prudent person would likely see it.
But, really, this kind of laundry-list definition doesn’t adequately capture the beauty of Aristotle’s idea.
If we tie the kind of excellence of habit and character Aristotle has in mind to what he said in his Metaphysics about the cosmos and the divine, we might summarize his view of acquiring virtue as the process of removing obstacles toward the full efficacy of the soul.
Once all of this is established, Aristotle starts building a list of character virtues. You can click on the image here to see those.
He also includes a discussion of the intellectual virtues and the two parts of the rational soul.
Eventually, Aristotle connects the intellectual virtue phronesis (practical wisdom) with the character virtue sophrosyne (temperance) by showing how a wise decision (prohairesis) depends on a deep understanding of final causes (teloi) that is sustained by temperance.
All of this may seem pretty technical, given the way it links all those Greek concepts together, but suffice it to say Aristotle’s image of the virtuous person is one who is able to do the right thing…
“at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way — this is not within everybody’s power and is not easy; so that to do these things properly is rare, praiseworthy, and noble.” (1109a)
In fact, Aristotle argues one cannot TRULY be intelligent without being virtuous, AND if someone possesses ONE of the virtues, then they should possess all the others, too.
Scholars call this idea the “unity of the virtues” and it’s one of the more controversial claims in all of Aristotle’s moral philosophy, because most folks think the virtues MUST occasionally come into conflict.
For example, whenever I tell a lie in order to protect the feelings of a friend, it seems like I’m sacrificing truthfulness for the sake of friendliness.
But, simply put, Aristotle claims that if a person can TRULY be said to have any single virtue, that means they also must possess practical wisdom. And, if they possess practical wisdom, they also have what it takes to develop ALL the virtues, without conflict.
So, for Aristotle, whenever friendliness SEEMS to require that I be untruthful, I’ve either misunderstood the situation, the virtues involved, or both.
The Politics of Friendship
Now is probably as good a time as any to begin connecting Aristotle’s ethical ideas to his political views.
We saw above how he said in Bk. I of the Ethics that the study of moral philosophy is actually a political science — searching for how individuals could live their best lives within the social fabric of household and city-state.
The book he wrote that bears the name Politics could therefore be seen as an extension of the Ethics.
Before we turn to that text, let’s look a little closer at Book VIII of the Ethics, since that’s where Aristotle lays out a fuller treatment of the kinds of friendship he has in mind.
3 Kinds of Friendship
We should begin this discussion by noting Aristotle’s acknowledgement that Justice, as an ideal, isn’t needed in places where TRUE friendship occurs.
With that in mind, Aristotle identifies three kinds of friendship — that of pleasure, that of utility, and that of virtue (which he also calls the friendship of mutual flourishing).
Friendships of pleasure are just the stuff of childhood play dates — strictly built on fun.
And, even though friendships of utility denote the kinds of relationship needed to conduct contracts, treaties, and many other vital elements of a society, it’s ONLY the friendship of virtue that seeks to promote long term well-being in others for their own sake.
In this way, the friendship of virtue is a matter of deliberate choice, while the other two are merely incidental or accidental.
Friendships of virtue are also the kind that might risk short-term estrangement for someone’s long-term well-being… i.e. the kind that might lead one to stage an intervention, for example.
Maybe you’ll recall how Socrates stated in the Republic that true Justice rests in trying to improve EVERYONE, friend and foe alike. So, Aristotle is building on that Socratic ideal, but also pointing out that if one could supplant Justice with Love, there’d be no foes remaining.
That reminds me of something the Italian film noir director, Roberto Rossellini, once said,
“People today only know how to live in society, not in community. The soul of society is the law, the soul of community is love.”
After all, the word ‘society’ originally meant something like “ordered friendliness” whereas ‘community’ calls forth the notion of something “held in common.” For Aristotle, that common bond is what he calls “political friendship” (or philia politikē) which is tantamount to a kind of familial kinship bond between equals.
In fact, that’s why PHILAdelphia is called the city of BROTHERLY LOVE.
For Aristotle, a healthy city-state depends on this sort of virtuous love, and he points out how its aim is the same as Justice itself — viz. the common good.
Another interesting thing about Aristotle’s view is its deep connection with classical tragedy. In the Greek culture, it was believed that weeping with a stranger created a bond, very much like a familial one. We see this at the end of Homers’ Iliad, when Priam and Achilles weep together and see in each other a spark of divine grace that reminds them of family, prompting Achilles to return Hector’s body to Priam, his father.
The classical tragedies extended this concept to audiences watching from the walls of ancient amphitheaters and therefore served a civic function as much as an artistic one.
The best tragedies would fill their onlookers with compassion for the suffering being portrayed on the amphitheater floor… BUT, they also tied those spectators to ONE ANOTHER as they sat weeping side-by-side over what they were witnessing. I guess one could say the community that weeps together, keeps together.
Pick up a copy of Aristotle’s Poetics, and you’ll find just how well he understood tears to be the common language of the human race.
Healthy Constitutions and the Common Good
Probably the most salient point of the Politics is that any healthy constitution MUST aim at the common good. Although there are many forms a healthy constitution may adopt, what they all share is a concern for the well-being of everyone involved.
You might notice in this diagram that Aristotle actually viewed democracy as a deviant form of government. The reason for this lies in how easily corruptible democracies can be toward promoting the interest of one part or another at the expense of the whole.
Consider how, in our modern democracies, we hear a lot of talk about individual rights, but almost NEVER about individual responsibilities. We tend to pit our own interests against the interests of others within our community, never giving thought to what we OWE to one another.
Aristotle would likely remind us that virtuous citizens know both “how to rule and be ruled” because they’ve had a thoroughgoing education in the virtues and have committed themselves to the flourishing of all.
Simply put, they’ve mastered the art of associated living.
Well, that concludes our jaunt through Aristotle’s philosophy.
Hopefully, you now have a fuller appreciation for the depth and breadth of this man’s thought. In Part 17 we’ll turn our attention to the period of Greek history which followed immediately after Aristotle’s death — now known as the Hellenistic period.
See you then!
