Nicomachean Ethics - Books I - III

We had a great phone conversation - and before that e-mail dialogue about Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Books I - III.

To download the mp3 

audio click here:

Download Aristotle-6-9-09NichEthicsI-III

We had a great dialogue about whether:

- virtue and "good" are habits or intentions (Aristotle says they are habits)

- happiness is a "final good" - what Aristotle means by that and how 21st century westerners might understand the word "happiness" differently (i.e. Aristotle seems to say that happiness is objective and not subjective inner state as we modernists believe)

- individual and community - and how Aristotle's emphasis seems to be on community

- the connections to prior texts we've read like Plato (whom Aristotle attacks directly in Book I) and Herodotus (especially the story of Solon and Croesus)

- the power of reading an ethical text that is not spiritual - i.e. many group members remarked that they found it interesting to read a philosophical treatment of ethics

See the comments below for the pre-phone call e-mail dialogue.

Thanks to HiDefConferencing, Citrix Online and Constant Contact for sponsoring our reading groups and making possible the phone calls and recordings!

Thanks,

Phil 

Comments

[Bruce Upbin]

I wont be able to catch the aristotle call on tues evening, so I thought I would send out a few thoughts To help spark discussion.

"Activities are... what gives life its character, no happy man can be miserable." "The man who is truly good and wise...always makes the best of circumstances..." "Certainly the future is obscure to us, while happiness, we claim is an end and something in every way final." (p. 948, sec 1101A)

To Aristotle, character is action. We are what we choose to do. It's a view that has dominated Western thought for centuries. Seems to be the replacement theory of human motivation from that of the melancholy Heraclitus, who said, "Character is our destiny."

--We should talk for a minute about how Aristotle views ethics as a practice. The root, ethos, comes from a Greek word for habit. What is an ethical life that when it requires constant vigilance at all times against excess or its opposite. If you're so focused on doing the right thing all the time, can you really be happy? Won't you become neurotic?

--It's pretty clear that Thomas Jefferson borrowed "the pursuit of happiness" from Ethics for the Declaration of Independence? It always seemed to me to stick out as an odd, vaguely superficial goal next to life and liberty. What is it doing there? P.O.H. has meant many things to supreme court, used in rulings covering sexual relations between races and right to privacy and even the right to operate slaughterhouses in New Orleans in 1884 case (got it from Wikipedia, folks). -

[Kendall Crolius]

Stephen and I can't make the call either, and I'm sorry we'll miss the discussion.

I agree with Aristotle that character is action, and have always been puzzled that the debate over grace vs works has been going on for centuries. Are we obligated to take positive actions/do good works to be a good person? You'd think so, but the Protestant revolution made a huge deal out of this issue, taking the position expressed in Ephesians:"By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9) In any case, I try to do good works. (Guess that's me boasting...oops.)
Kendall

[Mark Casey]

I recently read a book called "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong" by an educator named William Kilpatrick.

He points to the Enlightenment as saying we can reason our way to good ethical judgments, and the Romanticists as saying we can "intuit" our way to good ethical judgments (i.e. our basic nature is good so all those good ethical judgments are in there if we go looking for them), but argues that both those approaches miss the key point about ethics -- Aristotle's -- which is that people in general -- especially children -- develop their ethics through the practice of good acts.

He gives some fascinating examples of how ethics are taught in schools these days -- without reference to any actual value system other than "do what feels right" or "do what you think is right" -- and makes a pretty good defense of reading great books as a way for children to be inspired to develop a strong character.

Worth a read.

[Bill Swislow]

The Christian grace vs. works issue is a matter of theological rather than philosophical dispute. The concept of grace basically says that human works are all so trivial as to not carry moral weight outside the confines of human society. It takes an act of God – grace – to qualify humans for goodness by heavenly standards. God created us in a state of grace – the initial goodness of Adam and Eve – but we lost that state with the Fall and can only retrieve it as a gift from god.

Of course, Aristotle, and most moral philosophers, are focused on those confines of human society since celestial goodness is so clearly outside our control.

[Paul Gaetani]

One of the issues that I think is at play is how we ascertain who is and isn’t good. Most everybody you ask would say they think they are good, and they do good. But ask others about that same person, and you will most likely receive some amount of variance in the assessment of their goodness. All of this points to moral relativism, each person judging themselves according to themselves and others. While it is an impossible task I do think there is great value in trying to determine some external standard for evaluating one’s goodness. We all know how effective we can be when justifying and rationalizing our own behavior. Seeking some external framework allows us to view ourselves more objectively, and hopefully become more effective on our journey to goodness.

[Jennifer Skibo]

I found that theme interesting as well – moral relativism, as you eloquently define it (thank you).

My interpretation of Book II left me thinking that Aristotle was trying to borrow some mathematical principles (a la the “mean”, for example) as a framework to more precisely pinpoint where acts or traits are seen as virtuous and at what degree of variation on the continuum these same acts or traits become detrimental to character. I think he admits, though, that variation in perception (or moral relativism?) is why that objective framework appears to be so difficult to conjure.

[Tim Albright]

This is a nice discussion and also part of what struck me.  I wrote "what about context?" in many of the margins.  My other thoughts from reading in brief before our discussion tonight:
 
1.  General:
a. First, kudos to Phil for the order we've read so far.   I really felt "Aristotle-Ready" as I got to this reading because I'm so familiar with the argumentation, structure, teleology, and so on.  Glad we've gone as we did.
b. I have talked to a lot of friends about this, and it is just shocking how difficult it is to define eudaimonia.
c. The "craft" references really broke down for me.  Aristotle touches on this, but not all lute players are equal no matter how much they practice.  Do the better ones bring different skills or natural (pre-existing) skills to the task?  More to this that we can discuss.
 
2.  [Book I, Chapter 5]  I was struck that virtue can be incomplete as "actually compatible with being asleep," inactivity, et cetera.  Is doing no harm (even by doing nothing) not a virtue?
3.  [1097.15-25]  Per the discussion below, I'd add the question of intent to the relativity.  Aristotle touches on this later, but intent is surely related to what we consider "noble".
4.  [1099.5-6]  "so those who act win, and rightly win, the noble and good things in life."  I get the point about "acting" but it is arguable that this is always true.
5.  [1100.22-24] "worthy life" and impact on descendants (see also the discussions of Priam).  Do we have to wait to the end of a life to determine if it was happy?  What if Priam had died suddenly?
6.  [1104.5-9]  Particular cases really matter.  What about social norms in this mix of relativity?
7.  [1105.13-18]  I like this little nudge at other philosophers.  :-)
8.  [1107.25-26]  "for in general there is neither a mean of excess and deficiency, nor excess and deficiency of a mean."  This is a clever phrase but I'm not convinced.  The overall discussion of the "mean" in relation to the best and least best felt a little tortured to me.  What is "intermediate" really does depend on context and intent.
9.  [Book III, chapter 1]  I would like to discuss this more.  I kept thinking of recent thought experiments around throwing a train switch to save some victims at the expense other victims.
10.  [Book III middle]  The whole discussion of passion, courage, fear, pleasure, pain, and so on was really interesting.  I don't agree with all of it and, again, the context really matters.
 
There's a lot more to discuss.  Looking forward to the call tonight.
 
Tim

[Ravi Bhatia]

Lot's of great dialogue. The importance of the virtuous path is emphasized. In an earlier note, the relative nature was pointed out. There is good and then there is the "greater good". Man has often politicized the "greater good" as a justification for actions which by themselves are not good. Therefore, we appreciate Aristotle's ability to bring objectivity to ideas such as virtuosity and the path which leads to happiness. See you on the call tonight.

Ravi

[Phil Terry]

Thank you for this vigorous e-mail dialogue before our call.

Let me throw out some fun and serious questions to think about:

- Can you cite the passage where Aristotle directly (first) attacks Plato? (for those of you who read Plato last year). Hint: it's in the first book of our reading.

- Can you cite the passage where Aristotle refers to an important story in Book 1 of Herodotus? Hint: He does not reference Herodotus by name. Hint: Tim references it indirectly in his comments below.

- Does Aristotle successfully prove that happiness is the final good?

- Activity - a lot of the dialogue in this e-mail exchange has been about activity - and acts or actions. What do you believe? Is action or intention more important?

- Earlier in our reading - in "On the Soul" - Aristotle talks about wisdom as a habit. He again references habits here. What's up with habits? As Bruce points out "ethos" root means habit. What does A mean? Do you agree?

- How does Aristotle define virtue? Does he prove virtues are states of character?

- Aristotle makes an interesting yet subtle point about precision is not needed in the same way in every case. What do you think about that statement? This will later play an important role in Barry Schwartz's interpretation of A's Ethics. Is Jennifer right? Is Aristotle trying to bring a mathematical precision to the question of ethics?

- What would modern psychologists say about Aristotle's statement that "shame is not a virtue." page 961. Shame is a major part of depression and modern psychology. Some people wear shame almost as a badge of honor. What would Aristotle say to them? Later Aristotle says self-indulgence is more a voluntary state. Is there a relationship here in his thinking?

- Is moral virtue a mean? Is it an average between extremes? Is Aristotle taking the position that virtue is a compromise? Moderation?

- What do you think about Aristotle's dialogue about voluntary vs. involuntary? is this the basis of modern legal standards concerning involuntary manslaughter? How does Aristotle's thinking still inform our daily life?

- Choice. Barry Schwartz, our speaker in September who has studied closely our reading, also wrote a book called "Paradox of Choice" What does Aristotle say about choice? About choice and wish?

- Magnificence. Hedy - do you agree that "the magnificent man is like an artist." (in book IV - you may not have gotten there yet).

- How would you summarize Aristotle's logic throughout these readings? Tim refers below to the sequence of our readings. Are you compelled by how Aristotle thinks? Do you believe it may inform our culture today and widely-held assumptions or beliefs? Has Aristotle brought objectivity to "virtuousity" as Ravi says below?

Phil