Aristotle's Ethics

For me, reading the work's of Aristotle is usually an arduous process. Maybe something got lost in translation from Greek to Latin and Latin to English, or maybe something his notion were easier to understand in the context of the 4th century BC; either way it is very difficult for me to trudge through his words. On the contrary, this by no means that I do not get a lot out of the message Aristotle is trying to convey; I just have to work very hard to get it. With that being said, Russ Payne's synopsis of Aristotle's ethics was very refreshing. He managed to boil Aristotle's message down to the bare essentials. This meant two very important things: I did not get lost in Aristotle's excess and I gained a much better understanding of what was meant to be conveyed in Nichomacean Ethics. With this new found comprehension, I can easily highlight three key points from Russ's text.

He opens by addressing the popular conceptions of the good life, which happen to fall under four categories: pleasure, wealth, honor, and virtue. The first three of these are irrelevant and insignificant when discussing the good life based on the fact that they are superficial, distracting, and temporary. The problem is that all three of them lead to no greater ends. On the same topic, Russ then continues on to discuss the "notion of hierarchy of ends". There is certain "good" that leads to other things, but the ultimate good is that which is an end in itself. Accordingly, happiness, which is an end, is the ultimate good.

Russ then continues on to break down virtue into three categories: calculative, appetitive, and vegetative. Aristotle, and consequently Russ, says that these appetative and vegetative virtues do not make us unique based on the fact that other animals fulfill those needs as well. Calculative on the other hand sets a us apart. The rational thought that humans are capable makes them entirely unique.

The last part of Russ's article starts to get a little bit choppy based on the fact that it is broken up into one sentence paragraphs that each contain broad ans unique meaning. From what I gather, the general message behind these last ten sentences or so is this: living with moral and intellectual virtues provides the ultimate happiness, accidentally living virtuously does not produce the same results as intending to live virtuously, and that virtues are essentially parts of are character that we develop through knowledge of excess and deficiency. If I am correct in my analysis just now, this Russ's closing statements are powerful. He defines what virtues, enlightens us as to how to achieve them, and makes it clear that we cannot just stumble upon virtuous living: we must strive for it.

The feelings that this article evokes are very similar to those that Nichomacean Ethics evoked in me. This seems pretty intuitive based on the fact that they are about the exact same material and have the exact same opinion on the matter. The thing that stuck out about Russ's article in particular was his emphasis on the fact that virtuous and justice cannot be stumbled upon. They must be worked for. This is in direct contrast with the common phrase "the ends justify the means." I am still not quite sure where I stand on the matter, but Russ's input will help me define whether or not I do think that the ends justify the means.

In terms of relation to the big picture, it is clear that the very last statement "virtuous states of character are the means between 2 extremes of excess and deficiency," ties in directly with the "Not too loose, Not too Tight" article. Another application to something out of class is something that we talked about in philosophy. We talked about a hypothetical situation in regards to the greatest good. The situation involved a boy drowning in a lake and a child molester saving him only to rape him later. If this situation is thought of from and "ends justifies the means" stand point, the boys life is more valuable then the consequent molestation. It would be interesting to consider this situation in regards to Aristotle and Russ's view.

Just as with the Nichomacean ethics, I intend to apply Russ's words to my life. This includes living virtuously, setting myself apart from animals, and choosing a life that does not include superficial, limited, and worthless good. Happiness is the greatest good because it is self sufficient; I intend to prove that.

Questions -

Does Russ's analysis concern the whole Nichomacean texts, or just an excerpt?

What prompted him to make this analysis?