Aristotle’s Ethics: Teleology and Virtue

Aristotle’s Ethics
Virtue and Happiness
Teleology and Virtue
•Teleology – Aristotle’s ethical theory is teleological in nature. Teleology (for our purposes) is any philosophical theory concerned with ends and the proper means of attaining those ends. The name comes from the Greek word telos (usually translated as end, goal, or aim). So teleological ethical theories are concerned with moral aims or goals and with the proper methods for achieving this aim/goal/telos.
•Virtue Ethics – Many scholars refer to Aristotle’s moral system as a type of Virtue Ethics (indeed, he is often credited with being the father of Virtue Ethics). Virtues, according to Aristotle, are traits which are beneficial within a social context and are central to a well-lived life. Virtue Ethics was prevalent throughout the Classical Period and continues to enjoy a great deal of influence today.
Happiness as the Highest Aim
In his ethical teleology, Aristotle is looking for “some end of things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this)…” (pg. 333) Why do you think he is looking for such an “end” (telos)? Why won’t any other telos do? If he can find such an end/aim/telos of human activity, then “clearly this must be the good and the chief good.” (pg. 333) Do you agree with Aristotle in this assertion? Aristotle thinks that happiness is the only end/aim/telos that qualifies. Happiness, he argues, is the one thing “we always choose for itself and never for the sake of something else…but we choose [other things] also for the sake of happiness, judging that through them we will be happy.” (pg. 336) Do you agree with Aristotle about happiness? Is happiness the ultimate goal or highest aim of human activity? We will return to happiness later, as Aristotle has his own peculiar understanding of what it means to be happy in this ethical sense.
Aristotle vs. Plato
Aristotle agrees with Plato and Socrates that virtues (such as justice, temperance, and courage) are indispensable elements of “the good life”, but he rejects Plato’s insistence that training in Metaphysics and Epistemology is a pre-requisite for a fuller understanding of “our” good (Aristotle, unlike Plato, believed that one’s understanding of the “good” could differ depending on individual circumstances). Aristotle insisted rather that what is needed to achieve virtue is a proper appreciation of the way in which individual goods (e.g. friendship, pleasure, virtue, etc.) fit together as a whole. Along with this appreciation, the individual must also acquire, through proper upbringing and habits, the ability to see on each occasion which course of action is best supported by reason. These emotional, deliberative, and social skills cannot be acquired by mere reflection, Aristotle argued, but must be developed over time through practice and proper upbringing. This understanding cannot be acquired by learning and following general abstract rules (much like a child might learn his/her multiplication tables).
Aristotle’s Ethical Schema
Metaphysical View – there is a natural order to the universe (everything fits, everything has a purpose/aim).
Social View – the underlying metaphysical order is articulated in human society. All societies develop of necessity with purpose/aim (telos). They do not evolve accidentally.
Humanity – humans are rational (this distinguishes them from the “lesser” animals). The individual is only significant in the context of a society.
Individual Ethical Responsibility – defined in terms of each individual’s “nature”; determined by the following three elements:
Uniqueness – what sets the individual apart from others in the community?
Function – given this uniqueness, what is this individual naturally “fitted for”? What function might they perform?
Happiness – by performing a unique function in the context of a society, the individual is able to achieve true happiness (the “highest” aim).
Uniqueness, Function, Happiness: Part of Man’s Nature
The nature of man, according to Aristotle, consists in what s/he is uniquely fitted for (the individual’s function), therein lies his/her happiness. For Aristotle, uniqueness is not something that just arises out of the blue, something that the individual just chooses arbitrarily on a whim. One’s uniqueness is an expression of how one functions in the scheme of things. Uniqueness fosters virtue and reason. Reason, claims Aristotle, is a characteristic which is unique to humans and a part of our nature. Man is a rational animal. But what (exactly) is reason?
Man: the Rational Animal
Aristotle discusses different forms of reasoning in his philosophical works, so it is difficult to provide one simple definition of reason that covers them all. When Aristotle is discussing reason in a social/ethical/political context, he seems to equate it with moderation. To use reason, or abide by reason, in this context, is (for Aristotle) to choose moderation (rather than excess or deficiency). Moderate actions are to be preferred over the other two extremes. This principle is often referred to as the Principle of the Golden Mean. For Aristotle, reason does not just mean reason of the intellect, but reason in behavior/action. The contrary of this is to be impulsive. To be reasonable is to avoid extreme behavior (hence Aristotle’s anti-revolutionary attitude in his political works).
Virtue in Context
What is virtue? For Aristotle, a virtue is a type of trait, but the idea of virtue only makes sense within a social context. An act that is beneficial to the individual is also beneficial to the society which that individual inhabits (and vice versa). Happiness and morality are different sides of the same coin. Again, what is beneficial to the individual (what provides “true” happiness) and what is beneficial to the society are one and the same, according to Aristotle. It is inconceivable, Aristotle thinks, for an organism to be sustained when its happiness conflicts with ethics. But what exactly does Aristotle mean by happiness?
Eudaimonia
The Greek word Eudaimonia is typically translated as “happiness”, but it is often argued that “human flourishing” is more accurate and appropriate. For Aristotle, happiness is not synonymous with pleasure; it is rather a kind of self-fulfillment. Happiness results when one completes or serves one’s function in society, and to fulfill one’s function is to express virtue. Happiness is described as “an activity of the soul in accordance with complete excellence [or virtue]…” (pg.340) Notice that he refers to happiness as an activity (active), as opposed to a state of being (passive). It is something that must be performed, not simply suffered or experienced. This understanding of happiness is in keeping with Aristotle’s insistence that virtue is something that comes with practice and through developing habits (much like learning to play a musical instrument or developing a skill in archery).
Hamartia: “…to miss the mark…”
The Greek word hamartia is a term used by Aristotle that is often translated as sin, but which literally means a “missing of the mark.” It describes a failure of competency and is often used in reference to archery. We are aiming for moderation (the “Golden Mean”) in our ethical acts, but we often “miss the mark.” Again, like becoming a good archer, virtue is something that develops over time as a result of experience, judgment, and practice. And once the archer achieves a certain level of skill, s/he does not go back to the rules of archery every time the bow is pulled (it becomes “second nature”).
The Principle of the Golden Mean
All virtue can be taken to opposite extremes, we must look for a mean in between. (pg.342) For example, let’s look at the virtue of bravery:
deficiency
moderation
excess
cowardice
bravery
rashness
A cowardly act is one in which the person acting lacks bravery (they are “deficient”). Rashness is when someone acts irrationally, endangering themselves (and perhaps others) by rushing into danger (for example, when someone runs into a burning building just as it is about to collapse). Bravery seems to be a “Golden Mean” between these two extremes. All virtues, according to Aristotle, are expressions of the Golden Mean.
More about the Mean
Obviously, not everyone can achieve virtue and act moderately, so what is the next best thing? Aristotle suggests that if one cannot achieve moderation, then it is best to fall under the extreme which is closest to the “Golden Mean”. So what does this mean? Which of the two extremes is “closer to” (more similar to) the mean? Let’s look at bravery again:
deficiency
moderation
excess
cowardice
bravery
rashness
Which of the two extremes is “closer to” the mean of bravery? Think about it like this: would it be easier to develop bravery in someone who was cowardly, or would it be easier to do so with someone who acted rashly or recklessly? In this case, it would seem that the excessive extreme is closer to the mean than the deficient extreme. Now let’s look at another virtue…
Temperance
Temperance (according to Aristotle’s more specific definition) concerns moderation in matters of food and sex. If we focus on sex, we can consider temperance as a mean between prudishness and promiscuity:
deficiency
moderation
excess
prudishness
temperance
promiscuity
Which of the two extremes do you think is “closer to” the mean? Who is further from the mean, the total prude or the total pervert? Who do you think would have a more difficult time achieving the “Golden Mean”? It looks like, at least in this case, the deficient extreme is closer to the mean than the excessive extreme (unlike in the previous example of bravery).
Different Virtues for Different Occasions
Specific actions differ and so do their meanings. Intentions may be the same, while social gestures differ. (Ex: Japanese vs. American business etiquette). For Aristotle, it is possible for two individuals to reach the opposite conclusion but both be correct. Morality is more about the manner in which one arrives at a decision. Rightness/wrongness is not in the conclusion itself, but is determined by how one reaches the conclusion. According to Aristotle, there is no moral principle that is absolute in and of itself. Really? But what about his Principle of the Golden Mean?
The Fallacy of the Mean
Isn’t the Principle of the Golden Mean absolute? Doesn’t Aristotle say that all virtues are an expression of the mean? He would probably reply that it is not really an absolute principle, but rather a description of behavior, a description of virtuous acts. Remember in chapter 3 of Book I, Aristotle warns that the subject matter of ethics only allows for a certain amount of clearness and accuracy. You wouldn’t expect the same accuracy from an ethical science as you would from (say) a mathematical science. So his method here consists in describing virtuous actions and looking for a pattern. Aristotle claims to discern such a pattern: most virtuous actions tend to be moderate. Aristotle does acknowledge the Fallacy of the Mean: he admits that the right/virtuous action does not always fall between two extremes (in some cases, the middle view is not moderate, and in some cases, there is no middle).
Is Teleology Ethics?
This may be just teleology, and not ethics. Aristotle’s system describes the nature of the process through which one arrives at the aim, or telos, but glosses over the nature of the thing aimed at (namely: the good, virtue, happiness). How (exactly) is Aristotle supposed to ground his principle of moderation? On a basic level, moderation seems socially desirable, and the whole reason for morality (according to Aristotle) is to promote a better society. However, there is a distinction between reasons for something versus the nature of it. Teleologically, there is a reason behind Aristotle’s insistence on moderation, but does this get at the nature of good actions? If so, then it is not obvious how or why. Aristotle might point to happiness as a way of grounding his ethical system. After all, if he is right, then happiness is the one thing that we all aim at and is the highest good. But consider the following claim: “Because all people aim at thing-X, thing-X is moral/ethical.” Does this work? Just because all humans aim at a certain thing, does this necessarily make that thing morally justified? Many ethicists would say no to this and believe that teleology is not ethics.