The _Ethics_ of Aristotle is one half of a single treatise of which his
_Politics_ is the other half. Both deal with one and the same subject
This subject is what Aristotle calls in one place the "philosophy of
Human affairs;" but more frequently Political or Social Science. In the
Two works taken together we have their author's whole theory of human
Conduct or practical activity, that is, of all human activity which
Is not directed merely to knowledge or truth. The two parts of this
Treatise are mutually complementary, but in a literary sense each
Is independent and self-contained. The proem to the _Ethics_ is an
Introduction to the whole subject, not merely to the first part; the
Last chapter of the _Ethics_ points forward to the _Politics_, and
Sketches for that part of the treatise the order of enquiry to be
Pursued (an order which in the actual treatise is not adhered to)
The principle of distribution of the subject-matter between the two
Works is far from obvious, and has been much debated. Not much can be
Gathered from their titles, which in any case were not given to them by
Their author. Nor do these titles suggest any very compact unity in the
Works to which they are applied: the plural forms, which survive so
Oddly in English (Ethic_s_, Politic_s_), were intended to indicate the
Treatment within a single work of a _group_ of connected questions. The
Unity of the first group arises from their centring round the topic of
Character, that of the second from their connection with the existence
And life of the city or state. We have thus to regard the _Ethics_ as
Dealing with one group of problems and the _Politics_ with a second
Both falling within the wide compa** of Political Science. Each of these
Groups falls into sub-groups which roughly correspond to the several
Books in each work. The tendency to take up one by one the various
Problems which had suggested themselves in the wide field obscures both
The unity of the subject-matter and its proper articulation. But it is
To be remembered that what is offered us is avowedly rather an enquiry
Than an exposition of hard and fast doctrine
Nevertheless each work aims at a relative completeness, and it is
Important to observe the relation of each to the other. The distinction
Is not that the one treats of Moral and the other of Political
Philosophy, nor again that the one deals with the moral activity of the
Individual and the other with that of the State, nor once more that the
One gives us the theory of human conduct, while the other discusses its
Application in practice, though not all of these misinterpretations are
Equally erroneous. The clue to the right interpretation is given by
Aristotle himself, where in the last chapter of the _Ethics_ he is
Paving the way for the _Politics_. In the _Ethics_ he has not confined
Himself to the abstract or isolated individual, but has always thought
Of him, or we might say, in his social and political context, with a
Given nature due to race and heredity and in certain surroundings
So viewing him he has studied the nature and formation of his
Character--all that he can make himself or be made by others to be
Especially he has investigated the various admirable forms of human
Character and the mode of their production. But all this, though it
Brings more clearly before us what goodness or virtue is, and how it is
To be reached, remains mere theory or talk. By itself it does not
Enable us to become, or to help others to become, good. For this it is
Necessary to bring into play the great force of the Political Community
Or State, of which the main instrument is Law. Hence arises the demand
For the necessary complement to the _Ethics, i.e._, a treatise devoted
To the questions which centre round the enquiry; by what organisation
Of social or political forces, by what laws or institutions can we best
Secure the greatest amount of good character?
We must, however, remember that the production of good character is not
The end of either individual or state action: that is the aim of the one
And the other because good character is the indispensable condition and
Chief determinant of happiness, itself the goal of all human doing. The
End of all action, individual or collective, is the greatest happiness
Of the greatest number. There is, Aristotle insists, no difference of
Kind between the good of one and the good of many or all. The sole
Difference is one of amount or scale. This does not mean simply that the
State exists to secure in larger measure the objects of degree which the
Isolated individual attempts, but is too feeble, to secure without it
On the contrary, it rather insists that whatever goods society alone
Enables a man to secure have always had to the individual--whether he
Realised it or not--the value which, when so secured, he recognises them
To possess. The best and happiest life for the individual is that which
The State renders possible, and this it does mainly by revealing to him
The value of new objects of desire and educating him to appreciate them
To Aristotle or to Plato the State is, above all, a large and powerful
Educative agency which gives the individual increased opportunities of
Self-development and greater capacities for the enjoyment of life
Looking forward, then, to the life of the State as that which aids
Support, and combines the efforts of the individual to obtain happiness
Aristotle draws no hard and fast distinction between the spheres of
Action of Man as individual and Man as citizen. Nor does the division of
His discussion into the _Ethics_ and the _Politics_ rest upon any such
Distinction. The distinction implied is rather between two stages in the
Life of the civilised man--the stage of preparation for the full life of
The adult citizen, and the stage of the actual exercise or enjoyment of
Citizenship. Hence the _Ethics_, where his attention is directed upon
The formation of character, is largely and centrally a treatise on Moral
Education. It discusses especially those admirable human qualities which
Fit a man for life in an organised civic community, which makes him "a
Good citizen," and considers how they can be fostered or created and
Their opposites prevented
This is the kernel of the _Ethics_, and all the rest is subordinate to
This main interest and purpose. Yet "the rest" is not irrelevant; the
Whole situation in which character grows and operates is concretely
Conceived. There is a basis of what we should call Psychology, sketched
In firm outlines, the deeper presuppositions and the wider issues of
Human character and conduct are not ignored, and there is no little of
What we should call Metaphysics. But neither the Psychology nor the
Metaphysics is elaborated, and only so much is brought forward as
Appears necessary to put the main facts in their proper perspective
And setting. It is this combination of width of outlook with close
Observation of the concrete facts of conduct which gives its abiding
Value to the work, and justifies the view of it as containing
Aristotle's Moral Philosophy. Nor is it important merely as summing up
The moral judgments and speculations of an age now long past. It seizes
And dwells upon those elements and features in human practice which are
Most essential and permanent, and it is small wonder that so much in it
Survives in our own ways of regarding conduct and speaking of it. Thus
It still remains one of the cla**ics of Moral Philosophy, nor is its
Value likely soon to be exhausted
As was pointed out above, the proem (Book I., cc. i-iii.) is a prelude
To the treatment of the whole subject covered by the _Ethics_ and the
_Politics_ together. It sets forth the purpose of the enquiry, describes
The spirit in which it is to be undertaken and what ought to be the
Expectation of the reader, and lastly states the necessary conditions
Of studying it with profit. The aim of it is the acquisition and
Propagation of a certain kind of knowledge (science), but this knowledge
And the thinking which brings it about are subsidiary to a practical
End. The knowledge aimed at is of what is best for man and of the
Conditions of its realisation. Such knowledge is that which in its
Consumate form we find in great statesmen, enabling them to organise and
Administer their states and regulate by law the life of the citizens
To their advantage and happiness, but it is the same kind of knowledge
Which on a smaller scale secures success in the management of the family
Or of private life
It is characteristic of such knowledge that it should be deficient
In "exactness," in precision of statement, and closeness of logical
Concatenation. We must not look for a mathematics of conduct. The
Subject-matter of Human Conduct is not governed by necessary and uniform
Laws. But this does not mean that it is subject to no laws. There
Are general principles at work in it, and these can be formulated in
"rules," which rules can be systematised or unified. It is all-important
To remember that practical or moral rules are only general and always
Admit of exceptions, and that they arise not from the mere complexity
Of the facts, but from the liability of the facts to a certain
Unpredictable variation. At their very best, practical rules state
Probabilities, not certainties; a relative constancy of connection is
All that exists, but it is enough to serve as a guide in life. Aristotle
Here holds the balance between a misleading hope of reducing the
Subject-matter of conduct to a few simple rigorous abstract principles
With conclusions necessarily issuing from them, and the view that it is
The field of operation of inscrutable forces acting without predictable
Regularity. He does not pretend to find in it absolute uniformities, or
To deduce the details from his principles. Hence, too, he insists on the
Necessity of experience as the source or test of all that he has to
Say. Moral experience--the actual possession and exercise of good
Character--is necessary truly to understand moral principles and
Profitably to apply them. The mere intellectual apprehension of them is
Not possible, or if possible, profitless
The _Ethics_ is addressed to students who are presumed both to have
Enough general education to appreciate these points, and also to have a
Solid foundation of good habits. More than that is not required for the
Profitable study of it
If the discussion of the nature and formation of character be regarded
As the central topic of the _Ethics_, the contents of Book I., cc
Iv.-xii. may be considered as still belonging to the introduction and
Setting, but these chapters contain matter of profound importance and
Have exercised an enormous influence upon subsequent thought. They lay
Down a principle which governs all Greek thought about human life, viz
That it is only intelligible when viewed as directed towards some end or
Good. This is the Greek way of expressing that all human life involves
An ideal element--something which it is not yet and which under certain
Conditions it is to be. In that sense Greek Moral Philosophy is
Essentially idealistic. Further it is always a**umed that all human
Practical activity is directed or "oriented" to a _single_ end, and that
That end is knowable or definable in advance of its realisation. To know
It is not merely a matter of speculative interest, it is of the highest
Practical moment for only in the light of it can life be duly guided
And particularly only so can the state be properly organised and
Administered. This explains the stress laid throughout by Greek Moral
Philosophy upon the necessity of knowledge as a condition of the best
Life. This knowledge is not, though it includes knowledge of the nature
Of man and his circumstances, it is knowledge of what is best--of man's
Supreme end or good
But this end is not conceived as presented to him by a superior power
Nor even as something which _ought_ to be. The presentation of the Moral
Ideal as Duty is almost absent. From the outset it is identified with
The object of desire, of what we not merely judge desirable but actually
Do desire, or that which would, if realised, satisfy human desire. In
Fact it is what we all, wise and simple, agree in naming "Happiness"
(Welfare or Well-being)
In what then does happiness consist? Aristotle summarily sets aside the
More or less popular identifications of it with abundance of physical
Pleasures, with political power and honour, with the mere possession of
Such superior gifts or attainments as normally entitle men to these
With wealth. None of these can constitute the end or good of man as
Such. On the other hand, he rejects his master Plato's conception of a
Good which is the end of the whole universe, or at least dismisses it
As irrelevant to his present enquiry. The good towards which all human
Desires and practical activities are directed must be one conformable to
Man's special nature and circumstances and attainable by his efforts
There is in Aristotle's theory of human conduct no trace of Plato's
"other worldliness", he brings the moral ideal in Bacon's phrase down to
"right earth"--and so closer to the facts and problems of actual human
Living. Turning from criticism of others he states his own positive view
Of Happiness, and, though he avowedly states it merely in outline his
Account is pregnant with significance. Human Happiness lies in activity
Or energising, and that in a way peculiar to man with his given nature
And his given circumstances, it is not theoretical, but practical: it is
The activity not of reason but still of a being who possesses reason and
Applies it, and it presupposes in that being the development, and
Not merely the natural possession, of certain relevant powers and
Capacities. The last is the prime condition of successful living
And therefore of satisfaction, but Aristotle does not ignore other
Conditions, such as length of life, wealth and good luck, the absence or
Diminution of which render happiness not impossible, but difficult of
Attainment
It is interesting to compare this account of Happiness with Mill's
In _Utilitarianism_. Mill's is much the less consistent: at times
He distinguishes and at times he identifies, happiness, pleasure
Contentment, and satisfaction. He wavers between belief in its general
Attainability and an absence of hopefulness. He mixes up in an arbitrary
Way such ingredients as "not expecting more from life than it is capable
Of bestowing," "mental cultivation," "improved laws," etc., and in fact
Leaves the whole conception vague, blurred, and uncertain. Aristotle
Draws the outline with a firmer hand and presents a more definite ideal
He allows for the influence on happiness of conditions only partly, if
At all, within the control of man, but he clearly makes the man positive
Determinant of man's happiness he in himself, and more particularly
In what he makes directly of his own nature, and so indirectly of his
Circumstances. "'Tis in ourselves that we are thus or thus" But once
More this does not involve an artificial or abstract isolation of the
Individual moral agent from his relation to other persons or things from
His context in society and nature, nor ignore the relative dependence of
His life upon a favourable environment
The main factor which determines success or failure in human life is the
Acquisition of certain powers, for Happiness is just the exercise or
Putting forth of these in actual living, everything else is secondary
And subordinate. These powers arise from the due development of certain
Natural aptitudes which belong (in various degrees) to human nature as
Such and therefore to all normal human beings. In their developed
Form they are known as virtues (the Greek means simply "goodnesses,"
"perfections," "excellences," or "fitnesses"), some of them are
Physical, but others are psychical, and among the latter some, and these
Distinctively or peculiarly human, are "rational," _i e_, presuppose the
Possession and exercise of mind or intelligence. These last fall into
Two groups, which Aristotle distinguishes as Goodnesses of Intellect and
Goodnesses of Character. They have in common that they all excite in us
Admiration and praise of their possessors, and that they are not natural
Endowments, but acquired characteristics But they differ in important
Ways. (1) the former are excellences or developed powers of the
Reason as such--of that in us which sees and formulates laws, rules
Regularities systems, and is content in the vision of them, while the
Latter involve a submission or obedience to such rules of something
In us which is in itself capricious and irregular, but capable of
Regulation, viz our instincts and feelings, (2) the former are acquired
By study and instruction, the latter by discipline. The latter
Constitute "character," each of them as a "moral virtue" (literally "a
Goodness of character"), and upon them primarily depends the realisation
Of happiness. This is the case at least for the great majority of men
And for all men their possession is an indispensable basis of the
Best, _i e_, the most desirable life. They form the chief or central
Subject-matter of the _Ethics_
Perhaps the truest way of conceiving Aristotle's meaning here is to
Regard a moral virtue as a form of obedience to a maxim or rule of
Conduct accepted by the agent as valid for a cla** of recurrent
Situations in human life. Such obedience requires knowledge of the rule
And acceptance of it _as the rule_ of the agent's own actions, but not
Necessarily knowledge of its ground or of its systematic connexion with
Other similarly known and similarly accepted rules (It may be remarked
That the Greek word usually translated "reason," means in almost all
Cases in the _Ethics_ such a rule, and not the faculty which apprehends
Formulates, considers them)
The "moral virtues and vices" make up what we call character, and the
Important questions arise: (1) What is character? and (2) How is it
Formed? (for character in this sense is not a natural endowment; it is
Formed or produced). Aristotle deals with these questions in the reverse
Order. His answers are peculiar and distinctive--not that they are
Absolutely novel (for they are anticipated in Plato), but that by him
They are for the first time distinctly and clearly formulated
(1.) Character, good or bad, is produced by what Aristotle calls
"habituation," that is, it is the result of the repeated doing of acts
Which have a similar or common quality. Such repetition acting upon
Natural aptitudes or propensities gradually fixes them in one or other
Of two opposite directions, giving them a bias towards good or evil
Hence the several acts which determine goodness or badness of character
Must be done in a certain way, and thus the formation of good character
Requires discipline and direction from without. Not that the agent
Himself contributes nothing to the formation of his character, but that
At first he needs guidance. The point is not so much that the process
Cannot be safely left to Nature, but that it cannot be entrusted to
Merely intellectual instruction. The process is one of a**imilation
Largely by imitation and under direction and control. The result is a
Growing understanding of what is done, a choice of it for its own sake
A fixity and steadiness of purpose. Right acts and feelings become
Through habit, easier and more pleasant, and the doing of them a "second
Nature." The agent acquires the power of doing them freely, willingly
More and more "of himself."
But what are "right" acts? In the first place, they are those that
Conform to a rule--to the right rule, and ultimately to reason. The
Greeks never waver from the conviction that in the end moral conduct is
Essentially reasonable conduct. But there is a more significant way of
Describing their "rightness," and here for the first time Aristotle
Introduces his famous "Doctrine of the Mean." Reasoning from the an*logy
Of "right" physical acts, he pronounces that rightness always means
Adaptation or adjustment to the special requirements of a situation. To
This adjustment he gives a quantitative interpretation. To do (or to
Feel) what is right in a given situation is to do or to feel just the
Amount required--neither more nor less: to do wrong is to do or to
Feel too much or too little--to fall short of or over-shoot, "a mean"
Determined by the situation. The repetition of acts which lie in the
Mean is the cause of the formation of each and every "goodness of
Character," and for this "rules" can be given
(2) What then is a "moral virtue," the result of such a process duly
Directed? It is no mere mood of feeling, no mere liability to emotion
No mere natural aptitude or endowment, it is a permanent _state_ of the
Agent's self, or, as we might in modern phrase put it, of his will
It consists in a steady self-imposed obedience to a rule of action
In certain situations which frequently recur in human life. The rule
Prescribes the control and regulation within limits of the agent's
Natural impulses to act and feel thus and thus. The situations fall into
Groups which constitute the "fields" of the several "moral virtues"
For each there is a rule, conformity to which secures rightness in
The individual acts. Thus the moral ideal appears as a code of
Rules, accepted by the agent, but as yet _to him_ without rational
Justification and without system or unity. But the rules prescribe no
Mechanical uniformity: each within its limits permits variety, and the
Exactly right amount adopted to the requirements of the individual
Situation (and every actual situation is individual) must be determined
By the intuition of the moment. There is no attempt to reduce the rich
Possibilities of right action to a single monotonous type. On the
Contrary, there are acknowledged to be many forms of moral virtue, and
There is a long list of them, with their correlative vices enumerated
The Doctrine of the Mean here takes a form in which it has impressed
Subsequent thinkers, but which has less importance than is usually
Ascribed to it. In the "Table of the Virtues and Vices," each of the
Virtues is flanked by two opposite vices, which are respectively the
Excess and defect of that which in due measure constitutes the virtue
Aristotle tries to show that this is the case in regard to every virtue
Named and recognised as such, but his treatment is often forced and the
Endeavour is not very successful. Except as a convenient principle
Of arrangement of the various forms of praiseworthy or blameworthy
Characters, generally acknowledged as such by Greek opinion, this form
Of the doctrine is of no great significance
Books III-V are occupied with a survey of the moral virtues and vices
These seem to have been undertaken in order to verify in detail the
General account, but this aim is not kept steadily in view. Nor is there
Any well-considered principle of cla**ification. What we find is a sort
Of portrait-gallery of the various types of moral excellence which
The Greeks of the author's age admired and strove to encourage. The
Discussion is full of acute, interesting and sometimes profound
Observations. Some of the types are those which are and will be admired
At all times, but others are connected with peculiar features of Greek
Life which have now pa**ed away. The most important is that of Justice
Or the Just Man, to which we may later return. But the discussion is
Preceded by an attempt to elucidate some difficult and obscure points in
The general account of moral virtue and action (Book III, cc i-v). This
Section is concerned with the notion of Responsibility. The discussion
Designedly excludes what we may call the metaphysical issues of the
Problem, which here present themselves, it moves on the level of thought
Of the practical man, the statesman, and the legislator. Coercion and
Ignorance of relevant circumstances render acts involuntary and exempt
Their doer from responsibility, otherwise the act is voluntary and the
Agent responsible, choice or preference of what is done, and inner
Consent to the deed, are to be presumed. Neither pa**ion nor ignorance
Of the right rule can extenuate responsibility. But there is a
Difference between acts done voluntarily and acts done of _set_ choice
Or purpose. The latter imply Deliberation. Deliberation involves
Thinking, thinking out means to ends: in deliberate acts the whole
Nature of the agent consents to and enters into the act, and in a
Peculiar sense they are his, they _are_ him in action, and the most
Significant evidence of what he is. Aristotle is unable wholly to avoid
Allusion to the metaphysical difficulties and what he does here say upon
Them is obscure and unsatisfactory. But he insists upon the importance
In moral action of the agent's inner consent, and on the reality of his
Individual responsibility. For his present purpose the metaphysical
Difficulties are irrelevant
The treatment of Justice in Book V has always been a source of great
Difficulty to students of the _Ethics_. Almost more than any other part
Of the work it has exercised influence upon mediaeval and modern thought
Upon the subject. The distinctions and divisions have become part of the
Stock-in-trade of would be philosophic jurists. And yet, oddly enough
Most of these distinctions have been misunderstood and the whole purport
Of the discussion misconceived. Aristotle is here dealing with justice
In a restricted sense viz as that special goodness of character which
Is required of every adult citizen and which can be produced by early
Discipline or habituation. It is the temper or habitual attitude
Demanded of the citizen for the due exercise of his functions as taking
Part in the administration of the civic community--as a member of the
Judicature and executive. The Greek citizen was only exceptionally, and
At rare intervals if ever, a law-maker while at any moment he might
Be called upon to act as a judge (juryman or arbitrator) or as an
Administrator. For the work of a legislator far more than the moral
Virtue of justice or fairmindedness was necessary, these were requisite
To the rarer and higher "intellectual virtue" of practical wisdom. Then
Here, too, the discussion moves on a low level, and the raising of
Fundamental problems is excluded. Hence "distributive justice" is
Concerned not with the large question of the distribution of political
Power and privileges among the constituent members or cla**es of the
State but with the smaller questions of the distribution among those of
Casual gains and even with the division among private claimants of a
Common fund or inheritance, while "corrective justice" is concerned
Solely with the management of legal redress. The whole treatment is
Confused by the unhappy attempt to give a precise mathematical form to
The principles of justice in the various fields distinguished. Still it
Remains an interesting first endeavour to give greater exactness to some
Of the leading conceptions of jurisprudence
Book VI appears to have in view two aims: (1) to describe goodness of
Intellect and discover its highest form or forms; (2) to show how this
Is related to goodness of character, and so to conduct generally. As all
Thinking is either theoretical or practical, goodness of intellect has
_two_ supreme forms--Theoretical and Practical Wisdom. The first, which
Apprehends the eternal laws of the universe, has no direct relation to
Human conduct: the second is identical with that master science of human
Life of which the whole treatise, consisting of the _Ethics_ and the
_Politics_, is an exposition. It is this science which supplies the
Right rules of conduct Taking them as they emerge in and from practical
Experience, it formulates them more precisely and organises them into a
System where they are all seen to converge upon happiness. The mode in
Which such knowledge manifests itself is in the power to show that such
And such rules of action follow from the very nature of the end or good
For man. It presupposes and starts from a clear conception of the end
And the wish for it as conceived, and it proceeds by a deduction which
Is dehberation writ large. In the man of practical wisdom this process
Has reached its perfect result, and the code of right rules is
Apprehended as a system with a single principle and so as something
Wholly rational or reasonable He has not on each occasion to seek and
Find the right rule applicable to the situation, he produces it at
Once from within himself, and can at need justify it by exhibiting its
Rationale, _i.e._ , its connection with the end. This is the consummate
Form of reason applied to conduct, but there are minor forms of it, less
Independent or original, but nevertheless of great value, such as the
Power to think out the proper cause of policy in novel circumstances or
The power to see the proper line of treatment to follow in a court of
Law
The form of the thinking which enters into conduct is that which
Terminates in the production of a rule which declares some means to the
End of life. The process presupposes _(a)_ a clear and just apprehension
Of the nature of that end--such as the _Ethics_ itself endeavours to
Supply; _(b)_ a correct perception of the conditions of action, _(a)_ at
Least is impossible except to a man whose character has been duly formed
By discipline; it arises only in a man who has acquired moral virtue
For such action and feeling as forms bad character, blinds the eye of
The soul and corrupts the moral principle, and the place of practical
Wisdom is taken by that parody of itself which Aristotle calls
"cleverness"--the "wisdom" of the unscrupulous man of the world. Thus
True practical wisdom and true goodness of character are interdependent;
Neither is genuinely possible or "completely" present without the other
This is Aristotle's contribution to the discussion of the question, so
Central in Greek Moral Philosophy, of the relation of the intellectual
And the pa**ionate factors in conduct
Aristotle is not an intuitionist, but he recognises the implication in
Conduct of a direct and immediate apprehension both of the end and of
The character of his circumstances under which it is from moment to
Moment realised. The directness of such apprehension makes it an*logous
To sensation or sense-perception; but it is on his view in the end due
To the existence or activity in man of that power in him which is the
Highest thing in his nature, and akin to or identical with the divine
Nature--mind, or intelligence. It is this which reveals to us what is
Best for us--the ideal of a happiness which is the object of our real
Wish and the goal of all our efforts. But beyond and above the practical
Ideal of what is best _for man_ begins to show itself another and still
Higher ideal--that of a life not distinctively human or in a narrow
Sense practical, yet capable of being participated in by man even under
The actual circumstances of this world. For a time, however, this
Further and higher ideal is ignored
The next book (Book VII.), is concerned partly with moral conditions, in
Which the agent seems to rise above the level of moral virtue or fall
Below that of moral vice, but partly and more largely with conditions in
Which the agent occupies a middle position between the two. Aristotle's
Attention is here directed chiefly towards the phenomena of
"Incontinence," weakness of will or imperfect self-control. This
Condition was to the Greeks a matter of only too frequent experience
But it appeared to them peculiarly difficult to understand. How can a
Man know what is good or best for him, and yet chronically fail to act
Upon his knowledge? Socrates was driven to the paradox of denying the
Possibility, but the facts are too strong for him. Knowledge of the
Right rule may be present, nay the rightfulness of its authority may be
Acknowledged, and yet time after time it may be disobeyed; the will may
Be good and yet overmastered by the force of desire, so that the act
Done is contrary to the agent's will. Nevertheless the act may be the
Agent's, and the will therefore divided against itself. Aristotle is
Aware of the seriousness and difficulty of the problem, but in spite of
The vividness with which he pictures, and the acuteness with which he
an*lyses, the situation in which such action occurs, it cannot be said
That he solves the problem. It is time that he rises above the abstract
View of it as a conflict between reason and pa**ion, recognising that
Pa**ion is involved in the knowledge which in conduct prevails or is
Overborne, and that the force which leads to the wrong act is not blind
Or ignorant pa**ion, but always has some reason in it. But he tends to
Lapse back into the abstraction, and his final account is perplexed and
Obscure. He finds the source of the phenomenon in the nature of the
Desire for bodily pleasures, which is not irrational but has something
Rational in it. Such pleasures are not necessarily or inherently bad, as
Has sometimes been maintained; on the contrary, they are good, but only
In certain amounts or under certain conditions, so that the will is
Often misled, hesitates, and is lost
Books VIII. and IX. (on Friendship) are almost an interruption of the
Argument. The subject-matter of them was a favourite topic of ancient
Writers, and the treatment is smoother and more orderly than elsewhere
In the _Ethics_. The argument is clear, and may be left without
Comment to the readers. These books contain a necessary and attractive
Complement to the somewhat dry account of Greek morality in the
Preceding books, and there are in them profound reflections on what may
Be called the metaphysics of friendship or love
At the beginning of Book X. we return to the topic of Pleasure, which
Is now regarded from a different point of view. In Book VII. the
Antagonists were those who over-emphasised the irrationality or badness
Of Pleasure: here it is rather those who so exaggerate its value as to
Confuse or identify it with the good or Happiness. But there is offered
Us in this section much more than criticism of the errors of others
Answers are given both to the psychological question, "What is
Pleasure?" and to the ethical question, "What is its value?" Pleasure
We are told, is the natural concomitant and index of perfect activity
Distinguishable but inseparable from it--"the activity of a subject at
Its best acting upon an object at its best." It is therefore always
And in itself a good, but its value rises and falls with that of the
Activity with which it is conjoined, and which it intensifies and
Perfects. Hence it follows that the highest and best pleasures are those
Which accompany the highest and best activity
Pleasure is, therefore, a necessary element in the best life, but it is
Not the whole of it nor the principal ingredient. The value of a life
Depends upon the nature and worth of the activity which it involves;
Given the maximum of full free action, the maximum of pleasure necessary
Follows. But on what sort of life is such activity possible? This leads
Us back to the question, What is happiness? In what life can man find
The fullest satisfaction for his desires? To this question Aristotle
Gives an answer which cannot but surprise us after what has preceded
True Happiness, great satisfaction, cannot be found by man in any form
Of "practical" life, no, not in the fullest and freest exercise possible
Of the "moral virtues," not in the life of the citizen or of the
Great soldier or statesman. To seek it there is to court failure and
Disappointment. It is to be found in the life of the onlooker, the
Disinterested spectator; or, to put it more distinctly, "in the life of
The philosopher, the life of scientific and philosophic contemplation."
The highest and most satisfying form of life possible to man is "the
Contemplative life"; it is only in a secondary sense and for those
Incapable of their life, that the practical or moral ideal is the best
It is time that such a life is not distinctively human, but it is the
Privilege of man to partake in it, and such participation, at however
Rare intervals and for however short a period, is the highest Happiness
Which human life can offer. All other activities have value only because
And in so far as they render _this_ life possible
But it must not be forgotten that Aristotle conceives of this life as
One of intense activity or energising: it is just this which gives it
Its supremacy. In spite of the almost religious fervour with which he
Speaks of it ("the most orthodox of his disciples" paraphrases his
Meaning by describing its content as "the service and vision of God")
It is clear that he identified it with the life of the philosopher, as
He understood it, a life of ceaseless intellectual activity in which at
Least at times all the distractions and disturbances inseparable from
Practical life seemed to disappear and become as nothing. This ideal was
Partly an inheritance from the more ardent idealism of his master Plato
But partly it was the expression of personal experience
The nobility of this ideal cannot be questioned; the conception of the
End of man or a life lived for truth--of a life blissfully absorbed in
The vision of truth--is a lofty and inspiring one. But we cannot resist
Certain criticisms upon its presentation by Aristotle: (1) the relation
Of it to the lower ideal of practice is left somewhat obscure; (2) it is
Described in such a way as renders its realisation possible only to a
Gifted few, and under exceptional circumstances; (3) it seems in various
Ways, as regards its content, to be unnecessarily and unjustifiably
Limited. But it must be borne in mind that this is a first endeavour to
Determine its principle, and that similar failures have attended the
Attempts to describe the "religious" or the "spiritual" ideals of
Life, which have continually been suggested by the apparently inherent
Limitations of the "practical" or "moral" life, which is the subject of
Moral Philosophy
The Moral Ideal to those who have most deeply reflected on it leads
To the thought of an Ideal beyond and above it, which alone gives it
Meaning, but which seems to escape from definite conception by man
The richness and variety of this Ideal ceaselessly invite, but as
Ceaselessly defy, our attempts to imprison it in a definite formula or
Portray it in detailed imagination. Yet the thought of it is and remains
Inexpungable from our minds
This conception of the best life is not forgotten in the _Politics_ The
End of life in the state is itself well-living and well-doing--a life
Which helps to produce the best life The great agency in the production
Of such life is the State operating through Law, which is Reason backed
By Force. For its greatest efficiency there is required the development
Of a science of legislation. The main drift of what he says here is that
The most desirable thing would be that the best reason of the community
Should be embodied in its laws. But so far as that is not possible, it
Still is true that anyone who would make himself and others better must
Become a miniature legislator--must study the general principles of law
Morality, and education. The conception of [Grek: politikae] with which
He opened the _Ethics_ would serve as a guide to a father educating his
Children as well as to the legislator legislating for the state. Finding
In his predecessors no developed doctrine on this subject, Aristotle
Proposes himself to undertake the construction of it, and sketches in
Advance the programme of the _Politics_ in the concluding sentence of
The _Ethics_ His ultimate object is to answer the questions, What is the
Best form of Polity, how should each be constituted, and what laws and
Customs should it adopt and employ? Not till this answer is given will
"the philosophy of human affairs" be complete
On looking back it will be seen that the discussion of the central topic
Of the nature and formation of character has expanded into a Philosophy
Of Human Conduct, merging at its beginning and end into metaphysics
The result is a Moral Philosophy set against a background of Political
Theory and general Philosophy. The most characteristic features of this
Moral Philosophy are due to the fact of its essentially teleological
View of human life and action: (1) Every human activity, but especially
Every human practical activity, is directed towards a simple End
Discoverable by reflection, and this End is conceived of as the object
Of universal human desire, as something to be enjoyed, not as something
Which ought to be done or enacted. Anstotle's Moral Philosophy is not
Hedonistic but it is eudæmomstic, the end is the enjoyment of Happiness
Not the fulfilment of Duty. (2) Every human practical activity derives
Its value from its efficiency as a means to that end, it is good or bad
Right or wrong, as it conduces or fails to conduce to Happiness Thus his
Moral Philosophy is essentially utilitarian or prudential Right action
Presupposes Thought or Thinking, partly on the development of a clearer
And distincter conception of the end of desire, partly as the deduction
From that of rules which state the normally effective conditions of
Its realisation. The thinking involved in right conduct is
Calculation--calculation of means to an end fixed by nature and
Foreknowable Action itself is at its best just the realisation of a
Scheme preconceived and thought out beforehand, commending itself by its
Inherent attractiveness or promise of enjoyment
This view has the great advantage of exhibiting morality as essentially
Reasonable, but the accompanying disadvantage of lowering it into a
Somewhat prosaic and unideal Prudentialism, nor is it saved from this
By the tacking on to it, by a sort of after-thought, of the second and
Higher Ideal--an addition which ruins the coherence of the account
Without really transmuting its substance The source of our
Dissatisfaction with the whole theory lies deeper than in its tendency
To identify the end with the maximum of enjoyment or satisfaction, or to
Regard the goodness or badness of acts and feelings as lying solely in
Their efficacy to produce such a result It arises from the application
To morality of the distinction of means and end For this distinction
For all its plausibility and usefulness in ordinary thought and speech
Cannot finally be maintained In morality--and this is vital to its
Character--everything is both means and end, and so neither in
Distinction or separation, and all thinking about it which presupposes
The finality of this distinction wanders into misconception and error
The thinking which really matters in conduct is not a thinking which
Imaginatively forecasts ideals which promise to fulfil desire, or
Calculates means to their attainment--that is sometimes useful
Sometimes harmful, and always subordinate, but thinking which reveals
To the agent the situation in which he is to act, both, that is, the
Universal situation on which as man he always and everywhere stands
And the ever-varying and ever-novel situation in which he as this
Individual, here and now, finds himself. In such knowledge of given
Or historic fact lie the natural determinants of his conduct, in such
Knowledge alone lies the condition of his freedom and his good
But this does not mean that Moral Philosophy has not still much to
Learn from Aristotle's _Ethics_. The work still remains one of the best
Introductions to a study of its important subject-matter, it spreads
Before us a view of the relevant facts, it reduces them to manageable
Compa** and order, it raises some of the central problems, and makes
Acute and valuable suggestions towards their solution. Above all, it
Perpetually incites to renewed and independent reflection upon them