The Nicomachean Ethics

Introduction

Ethics. What does this word mean? Is being "ethical" a subjective measurement of an action or process? What about morality? In today's age, we, as humans, are very quick to deem someone a good or bad person solely based on how they handle a situation or the way they act. While this is not inherently unfair, it begs the question: is there an objective measurement or litmus test to decipher someone's goodness? Well, it turns out that this is not a new question, and has been debated for millennia. Even as early as 384 BC., when Aristotle was born.

Even if it has been in a very limited capacity, you most likely have heard this name before. Hailed as one of the greatest politicians, philosophers, and scientists to ever exist, Aristotle has certainly made an impact in every society from when he was alive to even current times. He started to make a name for himself in Macedonia, where for 20 years he studied at the Academy of Plato. Upon Plato's death, Aristotle started his own school and research instituteHe also mentored Alexander the Great during this time. It was here that Aristotle spread his ideals through writings and papers on a vast array of topics. Perhaps his most influential book (and certainly the most readable one) is The Nicomachean Ethics, where he explores ideas of happiness, morality, virtue, pleasure, and friendship. The rest of this blog is intended to sum up the key ideas of each of these parts, but of course there is no substitute for reading the actual book, which I highly recommend.

The Object Of Life

The first section of the book is used to set up the premise and motivation for the rest of the writing. In it, Aristotle sets up what is essentially a logical proof. He starts by claiming that all action aims towards some good (some end goal). Yet he does not immediately declare what this good is. Instead, he sets up the argument by claiming that whatever this end goal is, it must be done for its own sake. For if it is not done solely for its own purpose and pleasure, then it must be leading to something else, and therefore cannot be the end goal. After exploring and disproving some options, he eventually settles on happiness. Happiness, he argues, is the only good done for its own sake and is in and of itself wholly satisfying.

Before we continue with the rest of the recap, it's very important to note that between 384 BC. and now, the meaning of words has changed (obviously). So, when Aristotle declares "happiness" as the end goal of human life, he doesn't necessarily mean happiness in the way we currently interpret it. Instead, his idea of happiness, or eudaimonia, would translate to something more like "living well". This makes it easier to understand why he claims that happiness is derived from "virtuous activity of the soul" which equates to acting virtuously.

Virtue is a very overloaded term for what essentially just means moral excellence. This is still a vague definition, even in Aristotle's time. To refine what it means to be virtuous and thus how to be happy, Aristotle explores the two sides of virtue: moral and intellectual.

Moral Virtues

According to Aristotle, moral virtues are trained. While some may be naturally predisposed to acting a certain way, there is no substitute for practice and habituation. Moral virtues, like courage or temperance, are cultivated through conscious effort. Unfortunately, simply acting courageous or temperate does not imply virtue. Instead, it must be thoughtful and chosen for the sake of itself. For Aristotle, this is determined by the feelings of pleasure or pain that are apparent within the person while partaking in such acts. To illustrate, if someone acts courageously in a situation while feeling uncomfortable and "pained", then they are less virtuous than their counterpart that acts the same way with pleasure and pride.

Along the same lines, intention is vital in analyzing virtue within action. In general, actions can be classified into three groups:

1. Voluntary
2. Involuntary
3. Non-voluntary

Voluntary action, as you would imagine, is of the agent's own accord. The line blurs when drawing a distinction between involuntary and non-voluntary. Aristotle claims, "Every act done through ignorance is non-voluntary", but an action may only be classified as involuntary if performed through ignorance and "when it causes the agent subsequent pain and repentance". In analyzing the nature of an action, much can be revealed about an agent's virtue. Good actions should be voluntary. If they aren't, they do not "contribute" to the virtue of the agent. Conversely, bad actions performed through ignorance and with pain point towards an underlying level of virtue, even when it was not apparent in the action.

Finally, Aristotle's key point in this section of the text is that virtue is reached via a precise mean between two extremes:

• Liberality: the right attitude towards money. Sits between illiberality and prodigality.
• Magnanimity: the proper estimation of one's own worth in relation to the highest honors. Sits between pusillanimity and vanity.
• Courage: the ability to perform a frightening action. Sits between cowardice and rashness.
• Temperance: moderation and self-restraint. Sits between licentiousness and insensibility.

The list goes on and on. I found this idea to be particularly interesting because it defies the notion that virtue is this strict, almost unreachable goal. Instead, all it really is boils down to finding the right balance between two extremes. Only, the nuance lies in finding where that true balance is; it may not always be in the middle. Often, one extreme may be worse than the other, so it follows that the mean may lie closer to the better extreme. Prodigality, for example, is a much better state to be in than illiberality, so the virtue of liberality lies in the mean closer to the former.

Intellectual Virtues

Aristotle had great appreciation towards intellect and how it shapes our condition. In fact, to Aristotle, the life of contemplationtheoria is the highest form of human flourishing. Contemplation, he says, is the highest form of activity as it is continuous, and relies on the highest thing in us, our intellect. To Aristotle, intellect is the most divine part of a human. Thus, by cultivating our intellect and by living a life of contemplation, we become closer to the divine itself.

In the effort to achieve a divine state, Aristotle describes five main virtues that correspond to a different way that the soul seeks truth: scientific knowledge, intuitive reason, theoretical wisdom, practical wisdom, and craft knowledge. Of these, practical wisdom appears to be the most important as it bridges the gap between the moral and intellectual spheres. Moral virtues rely on practical wisdom to converge to the mean in a certain state. It allows for the agent to make rational choices on when, how much, and under what circumstances to act a certain way.

Friendship

The last thing I wanted to touch on with this book is Aristotle's schema of friendship. In general, there are three types of friendships:

1. Friendships based on utility
2. Friendships based on pleasure
3. Friendships based on goodness

Only in the last option, Aristotle says, do you truly have a meaningful connection. The two prior contexts, namely utility and pleasure, are feeble bases as these relationships disappear when either agent no longer receives benefit from the other. It is solely in case where the friendship is good, meaning the relationship is appreciated for the sake of itself and for the sake of the other person, that a true friend has been made. This means wishing the other person well for his own sake, and not hoping for some personal benefit.

In these pure relationships, it is told that it is more important to love than to be loved. While he doesn't use the term explicitly, a good way to describe this is unconditional love. Regardless of circumstance or environment, a friendship based on goodness is based on a commitment to one another. Perhaps it is even too much of a leap to say a commitment since, according to Aristotle, agents do not seek to be loved in return, they find true fulfillment and satisfaction with the appreciation and care they provide.

The unfortunate caveat to this framework is that these relationships are few and far between. While you may have a strong desire to branch out and form meaningful connections with everyone you meet, a relationship to this depth and power is not something that comes easy and therefore should be a very selective process.

Lastly, his writings tell us that the foundation of real friendship and connection are based on self-love. This point is delivered in two arguments. The first being that, the person who truly wishes good for their friend for their own sake must first understand what genuine good looks like, which comes from some inner level of virtue. The second argument stems from the consideration of a friend as the "greatest external good". When you reach a good and true friendship, it seemingly becomes a part of who you are. Logically this means that by loving the friend and the friendship you are inadvertently practicing self-love at the same time.