Aristotle's Ethics

Ch. XX Aristotle's Ethics

Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".

The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.

2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive

2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit

The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.

"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).

Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).

The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.

"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).

The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.

"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.

The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.

Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.

Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.

More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.

To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:

1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.

If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.

Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.

Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.

Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.

A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.

"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).

Leisure is essential to happiness.

God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.

Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.

"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).

There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.

"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).