Virtues by Decision

In Book III of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, his ultimate goal is to decide whether or not virtue and vice are always in our power or are always voluntary. In order to come to an answer, Aristotle examines the process in which we acquire these virtues. He discusses our decisions, what humans deliberate, and what is wished for and why things are wished for.

Aristotle points out that we deliberate about what we do not know. We deliberate about what the best way of promoting the end will be; however not what the best end is. Personally, I believe that deliberating about things that we cannot know for sure ultimately becomes us establishing our opinion on some topic. For example, Aristotle says that humans normally deliberate beliefs. There can never be a wrong or right belief of something because it all depends on your opinion of something you do not know. Therefore, because it is merely an opinion of what we do not know, it does not reflect our virtues.

When we wish, we are wishing for what is good to ourselves individually, wishing for the “apparent good.” I agree with this statement because it takes into consideration that people interpret what is said to be good differently from one-another.

I think that it should be pointed out that our decisions are what ultimately defines us as just or unjust, or having good or bad virtues. This is because our decisions truly reflect who we are. The actions that we deliberate before making our decision are irrelevant. I don’t believe that it matters if we deliberated what would be moral or immoral. I also don’t believe that what we wish for is related to what kind of virtues we acquire. When we make the decision to be either moral or immoral truly defines whether or not we will have good virtues.

The Mean Between Extremes

Book II of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics explains to us how the virtuous person goes about his or her life. It was interesting to discover that, to Aristotle, “virtue” is all about the average. In other words, what makes a human being “perform his [or her] characteristics actively well” (Chapter 6) is found in a mean. He reasons that because science seeks the point at which nothing can be added or taken away, we should similarly look at human virtues in terms of seeking a balance between two excessive vices. It is very similar to a number line. For example, given a line of 100 units, we would find the virtuous, balanced state of courage at fifty. At zero, we encounter cowardice and at one hundred we encounter rashness. While it can be viewed mathematically, the mean virtue and two excessive vices are more based upon our nature as humans than arithmetic. Aristotle puts forward many virtues and opposing vices and emphasizes how the best way to reach each one of them is to practice them.

He postulates, however, that only few can ever find that mean and in picking the extreme on which to lean on in a given virtue, one should pick the one that is most similar to the mean. After giving such arithmetic arguments for what ethical code one should strive for, he settles for picking the “lesser of two evils” (Chapter 9). To an extent, Aristotle doubts the capacity of human beings to reach his state of virtue and in no way explains how it is that an ethical individual should act.

So what kind of person is the type that would be able to find the state of virtue that Aristotle describes? How do we become the person that can be generous to “the right person, in the right amount, at the right time, with the right aim in view and in the right way” (Chapter 9)?

Aristotle ignores the answers to these essential questions. He does not acknowledge what one must do to live a moral life or judge the course of action taken in a situation. While living in a state of virtue is important, placing the answer as to how it is that we achieve this state in a place that is out of reach dismisses purpose in asking the question and, essentially, in the more fundamental part of ethics. Surely we can agree that achieving a state of virtue in which we appropriate courage, generosity, temperance, and others to the best extent is difficult, but we cannot conclude that practicing them to the best extent is impossible.

Eudaimonia According to Aristotle

As previously discussed in class, eudaimonia is simply the Greek word for 'happiness.' In book 10, chapters 6 through 9, of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, happiness and it's role in life is a common theme. It is discussed in terms of conditions, theoretical study, and virtues. The way Aristotle viewed the world, happiness was an essential part of life. Not only was it "the end," but also the key to leading a virtuous life (Nicomachean 163).

Chapters 7 and 8 deal with conditions for happiness, theoretical study, and virtue, all of which are interdependent on one another. For example, Aristotle defines complete happiness "in accord with its proper virtue," which is the activity of study (Nicomachean 163). For the activity of study is supreme and leads to knowledge and understanding. Aristotle believes that rational contemplation provides a sound basis for determining what is and is not virtuous and based on such contemplation and understanding, people achieve happiness. It is the people that achieve such a state that will, in turn, be the happiest. In other words, "the wise person, more than anyone else, will be happy" (Nicomachean 167).

Examining today's society, it is questionable whether or not knowledge and happiness go hand in hand. Sure, knowledge and education in the United States lead to a what we hope will be a successful and "good" lifestyle, but what about the knowledge of what is going on throughout the world? The knowledge of the disaster in Haiti and of their horrific infrastructure surely shows that each Hatian is not living a good, successful life. And if we are aware of such an issue shouldn't we help change that, not by simply donating money, but by educating the people of Haiti and giving them the help and resources they need to rebuild? Granted, Aristotle believes that external goods do not purely cause happiness, but he does say "...no one can be blessedly happy without external goods..." (Nicomachean 166). So shouldn't we, being the greater of two nations, help give Hatians the external goods needed to live good, successful lives?

On the other hand, however, one may argue that knowledge and happiness do go hand in hand in contemporary society. Knowledge can be defined as knowing the purpose or meaning of one's life and cultivating the world around him or her accordingly.

So which is it, Aristotle, knowledge within our own little world or knowledge of the entire world that eventually leads to the "end"?

Pursuit of Happiness

The first twelve chapters in Book I of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics explore the existence and essence of happiness, what the Greeks call “eudaimonia”. Although the idea of happiness still remains a little elusive to me, I can say for sure that, like our modern ideas of happiness, Aristotle’s thoughts on it carry an implication of success and fulfillment (Nicomachaen 8). Moreover, he believes that people can live in the best way by taking note of other living organisms (i.e. plants and animals), and subscribing solely to what can be described as our human nature, which he believes is acting in “accord with virtue” (Nicomachaen 12).

In the fifth chapter entitled “The Three Lives”, Aristotle begins by discussing how people come to conclusions about what goodness, or happiness actually is. According to him, our understanding of happiness is directly related to our ways of living, which he divides into the three archetypes. Each of the three archetypes, and their consequent interpretations of happiness he says are wrong. I won’t go into the specifics, but I was intrigued by the idea that the common human is unable to grasp what it is to be happy.

I suppose my fascination with that thought is largely because our culture tells us happiness is a subjective feeling. For example, we can possibly imagine a man with no home or possessions leading a life of happiness. I think Aristotle would say a man with no possessions cannot possibly be happy because a “happy person lives well and does well” (Nicomachean 10). Happiness, according to Aristotle, is entirely objective.

But, I digress, as the fate of a homeless man isn’t the best example of a common way of life. No, Aristotle contemplates the lives of politicians and scholars, leaders of society, people you and I would easily consider intelligent enough to comprehend happiness. In these cases, their inability to know happiness is clearly not a question of activity like the homeless man, but once again the notion of virtue. Now, I won’t pretend to completely understand virtue in context of Aristotle’s entire theory on virtue ethics, but from what I do understand virtue is a sort of natural tendency or inclination toward ‘the good’ (Nicomachean 11).

So, if Aristotle stood before me and I said, “You mean to tell me the common person can’t fathom happiness because the common person isn’t naturally ‘good’”. I think his answer would be yes. And, although it seems kind of pessimistic, in context of his logic I see where he’s coming from. We can’t logically assume people are virtuously inclined. True virtue, much like wisdom and intellect, is learned. The best of us can only hope to achieve it. When you think about it, that thought isn’t so different from what we think of happiness today.

Then, if virtuous activity is obtained over time and isn’t assured, is it possible that most people won’t live lives of happiness?

Medieval Ethics & the Role of God

John Haldane’s ambitious chapter “Medieval and Renaissance ethics” traces the tradition of Western ethical philosophy from the patristic roots of early 11^th century scholasticism to the revival of Platonic doctrines, the continuation and systemization of Thomistic moral principles, and the rise of homocentric ethical theory in High Renaissance thought and beyond. Haldane touches upon a number of pivotal issues surrounding man’s morality in respect to God, viz. the role of practical or ‘right reason’ (recta ratio), the faculty of distinguishing good from evil (synderesis), the interplay between virtue (arête) and a lifelong pursuit of happiness/good (eudaimonia, or commonly, “human flourishing”), and the increased emphasis on voluntarism (voluntas, “will”) in the apprehension of moral truths (“Medieval” 134-135, 140).

Perhaps one constant that may be found in this epoch of ethical thought is the underlying premise that traditional Christian moral law is true and that a rational or alternative approach towards ethical theory must reaffirm or concur with religious teaching and revelation. Although Haldane’s overview illustrates how many medievals sought to reach moral truths without divine intervention, the role of God was still necessary or even instrumental for fully understanding and acting on the knowledge of good and evil. For instance, the early Fathers’ pursuit of an “innate resource” that would lead any man towards good was characteristically rationalistic but ultimately relied on God endowing man with either rational thought or the faculty of moral sense (135). While their exercise to find a path towards moral truth was not hinged on direct revelation, it still required a God-given faculty or power in order to reason or intuit moral knowledge (134-135). Augustine also demonstrated this reliance on the divine, mentioning that man is capable of knowing moral law through his conscience but requires God’s illumination on the soul in order to be fully moved or “orientated” toward the good (136). Their examples were part of a broader scholastic and medieval theme in which thinkers looked increasingly toward reason, intellect, and the will in order to reach truths about moral law that coincided with those presented in the Christian tradition.

Haldane’s essay reveals this dominant theme over half of a millennium. One cannot help, then, but to ask about those who may have strayed from the rest of Christendom. Were moral theories developed that were completely free of any divine ingredient? Could man arrive at knowledge of good and evil without any previously-held religious claim or premise? And further, can a human act on that knowledge, pursue good, and live virtuously—all without any sort of transcendent source, omnipotent being, or divine illumination?

Haldane would likely disagree. Medieval conceptions of ethics were strongly tied to the idea of moral knowledge imparted by God through revelation, or ‘divine law.’ Skepticism regarding the basic source of moral values (God) was probably not appreciated by thirteenth-century Parisian bishops. After all, (ethical) philosophy was still the handmaiden of theology, and most thinkers of the time were philosopher-theologians. For this reason, medieval ethical theories relied on some form of direct or indirect illumination/divine light/inheritance (either God gave you the ability to figure out what’s good and bad/how to live virtuously, or he just told you), and were largely part of moral theology.

A Virtuous Mistake

In Rowe’s essay on Ethics in Ancient Greece, the author discusses the meanings, relationships and consequences of virtue and arete and what they mean for philosophical ethics. Although related and seen differently by different philosophers, such as in Socrates’ equation of them and Aristotle and Plato’s differentiation of the two concepts, their connection remains at the core of how a man should lead his life.

Aristotle and Plato’s differentiation of the two concepts dictates the characteristics of a static human life, as it becomes a life in happiness, or eudemonia. For Aristotle virtue lies in a successful life; a human being has a function unique to him, a good life or eudemonia will only come about if a human succeeds at performing that function that has been deemed the human function. In order to perform this function successfully one must posses the arete. (Ancient 124) For Aristotle and Plato the arete lies in performing the function well, whatever that function may be. However, this means that one must first establish what constitutes the human function, and then determine what constitutes the arete. In other words, what constitutes the arete depends on what the human function is. Aristotle and Plato’s distinction between arete and virtue originates from this relation between arete and the human function. Whereas arete depends on the prior notion of human nature, virtue does not. Virtue, for the Greek philosopher, and unlike arete, “mark[s] out […] a well defined area of investigation for the ‘moral philosopher’” (Ancient 124).

However, Rowe finds a flaw in these aforementioned philosophers. He feels that they are so focused on the “need to defend the basis of civilized life that they failed to consider how civilized that life really is”(Ancient 129). In other words, they overlook the clear faults and defects of society and become “prisoners of their culture”(Ancient 130). By becoming so adamant in defending the concept of civilized society, they ignore that society is not as civilized as they make it be. However, Rowe recognizes that his critique is influenced by hindsight bias. For example, in the past, women did not have rights and slavery was common, however today, we live in a world where women have rights and slavery has ended.

Put into context with modern society a question arises. The scope of a man's duties within society have expanded to a larger extent that one might say it is not sufficient to simply fulfill our most immediate duties to become a man of “excellence”. For instance, in Aristotle’s time, a man could fulfill his duty by complying with the simple duties of everyday life, working hard at his job, a responsible man, seeking knowledge, etc. However, in today’s demanding society, is it possible to reach “virtue” without neglecting other facets of life?

I think Aristotle would answer that people in the present need to be more focused and take on less duties in order to achieve a virtuous life, even if it is a short sighted one.

Course Description, Goals, and Requirements

Course Description
This course is designed to introduce you to three major ethical theories. This semester we will work through the contributions of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill to ethics, in the form of the theories of virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and utilitarianism. These different ethical programs continue to influence the way that we think about how human beings should act, what acts have moral worth, and what the final ends of human life should be. In other words, far from being a dry exercise in intellectual history, this semester we’ll be uncovering the reasons behind the ways that we live today.

Although most of the semester will be devoted to engaging the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, we will also have opportunities to consider contemporary revisions of these ethical systems, as well as to consider certain ethical problems.

Course Goals
1) The course will present you with a general knowledge of the ideas of all of the philosophers addressed, specifically in relation to their ethical theories. That is, at the end of this course, you will be able to talk about these philosophers and their ideas; you will be able to see connections between those ideas and issues in our contemporary world; and you should be able to use basic philosophical vocabulary.

2) The course will help develop your skills in critical thinking. Critical thinking is a general term used to describe the mutually overlapping activities of reading, writing and discussion in an interrogative mode. At the end of this course, you will be able to use these skills, not only in philosophy courses, but in all aspects of your life.

Course Requirements
1) Reading: you must do 10-50 pages of reading each week. Philosophical books and essays can be difficult to read and understand, requiring much more concentration and attention than the newspaper or a novel. Taking notes while reading is highly recommended.

2) Attendance and participation: attendance is mandatory and will be recorded. More than three absences (excused or otherwise) will negatively affect your final grade (see below). Although the course shall generally assume a lecture format, you are expected to participate by asking questions during the lecture or contributing to discussion if a question is raised. Your participation is calculated based on your six blog comments (each circa 100 words), and debate participation, as well as your completion of critical thinking exercises (of which there will be approximately one every week, available on fordham.blackboard.com).

3) Blogging, essays and examinations: you must write one (400-500 words) blog post, six blog comments, two essays (3-4 pages); two examinations will be given. Blog posts will address the week’s reading and comments will address the blog posts and course lectures/discussions. For each essay assignment, three topics will be offered from which the student shall select one. More information on these requirements is available on fordham.blackboard.com.