ARISTOTLE

Biographical Sketch

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are the triumvirate of great ancient Greek philosophers. Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. at Stagirus, a Grecian colony in Thrace. Nichomachus, his father, was the court physician of the Macedonian king. Aristotle lost his parents early in life. He then went to Athens and studied under Plato for twenty years. In the Academy, Aristotle showed an indefatigable zeal for learning. After Plato’s death in 347 B.C., Aristotle left Athens. He stayed in the royal court at Atarneus for three years. When its king was killed by Persians, he went to Mytilene and lived there for many years. From there he went to Macedonia at the invitation of King Philip to tutor his son, the famous Alexander,who wasthenthirteenyears old. He supervised Alexander’s studies forfiveyears. He then returned to Athens and founded his own school of philosophy at a place called Lyceum.

Approach

In his philosophical temper, Aristotlediffered sharply from Plato. Plato, the founder of philosophical idealism, soared high above the world of sense and mundane human affairs. In contrast, Aristotle is a down to earth practical thinker, who placed morals within the frame of ordinary human life. Aristotle sticks to the factual and the concrete, and stays within the bounds of actual human experience. Aristotle criticized many Platonic theories, and was even accused of being ungrateful to his teacher. However, Aristotle’s criticism was free from personal rancour. He called himself a friend of Plato, but a greater friend of truth.

In his famous treatise, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle mainly discuses two aspects of Ethics-happiness and virtues. We outline hisideas on thesethemes.Two interestingpoints however may be mentioned here. For Aristotle, happiness and virtue go together. The idea that a virtuous man should lead miserable life somehow does not appeal to Aristotle. In later philosophy, the fact that the paths of happiness and virtue may diverge is clearly recognised. Secondly, Aristotle does not discusss the idea of duty which later assumes great importance in Ethics. Discussion of virtues is his abiding contribution to Ethics.

Summum Bonum

In his ethics, Aristotle discusses the summum bonum which is the final end towards which human activity is directed. Every human act has an end or aim. But many ends are means to other ends or ways of achieving the other ends. But finally, we reach an end which is ultimate and does not serve as a means to any other end. This is summum bonum.

Thus X may want to become a trader. Accordingly, he may buy a store in a mall. He may fill the store with wares he wants to sell for profit. He will do many things for the success of his business. If

his business prospers, he will become rich. Riches will enable him to satisfy his material wants. And this satisfaction will make him happy. We can arrange X’s actions in a series.

Buy store Æ stockit with wares Æ sell the wares Æ make profit Æ amassmoney Æ buy things Æ Satisfy material wants Æ feel happy.

In this simple example, the final end of all of X’s actions is happiness (as he conceives it), and is the summum bonum. In this example, happiness completes the series. We can symbolize actions

here as Axand their ends as Ex.Then we have, A1—-E1,A2—-E2,A3—E3and A4—-E4. In this series, the endof action at one stage becomes the means for achieving the goal at the next stage. Thus E1becomes A2; E2becomes A3; and E3 becomes A4. We can think of the series of actions as comprising intermediate ends and a final end.

His Concept of Happiness

This is only the beginning of the story. People attach different meanings to ‘happiness’. For instance, instead of spending money on material means of pleasure, X may donate to charities or go on pilgrimages. These actions will also make him happy. As the meaning or connotation of happiness may differ for different individuals, the concept of happiness has to be defined.

Aristotle defines happiness with the help of his philosophical principles. For Aristotle, every being in nature has its proper end, and its achievement is the special function of that being. The adequate performance of the special function is the good for any being. Sensation is the special function of animals, and hence sensual pleasures cannot be the good for man. Reason is the special function of human beings. Therefore, summum bonum or ultimate good for men is to be found in the life of reason.

Aristotle, however, does not wholly exclude what many would regard as sources of happiness. Aristotle believes that higher beings in nature possess the faculties of lower beings. Although man is a creature of reason, he still has the appetites of plants and the sensations of animals. As these are built into human nature, Aristotle divides virtues into two categories, as intellectual and ethical.

His Concept of Virtues

Moral virtues, for Aristotle, are to be distinguished from intellectual virtures. Moral virture has to do with feeling, choosing and acting well. Intellectual virtue is identified as a kind of wisdom acquired from teachers. It has to do with contemplation of the natural world, metaphysics and learning subjects likemathematics and logic.

The highest virtues belong to the life of reason or intellect. Philosophical contemplation forms part of this life. Aristotle designates these intellectual virtues as dianoetic. Ethical virtues consist in the subordination of human passions and appetites to reason. Intellectual virtues rank higher than ethical virtues because they are allied to man’s special function as a rational creature. Another reason fortheirsuperiorityisthat thinkingmanresembles God whoselife isone of purethought.Intellectual and ethical virtuestogetherconstitute happiness.These are the absolutevalues for humanity.

Being a practical thinker, Aristotle recognises that even a virtuous man cannot be happy if circumstances conspire against him. Poverty, sickness and misfortune will make even a virtuous man miserable. Riches, friendships, health and good fortune, though not the same as happiness, contribute to it. To this extent, Aristotle acknowledges that the outward conditions of one’s life can influence happiness.

Ethical Virtues

As betweenintellectual and ethical virtues, Aristotlediscussesthelatter at length. As we saw, ethical virtues consist in control of emotions by reason. Aristotle opposes the Socratic view that knowledge of morals is sufficient to make a man virtuous. Socrates overlooks the fact that it is hard to control human passions. A man may reason correctly and discover the correct moral course. However, he may be overwhelmed by his emotions and take the unethical route. The saying, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” sums up this situation.

How then to bring the wayward passions under the control of reason? According to Aristotle, the unruly human passions can be disciplined only by constant exercise of self control. With constant practice, virtuous conduct becomes a habit.Habit is of great importanceinmorality.It is by steadfast pursuit of morality that man becomes moral. “Virtue renders virtue easy”.

We may now consider the reason why Aristotle rejects the ascetic ideal. The ascetic wants to completely eliminate appetites and passions from human heart. But it is not possible since they are essential attributes of human nature. As we noted earlier, higher forms of beinginclude the faculties of lower forms of being. Virtue presupposes the operations of both reason and passions. If reason is to control passions, they have to be present. Aristotle regards passions as the matter of virtue and reason as its form. If passions, as ascetics propose, are extirpated, virtue will become an empty shell or a concept without content.

Golden Mean and Common Virtues

Aristotle’s views on asceticism reflect his tendency to avoid extreme positions. In fact, virtue according to him implies moderation. Aristotle’s celebrated doctrine of virtue defines it as the mean between two extremes. Every virtue lies in between two vices. For example, courage is a virtue which lies between the two extremes of cowardice and foolhardiness. Aristotle uses the terms ‘defect’ and ‘excess’ to describe the extremes or vices within which each virtue lies. But we can ignore these terms. We need to consider only the examples which Aristotle gives. While there are innumerable virtues, Aristotlementions certainpopularlyrecognised types of good action commonin humanlife.

We tabulate some common virtues and their extremes in the following table:

Some virtues, we can see, do not fit into this scheme. Wisdom, truthfulness and impartiality are among these.

Aristotlegives no criterion or rule fordetermining the correct mean which constitutes the virtue. The choice of mean is not like bisecting a straight line or calculating the average of two numbers. The choice depends on the individual and the circumstances of any particular case. It results from the good judgment of the individual or on his good sense and tact. Aristotle means that the mean varies from individual to individual depending on circumstances. For example, in acts of charity, the mean will be higher for a rich man than an ordinary man. Even an ordinary householder has to help his parents in need. In short, Aristotle believes that general rules cannot cover the wide range of possible situations of life.

Aristotle’s Magnanimous Individual

We may briefly note the type of individual whom Aristotle calls as ‘high-souled’ or ‘magnanimous’ or ‘proud’. He is a person who embodies the virtues of nobility. He is seen as good in the highest degree. He will be great in virtues such as valour, generosity, loyalty and dignity. The magnanimous morality may be impossible without nobility and goodness of character. The magnanimous man will be mainly concerned with maintaining his honour and dignity. Aristotle’s portrait is evidently that of aristocratic virtue. Popular admiration for aristocratic and heroic virtues has declined with the growth of democratic sentiment. Bertrand Russell observes that virtues of the magnanimous man largely depend upon his having an exceptional social position. Hence, in the modern mind, these virtues of nobility get associated with hereditary privilege and inequality.

His Concept of Justice

For Aristotle, justice is a virtue of the State and not of the individual. He mentions two types of justice: distributive and corrective. His concept of distributive justice should not be understood in the modern egalitarian sense. Distributive justice in its modern sense seeks to reduce extreme inequalities in wealth and income. It may include provision for meeting the minimum needs of the poor. However, in Aristotle’s thinking, distributive justice refers to rewarding people according to merit. Honours and rewards have to be assigned based on the worth of individuals. Those who are more meritorious will get higher rewards. Aristotle’s view can be seen as an advice to rulers that they should reward meritorious individuals rather than psychophants and time servers.

Corrective justice has to do with inflicting punishment for wrong doing. Anyone who gains undue profit by unfair means should be made to suffer corresponding loss through a fine or penalty. Justice consists of general principles which cannot cover all the possible situations (cases) which arise in social life. Equity consists in adapting general rules to special circumstances.

His Concept of Freedom of Will

Aristotle upholds the freedom of human will. He criticizes Socrates for rejecting freedom of will. Socratic doctrine of knowledge as virtue implies that people who know what is right will necessarily follow it. Hence right action is the outcome, not of voluntary choice but compulsion. Aristotle argues that freedom of human will implies that men can choose between good and evil. The correct moral choices follow from the exercise of reason. Human choices are voluntary, except in situations

such as when a robber compels at gun point a bank manager to open the cash chest. In Socratic conception virtuous actions appear as involuntary - necessarily flowing from knowledge. However, the question of human freedom of will has become enmeshed in many philosophical controversies. Freedom versuspredestination is one such controversy. The question has acquired new dimensions with advances in physical science, sociology and psychology. We need not pursue this matter, but may note that virtuous action presupposes some freedom of choice.

Politics and State According to Aristotle

Aristotle believes that Politics (political science) is a division of Ethics. Politics is the ethics of the State. An individual’s morality finds its end in the State, and is not possible without State. Welfare of citizens is the objective of the State, and people can be happy and virtuous only in a State. Man is a political animal. The State educates men in (civic) virtues and provides opportunities for exercising virtues.

Discussing the origin of the State, Aristotle notes that historically the family arose first and that it was followed by village communities and finally by the State. It is necessary to remember that the Greek idea of State did not extend beyond the city. Aristotle holds that the historical origin of State is not relevant for understanding the nature of the State.

The State is an organismwith a life and reality of its own.The State is not a mechanical aggregation of individuals like a heap of stones. The individuals who are parts of the State are also organisms. The State has a purpose of its own. The individuals also have their ends. But the individual ends are included in the end of the State. To put it differently, in the State both the whole and the parts are real; the whole has its end, life and rights; similarly, each part has its life, end and rights.

Aristotlerejects boththe collectivist andindividualist conceptions of the State. Theindividualist view of State rejects the reality of the whole along with its ends. Only the individuals composing the State have ends and are real. The State exists as an external entity for the individual for ensuring his life, property and social amenities. Only individual life and purpose count. This became known as the Social Contract Theorylaterwiththe State seen as theoutcome of a contract between individuals in search of security. Modern individualism is also based on similar views.

While individualist view denies the reality of the whole, Plato denies the reality of the individual. The Platonic State is omnipotent, and its individual citizen is obliterated by its might. As we saw, Plato proposes a community of wives and rearing of children in State nurseries from the first year of their birth. Aristotle holds that the family, as an individual unit and organism in its own right within the State, has absolute rights and cannot be obliterated. Plato considers the State as a homogenous entity, and denies the rights of its individual parts. As in other aspects of morality, Aristotle takes a more balanced view of State giving due importance both to government and citizens. His views on the relations between the state and the individual largely correspond to modern trends in spirit though not in their phraseology. Aristotle then proceeds to discuss different constitutions or State systems like monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. However, we need not pursue these matters which concern politics rather than ethics.

Criticism of Aristotle’s Views

Various points of criticism have been urged against Aristotelian ethics. Many of these points are based on modern perspectives. The Aristotelian State confines its benefits and privileges to a

chosen few. Democratic thinkers hold that so far as the state is concerned, the goods are power and property. Democratic sentiment demands that power and property should be widely shared in any society. It seems that for Aristotle what is best is essentially only for the few magnanimous men and philosophers. The bulk of the population is turned into means for the production of a few rulers and sages. Kant, a great philosopher whom we will discuss later, maintained that every human being is an end in himself, and this is also the view of democratic theory. As we shall see, in the later Utilitarian theory, the prescribed end of action is maximizing of pleasure, irrespective of who its recipients may be. But the ancient Greek thinkers had a different conception of ‘justice’ . For them, each thing or person had its or his proper sphere, to overstep which is ‘unjust’. Some men, in virtue of their character and aptitude, have a wider sphere than others, and there is no injustice if they enjoy a greater share of happiness.

In Aristotle’s thought, there are other instances of acceptance of inequality which is repugnant to much modern sentiment. For example, Aristotle accepts slavery; he takes it for granted that husbands are superior to wives and fathers to children. These views are anathema to modern youth and feminists.

As noted before, Aristotle held that virtue lies in shunningextreme emotions, acts, thouthts and ideas. He was also a down to earth thinker who wrote in an academic style. As a result, his writing and ideas are rather placid. He went along with the prevailing political and social mores of his time. All these injected an air of conservatism into his writings.

Many thinkers on the other hand want to bring about revolutionary changes in the world. Their writings are full of sound and fury. Many modern novelistshave shown with great dramaticintensity the play of violent feelings and emotions in human life. They depict relations for example, between menandwomenwithgreat passionwithall attendant pleasures,painsandperils.Compared to such writing, Aristotle’s works both in their content and style seem tepid, rather like a weak cup of tea.

Bertrand Russell accuses Aristotle of conventionality and smugness or what could be called petty bourgeoisie morality. To quote Russell:

More generally, there is an emotional poverty in the Ethics, which is not found in the earlier philosophers. There is something unduly smug and comfortable about Aristotle’s speculations on human affairs; everything that makes men feel a passionate interest ineachotherseems to be forgotten. Evenhis account of friendship is tepid. … all the more profound aspects of the moral life are apparently unknown to him. He leaves out, one may say, the whole sphere of human experience withwhich religion isconcerned. What he has to say is what will be useful tocomfortable 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.

Russell’s observations while interesting hardly do justice to Aristotle. We should not expect to find characters from Dostoevsky, Albert Camus or Emile Bronte in Nicomachean Ethics. The novelists we mentioned depict characters who find themselves in situations of great trouble, stress and anguish, and who also tend to go breserk in their responses and reactions. Many of them are rebels on the fringes of society. Neither such situations nor characters usually figure in morals of common life or in administrative situations. In fact, the coolness, composure and balance found in Aristotle can be a model even for modern day civil servants.

Summary of Aristotelian’ Philosophy

• Aristotle is a systematic academic philosopher. His approach, unlike that of Plato, is down to earth and commonsensical.

• He wrote the treatise Nicomachean Ethics.

• He propounded the concept of Summum bonum or the ultimate objective which men seek. He identified it with refined intellectual pleasures and philosophical contemplation.

• Aristotle, however, does not wholly exclude what many would regard as common sources of happiness like friendship, family bonds and creature comforts.

• Aristotle makes a distinction between intellectual and ethical virtues.

• The highest virtues belong to the life of reason or intellect.

• Ethical virtues consist in the subordination of human passions and appetites to reason.

• Aristotleregards passions as the matter of virtue and reason as its form. If passions, as ascetics propose, are extirpated, virtue will become an empty shell or a concept without content.

• Aristotle opposes the Socratic view that knowledge of morals is sufficient to make a man virtuous.

• According to Aristotle, the unruly human passions can be disciplined only by constant exercise of self-control.

• Aristotle’s celebrated doctrine of virtue defines it as the mean between two extremes. Every virtue lies in between two vices.

• The choice of mean is not like bisecting a straight line or calculating the average of two numbers. The choice depends on the individual and the circumstances of any particular case. It results from the good judgment of the individual or from his good sense and tact.

• He mentions two types of justice: distributive and corrective.

• Distributive justice refers to rewarding people according to merit.

• Corrective justice has to do with inflicting punishment for wrong doing.

• Aristotle upholds the freedom of human will.

• The correct moral choices follow from the exercise of reason.

• Politics is the ethics of the State. An individual’s morality finds its end in the State, and is not possible without State.

• Aristotle rejects both the collectivist and individualist conceptions of the State.

• Criticisms of Aristotle:

• (i) The Aristotelian State confines its benefits and privileges to a chosen few. (ii) In Aristotle’s thought, there are other instances of acceptance of inequality which is repugnant to much modern sentiment. (iii) Aristotle’s ethics are marked by conventionality and smugness.