WEEK 14: Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, Books II and III

[Mateo Duque]

This week we are reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Books II and III. Aristotle is, in many ways, seen as a mid-way point between consequentialism (Mill's Utilitarianism) and deontology (Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals). He thinks we must develop our virtues, or our 'character,' (the Greek word is ethos) in order to be good. Try to read Aristotle in light of these other ethical systems. Which do you think is right? Why or why not? Also, think about some of the characters we have encountered. What would the different ethical theories say about Socrates, Agathon, Alcibiades, Ivan, The Grand Inquisitor, or Richard (from the 'Rebellion' chapter)?--or think about any famous people or characters from novels, movies, etc.

[destinycouturee]

"We must become just by doing just acts, and temperate by doing temperate acts"
In Book 2, Chapter 4, Aristotle is setting a criteria for a virtuous man vs. an un virtuous man. A man that is virtuous does virtuous acts. To become a virtuous person, it is not enough to sit there and philosophize about being a virtuous person, you must behave in that sort of way. "But most people do not do these things, but take refugee in theory and think they are being philosophers and will become good in this way, behaving somewhat like patients who listen attentively to their doctors, but do none of the things they are ordered to do". It is human nature to act in this sort of way. A lot of people believe they are good people, but they do nothing in accordance to being a good person. They are simply just theorizing over the issue. Being a good/virtuous person takes practice, just like we need to practice everything else in life. Aristotle uses the example of a musician who needs to practice his music in order to become good at his art. In order for humans to become virtuous, they must practice the art of being virtuous. The best way to practice being virtuous, is through performing virtuous acts. Behaving in a virtuous way is the only way a person can properly declare that they are an virtuous person.
Aristotle then sets a criteria for becoming a virtuous person. "The agent must be in a certain condition when he does them, in the first place he must have the knowledge, secondly he must choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes, and thirdly his action must proceed from a firm and un changeable character". For an act to be considered virtuous, first the person initiating the act must be emotionally in sync with the action, after that he must choose an virtuous act, and finally the action must come from a sincere person. Sincerity and intent is important when performing a virtuous act.

[Brian Low]

"The same is true, then, of temperance, bravery, and the other virtues." Book 2 chapter 2

In these few paragraphs Aristotle is trying to connect bodily functions, temperance, bravery and other virtues through the fact that they naturally degrade with excess or deficient amounts. Although it is true in some cases i however disagree. Aristotle states that "For if, for instance, someone avoids and is afraid of everything, standing firm against nothing, he becomes cowardly; if he is afraid of nothing at all and goes to face everything, he becomes rash". This is not the case for some, maybe many people. Say for example a warrior rises to the challenge of fighting an army to protect his home. In this case he can be outrageously frightened, i know i would be, but he rises past that fact to protect his home. This also doesn't necessarily mean him to be rash either. He might have a deficiency in courage but that doesn't mean he'll rise past his fears to overcome a challenge. The same thing can be applied in the opposite direction. If the warrior has an excess amount of courage, that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be rash. He can be cool tempered and know he has the advantage yet still keep a lookout for any surprises to come. Yes its true that many people who do become over confident normally fall to their own doing but Aristotle makes it sound like it will always happen to people. I somewhat agree with what Aristotle says but at the same time i dont believe in his theory every second of the way. 

[conis...@aol.com]

"Hence it is also clear that none of the virtues of character arises in us naturally."
"Further, if something arises in us by nature, we first have the capacity for it, and later perform the activity."
Book 2 chapter 1
Aristotle talks on the virtues of character and how we act upon it. He sought out to prove that virtue isn't natural but it is something we have to learn or adapt. The second quote shows us we don't naturally get the characteristics of virtue but we acquire them, then choose to act on them. Then it is our choice whether we use it for good or bad. An example he used is a legislator, to be a good legislator I be must make their citizens good by habituating them. The act of the legislature is what determines his virtue not his feelings or intent. He also described a person might say they're a person of good virtue but their actions shows differently. So out feelings can't fully determine our virtue.
Aristotle explain to us the virtue is about pleasures and pains. When we do something that was taken is what determines our gain and losses. He brought up a person of abstinence, if he/she are abstinent for their own good and are able to stand you ground and feel pleasure about it then your virtue is good. If a person is abstinent but finds it as a burden and is weak to what they stand then they suffer a great pain with their act and in the end lost.
I can understand Aristotle's point of view on virtue, take the famous phrase "patience is virtue," it is not the feeling that is virtue, but it is the act of how we feel at the time that is virtue. An impatient person would not have good virtue which cause pain to wait for a prize in the end, whereas a person with virtue of patience will receive the greatest pleasure of waiting for the prize in the end.

[William Sun]

"To sum it up in a single account: a state [of character] results from [the repetition of] similar activities."

Aristotle states that each of us are born with similar features given to us by nature, human features, which we all share similarly, and that through habituation we take shape and become the person you "are" which is very easy to agree with. Easy examples are occupations and skill sets, these traits are learned and practiced whether its forced upon or through free will. We are not born as anything but instead trained or taught to be something. The way I perceive it is that when we are born, we are similar to clay. Just a baby, useless parasites are just "human". As we grow up we begin to develop, mold and take shape. In the modern world we attend school and learn basic knowledge, similar to that of a foundation and blue print that prepares us for what we will be one day. As we grow up we take interest several things such as music, sports, an occupation, etc. We are not born musicians, athletes and doctors. To becomes these individuals require the "repetition of similar activities". If you're a pianist you have practiced playing the piano, if you are professional swimmer you've learned and practiced swimming and so on. An individual becomes who they are through practice, in this case who they are meaning what type of human they become through the practices they engage in throughout their life. I believe that each individuals "clay" is constantly being molded and adjusted, with every day and every piece of knowledge we change. The person I am today is different to myself from yesterday even if the difference may be so miniscule that it's barely noticeable I am still different and will continue to change until the day comes when the individuals time is up, then their "clay" will solidify and be known as that last memory of them. Only then will that persons "identity" be constant/permanent. 

[tenzin choetso]

Hey Brian, I read your post and when I was reading book 2, I think i got a different idea on what Aristotle was saying. I got the message that courage lies between cowardice and rashness and the applicable amount of courage differs from one situation to another. As for the warrior that has an excess amount of courage, I don't think there's excess of courage. It's either you have it or you dont. In addition, I think Kant's theories in what is moral and immoral is a perfect connection to your response post. One can say that the outrageously frightened warrior's actions are moral because he acts in accordance with duty but against his natural inclination while the warrior with excess amount of courage is immoral because he is acting in accordance with his natural inclination or his duty (with him being a warrior and all). 

[William Sun]

I agree with your statement that good people do not need to commit "good" actions but Aristotle is not wrong here, instead he probably enforced this in the first few sentences of book II. "Virtue, then is of two sort, virtue of though and virtue of character. Virtue of thought arises and grows mostly from teaching, and that is why is needs experience and time." "good" thoughts and actions must be taught to an infant as the basics and good thoughts/actions build on those basics. Being ultimately virtuous probably requires both thought and character but Aristotle and you are probably on the same page. 

[rachel.zoldan23]

Rachel Zoldan

 

"By virtue, I mean virtue of character; for this is about feelings and actions, and these admit of excess, deficiency, and an intermediate condition" (Book 2)

 

According to Aristotle, there is no general law or principle that one can follow, instead, one must learn through experience, and practice what makes them virtuous.  Virtue exists between excess and deficiency.  But this mean between exces and deficiency is not an absolute principle, because the intermediate must relate to each person.  For example we can have pleasure and pain in moderation, too much or too little is not good.  However, one must consider propriety to virtue by having feelings and doing actions the right way for the right reasons.  Comparing Aristotle's theory to Mill's and Kant's theories, Aristotle's theory involves ethics of character and Mill's and Kant's involves ethics of conduct.  Consequentialism and deontology focuses on the actions that should be done instead of the character that should be developed.  For Mill an action must provide the greatest amount of happiness and for Kant actions of moral worth come from the will of duty or moral law.  The point that Aristotle's theory is similar to Kant's is that there are some actions that are automatically base.  He gives the examples of adultery, theft, murder etc. They are base in themselves, which means that there is no intermediate state.  Mill would have considered these acts moral if they increased utility, but I agree with Aristotle (and Kant) that these immoral acts would not be virtuous in any circumstance. 

[Dillen Lewis]

In Book II, I don't really agree with the way Aristotle sets temperance as the rule to go by. For example, he uses bravery as the mean while cowardice is the deficiency and rashness is the excess. Maybe it's my view on bravery and stuff that's weird, but I favor cowardice. When someone says coward, they may think of someone who runs away from problems or never stands up for themselves, etc. But the way I view cowardice is someone who runs away from opportunities that will even get them in those bad situations in the first place. I mean yea, technically they still are running away from those situations. But, isn't running away or avoiding situations that will bring you unhappiness or shame a good thing? Because if so, then doesn't that make virtues different for everyone and not something set in stone, or at least more flexible than he claims them to be? Like you may avoid a problem, and it may be more work on your part that someone else may think is ridiculous, but if humans strive for happiness, and being in that state of cowardice brings you more happiness than having to deal with that confrontation or problem, isn't that virtuous? 

[Dillen Lewis]

Hey Destiny. I kinda have mixed feelings about this quote so i'll try to give my input on it. When I was reading it I was trying to understand his meaning of a virtuous person. Say for instance someone gives to charity. They give what they can without putting themselves in financial trouble and maintaining the mean of generosity. But then they are rash and dive head first to always try to help someone. Ordinarily, this kind of person will be looked at with honor, doing whatever they can to help people. But then can they still be virtuous? They maintain the mean with one thing, but are in the state of excess in another. I couldn't understand if Aristotle believes having temperance in all virtues is what's required to be virtuous or as long as you have some virtues in a state of temperance is enough to be virtuous.

[Yaakov Bressler]

" Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it."

This statement by Aristotle sums up what makes a person different than an animal. It is the choice we can make using a rational principle, a clearly stated.

So what is the argument that philosophers like Peter Singer make (“all animals are equal”)? It must be either the rational principle or the idea of choice.

1) Choice: Behaviorists claim that humans are shaped by their environment and are nothing more. This way of thinking eradicates the idea of choice.

2) Rational Principle: We would have to find someone who finds that human are not rational beings and that we don't think. This i think would be especially difficult to find. 

So we'll stick with 1). If people don't make choices then  we are no different than an animal, because it takes a rational being to choose. And our rationality is what places us higher than animals. 
Yaakov Bressler

[ruksanamannan]

 

“Such actions, then, are mixed, but are more like voluntary actions; for they are worthy of choice at the time when they are done, and the end of an action is relative to the occasion. Both the terms, then, 'voluntary' and 'involuntary', must be used with reference to the moment of action. Now the man acts voluntarily” (Book 3)

This quote was taken from book 3 where Aristotle begins to talk about voluntary and involuntary actions. He writes about how to clarify whether the action that was committed was voluntary or involuntary and this is one example that I sort of disagree with. He believes that if someone were to commit a crime even though they are under pressure, the action was still voluntary. I mean when thought about the action committed is actually not voluntary, the risk of their own life becomes the reason. Even though you are committing it, and are in your senses, you technically are in the pressure of something or someone else over you. No one is able to think completely rationally when under pressure, unless they are trained to or something. 

[ruksanamannan]

“Men, then, as well as beasts, suffer pain when they are angry, and are pleased when they exact their revenge; those who fight for these reasons, however, are pugnacious but not brave; for they do not act for honor’s sake nor as the rule directs, but from strength of feeling; they have, however, something akin to courage. “ (Book 3)

 Aristotle lists out the virtues of courage by giving several examples of men in history. This example is after the explanation of how passion is also courage. This line stood out to me because people tend to confuse revenge as courage. They forget that when you seek revenge you are doing the same as the person did to you. For example, if someone killed your brother, to seek revenge you kill that person’s brother; this is not courage, it is exactly the same as what the first person did. Honor is something that is courage but revenge is not. Revenge is worse than what the original act was committed because it is repeating a mistake. 

[ruksanamannan]

Ruksana Mannan

Reply to Dillen:
I like the concept you laid out of whether someone who is coward is doing the right or wrong decision- making. Usually when someone is called a coward they usually are running away from problems that are good for them. For example, if someone is acting cowardly and not taking a job or a promotion; they techinically are not doing what is good for them. But then there is the other side to this of someone being called a coward when hanging out with friends and daring each other whether they can jump from one roof to the other. There are different types of cowards, but in real cases of acting cowardly it usually someone backing away from something good for them; the example about friends is actually not that person acting cowardly but actually being responsible. Overall what I am trying to say is acting like coward should only be used in scenarios where people are backing away from things that are actually good or them!

[ruksanamannan]

Ruksana Mannan

"A stone, for instance, by nature moves downwards, and habituation, could not make it move upwards, not even if you threw it up ten thousand tmes to habituate it." (Aristotle, Book 2)

Although this is much of an obvious quote that if you try to throw a stone up it will will never fall upwards. But this explains how certain habits can never change, and I related this to people who grow up learning one way. Someone who grows up learning that one thing is right, it is really difficult to change the way they think and behave. For example, someone who grows up learning about religion, its very hard for them to stow away from their beliefs. Or ther other way for someone who does not believe , it is very difficult for them to begin believing. All in all, habits are very difficult to stop. Another example is smoking, some people it takes years to stop and others not to long. Habits are made an forgotten based on the person also.

[jeanmalabre01]

“We must perform the right activities, since differences in these imply corresponding differences in the states. It is not unimportant, then, to acquire one sort of habit or another, right from our youth. On the contrary, it is very important, indeed all-important.”(Nicomachean Ethics book II, p.271)

Sometimes we tend to think that it does not matter of how well we perform a task the most important we think is just to try, as if our faith has been predefined we have no real effort to do.  We tend to follow the courant of thinking that we cannot change who we are. According to a Aristotle virtue is a product of good habits and good habits make better individual even a better society. Aristotle stated that “right activities imply different in the states” (1121-23), he makes the point here that by taking the right steps we can be better individual. Aristotle claims that virtue is not an inner character; he believes that we can cultivate a virtue. I always asked myself how come some people are so good at what they are doing, and others are so bad? Why do big gaps exist in society? I think that I finally have my answer through the reading of Nicomachean Ethics book II of Aristotle. I believe now that people get successful not because they were born with some supernatural power or intelligence as more than one tends to believe, but because of their determination, perseverance, by taking the good habits. Aristotle argues that “our youth” is the best time to start. Therefore one should ask if it is ever too late to start with a good habit.      

[raquel.palmas826]

In response to  to Jean  

 

The idea that people can change I feel is a very optimistic belief that I would like to believe is to be true. This however can be contested when we look at the ethical nature of an individual. Although that person maybe able to change their negative habits on the surface their moral code may still be flawed. " First, then, actions should accord withe the correct reason." (Pg. 270)  Or in a more Aristotelian sense gets pleasure from the wrong things, that habit is unconscious. The only thing that would point to this error would be that the actions of the individual are not in accordance with the greater majorities or their environments moral code. This thought then leads me to the idea of nature verse nurture; here I think Aristotle is commenting on the importance of teaching the youth because often as you get older your youth serves as foundation for your behavior and beliefs. If someone in there youth begins to value the wrong things that can be detrimental to their growth and ability to reason as a moral individual. I agree that there is always ability for people to change themselves but to a point. If your values are incorrect then these habits I believe inevitably are unbreakable. Aristotle suggests that our virtues are a way of being almost a moral memory, how we behave in our youth shape our behaviors in the future. This I believe is all dependent on what we are taught however there is always the question as to the role the nature of the individual has. 

 Raquel Palmas 

[Katrina Castillo]

" For in general there is no mean of excess or of deficiency, and no excess or of deficiency of a mean."

If generosity is considered a mean.  Can being too generous be considered as an excess of it?  Generosity in itself is a good trait but too much of it can cause harm.  An example would be being overly charitable to people in need and eventually encourage them to be dependent. 

                             ***************************************************************************************************************************
The story of Richard from "The Rebellion" reminds me of what Aristotle said about the Virtue of Character.  That is acquired through habit.  Richard was had the chance to show love and compassion when he was younger.  As a result, as an adult, he did not display having such traits.  However in prison he met people who cared for him and taught him what he didn't know before.  This caused him to realize his mistakes and repent for what he did

[konfeta04]

“Hence it is clear that none of the virtues of character arises in us naturally. For if something is by nature in one condition, habituation cannot bring it into another condition … and so the virtues arise in us neither by nature nor against nature. Rather, we are by nature able to acquire them, and we are completed through habit.” (page 269)

This quote was interesting to me because at first I did not understand what to make of it. I could not understand what exactly Aristotle was trying to say about human nature, or whether he was saying anything about it. I believe that he is trying to say that when a person is born, it is up to his caregivers to teach him about all the virtues and encourage him to apply himself in life so that he can grow to acquire said virtues. This is implied by him stating that we do not naturally start out virtuous, but he cannot be implying that humanity is naturally evil either because he states that it is impossible to bring about a condition that is not in our nature, and he makes it very clear that he believes it is possible to become virtuous through learning. The conclusion that I came to is that he thinks that we do not start out with any virtues, like the idea of the clean slate, but as they grow up, they acquire the virtues or they don’t. I think that this might be the best outlook on utilitarianism, because I believe that almost everyone is a product of their environment, how they grew up and what they learned is very important to shaping the ethics and beliefs that they will have in the future. It is extremely unrealistic to assume that we all start out virtuous or sinful, and even after we develop our minds it is still impossible to say that there are people that are purely virtuous or purely sinful. I think that the better opportunities that people have to exercise their brain and form their own opinions and beliefs about the world, and then the more likely they are to be virtuous. However having a good education and upbringing is also helpful. A question that I’ve thought about reading this quote is if a person is not given any guidance whatsoever, and left to his own devices, then would that person be able to acquire virtues, or would he slowly develop to become unethical?

[NatashaPersaud]

 "The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else"

When I first read this section, I thought "hm, interesting. Money was logically thought about even back then". This quote directly describes greed. Money-making is an insurance that most people need because it gives me a sense a safety for anything that might come up. However, when we do acquire the wealth we desire, it's not enough. There is that void that money can't fill. So we try to fill. We spend and spend but nothing can satisfy what we want.  I guess urges comply with the void we need to fill with money. This doesn't necessarily fit Book II's moral and intellectual debate, however, it makes perfect sense to be added. I find it strange that Aristotle would add this in and proceed to another topic. It left me guessing as it might have for a lot of other who read it. I guess this fit the title though, ethics. Money and ethics never work together. I assume to teach about independent thinking, hence why he moved on so quickly. The lifestyle we live is the one we identified with. If the lifestyle we live is with money, we will be identified as money. That isn't something anyone wants to be identified as and I believe this is what Aristotle is trying to emphasize.

[gabdel7]

"That moral virtue is a mean, then, and in what sense it is so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency, and that it is such because its character is to aim at what is intermediate in passions and in actions, has been sufficiently stated. "

I see here what was mentioned about virtue being related to patterns of behavior which form a virtuous disposition. By Aristotle's standards, to act in virtue is a very measured and precise science. To harmonize between excess and deficiency when it is our natural instinct to gravitate completely towards one side of the spectrum, is a difficult task. I think that intention to be virtuous alone makes an action virtuous, as Aristotle mentioned as one of the distinctions between a purposeful act of virtue and an accidental one. Mill's consequentialism was probably more sympathetic to the notion of one's intent/plan of action being what they should be judged by ethically. How can one practice succesfully to be virtuous if "means" do not come naturally?

[T Payne]

"The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind."

Aristotle is saying that once we have discovered the function of man we find that happiness is the virtuous activity of the soul. He believes that a human beings function is to bring unique human qualities to the world. I agree with Aristotle, virtue becomes a part of most of us naturally, it's not a feeling or capacity. We are thought the elements of virtue as children, whether we realize it or not. Whenever our children are going to be away from us for a while we'll tell then "make sure you behave", soon or later that are going to make that decision on their own because that's what they want to do. Everyone is unique in there own way. He believe that all actions have an end or purpose in the world. So what about the people that are evil from a child and grow with no virtues?

[David Blinder]

I have have a criticism of Aristotle's rule of the mean. It simply does not apply to everything in life which makes it somewhat impractical. It may indeed apply to things such as courage and generosity. In such instances one could certainly find a middle or mean and act according to that and hence be considered ethical. However, there are also instances when there is no mean. For instance, there is no middle course between keeping a promise and not keeping one. You either do or you don't, there is not middle ground. You simply cannot find a mean in such a situation. If you do in fact keep a promise, it cannot be considered that you are acting excessively or extremely. Whereas at the same time if you choose not to keep a promise, one could not say that you are acting in a deficient manner. Therefore, one could not find a mean since there is no excess or deficiency from which to judge what the mean is. There are many situations such as this which make this system impractical.

[simondfchan]

Hey Will, i definitely agree with your statement "As we grow up we begin to develop, mold and take shape". None of us here were born with skills. We had to take time and a lot of practice to become who we are today. Even a famous body builder, Ronnie Cole wasn't born with that size of body! I am sure none of us here were born with any special sport skills. Maybe some were better than others. However, It requires a lot of time and practice! I definitely agree with you here!

[simondfchan]

“Since happiness is a certain sort of activity of the soul in accord with complete virtue,..By human virtue we mean virtue of the soul, not of the body, since we also say that happiness is an activity of the soul.” p248-249

Aristotle is talking about the ultimate happiness in our life. He mention being a virtuous is not something that a person can be within a day. It require a long time and and practice. If Aristotle didn't spend his life to do research, he would not be satisfy in his life. For example, One of the NBA basketball players, Lebron Jame finally earned a champion ring in his career. He been looking for the champion ring since he joined the NBA. He didn't just spend some cash to get that ring, he had to work hard to achieve it. Although I am not a Lebron fan, but I do respect Lebron's hard work I truly believe hard workers will achieve their ultimate goals.Being a virtuous will truly find their happiness.