Aristotle's Ethics D

(Originally Written July 12, 2006 in Book 4)

(By the way, the feeling remains in my head, but is gone most everywhere else)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972

The questions we ask of ethical theories:
1) Is it consistent as a theory?
2) Is the theory consistent with the man's other views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical questions consistent with our own view?

Russell states that we can call an ethical theory wrong if the answer to question 1 or 2 is no, but that we do not have the authority to call a theory wrong if the answer to question 3 is the only question answered with a no.

Linehan - Two more questions ought to be asked.

1) Did the man's actions remain consistent with his theories?
2) Are the theories consistent to the character and nature of God?

I believe that if an ethical theory is not consistent with itself or is inconsistent with the remainder of his theories then it is logically incorrect. (Russell's first two questions). However if a man's actions are not consistent with his own theory, then I believe we cannot take this man a serious ethicist, except in one case. This leads me to my second question. If ethics are consistent with the nature of God, then the ethics are infallible and a fallible man cannot live up to infallible standards. This simply means that if a person with ethical standards consistent with God's standards is incapable of living by them because we are all sinners. Russell's third question has no bearing with me. Anyone who puts ethical standards in theories that are contra to God puts forth incorrect and blatantly wrong ethics. I will not sink in ethical relativism quicksand. There are good ethics which coincide with God's truth. There are bad ethics which run contra to God.

No man is likely to arrive at a set of ethical standards that are fully consistent with the nature of God simply for the fact that we cannot fully comprehend the nature of God. Conversely, most men do not put forth ethical standards that are completely contra to God, simply because no one hates themselves enough. But a few have come close (Nietzsche, Hitler, Stalin). A code of ethics is good or bad based on the closeness of the representation of God it sets forth. It can be closer or further from Him based on a person's standing with them: love, indifference, hatred or something intermediate.

After Russell's examination of Aristotle's ethics he starts with his first question.

1) Is it internally self-consistent?

The Nichomean Ethics is pretty much self-consistent except in a few unimportant cases. It states that good is happiness and happiness comes from successful activity. Both are well put. Despite an ingenious doctrine of virtue being a mean is less sound as the prior two.

2) Is it consistent with the remainder of the author's views?

Aristotle's ethics are consistent with his metaphysics. His metaphysics are practically optimistic ethical statements.

3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that consonant to our own ethical feelings?

First, he believes in a n inequality of various men, which is "repugnant to much modern sentiment" (Russell, 183).

Aristotle ignores any chance of philanthropy or benevolence. His ethics are harsh and reward only a small few (the philosophers) the best in live. He believes benevolence to be an intellectual evil.

Justice to him was men working within their boundaries of classes, gender and thus, those of higher class and gender and status receive greater rewards justly.

"He leaves out... the whole sphere of human experience with which is concerning" (Russell, 184).

Aristotle is smug in his speculation of human affairs.

Russell condemns the ethics as disdainful, but not wrong by his questions. He states that "in spite of its fame (Aristotle's ethics) is lacking in intrinsic importance.

Linehan - For my part, Aristotle may have lived by his own ethical standards. But I doubt even he could deal with he harsh coldness of them. As for the most important aspect of any ethical theory, its accordance with God's nature, it fails miserably. His lack of compassion and heart for mankind, his love of inequality, and redemption based on financial stature and intellectual merits leaves his ethical theory completely immoral. It is, on the whole contra to God. God is truth. Thus it is contra to truth. Anything contrary to truth is emphatically wrong. In addition to being an unethical and immoral set of ethics, Aristotle's ethics are wrong.