Good and Evil Aristotle Bases

Good and Evil

Aristotle bases ethics on his view on the universe. He considers that the universe is a strictly defined hierarchy wherein everything fulfills a particular function. He states that the highest form of existence is the life of the rational being, which is entitled to be served by lower beings. Such a conclusion made him defend slavery - since the barbarians who were normally slaves were less rational than the Greeks they served (they were simply a form of "living tool"). Aristotle also supported the killing of "non-human" animals for food and clothing.

These thoughts were the origin of his theory of ethics and human nature. Consistent with ancient Greek ideals, Aristotle argued that each being has an intrinsic potential and that it is a natural duty to put that potential to use and to develop it to the full. Such a form of life not only constitutes the goal of human beings, but it is the only one suitable for them. The potential of human beings derives from their distinctive characteristic: their ability to reason. Therefore, humans should struggle toward the full development of their reasoning powers. This way of life is perceived as good, in accordance with true nature and the most rewarding one of all. Aristotle commits a fallacy by arguing that the capacity that distinguishes humans from other beings is, consequently, the highest and best of their abilities. Although reasoning may be the best of a human being's capacities, there is no way of concluding that it is also the most distinctive feature of the human species.

Aristotle also states that investigating the human nature should reveal what we ought to do. He makes this statement by applying an analogy with the scientific methods used to investigate non-living objects. If a knife cuts, then its true nature and purpose consists of cutting well. By examining the human nature and applying similar methods, Aristotle arrives to the conclusion that discovering the nature of man would also make evident the purpose of man. This teleological approach is easily contradicted by the view that the knife exists only to fulfill a purpose for which it was created, a reasoning which is not applicable to humans, who are not created for a purpose, but are only the result of a blind process of evolution.

What Aristotle has brought to the world of thought is the notion of a final end, the summum bonum (as Medieval scholars called it). This is the overall good for all human beings, which can be found, according to Aristotle, by questioning the purpose of our actions. The final objective of all human actions is eudaimonia, usually translated as happiness. However, the modern term does not encompass the full significance of the word chosen by Aristotle to denote the living of a fulfilling and satisfying life. Used in a narrower sense, happiness understood as joy or pleasure would certainly be included in the scope of eudaimonia, but would not be limited to that.

In his endeavor to find the overall good, Aristotle separates the "instrumental goods" from "intrinsic goods." The former are good only in relation to their purpose, since they only exist to lead to something good. The latter are good in themselves. The virtues one should cultivate are also treated by the ancient thinker. He performs a classification of the virtues as they were understood during his time in his most important ethical work, the "Ethica Nicomachea" and specifies in each case what is truly virtuous and what is only considered to be virtuous. He uses an idea very important for the understanding of his ethical construction, the one of "Golden Mean," essentially similar to Buddha's middle path between self-renunciation and self-indulgency. Every virtue is the mean between two extremes: courage, for instance, is situated between its deficiency, cowardice, and its excess, foolhardiness.

Aristotle does not suggest that his idea of mean is always applicable in order to obtain the best results. Using such a landmark could also prove useful to moral education but impedes finding new ideas about virtue. One needs a prior conception of the virtue in order to make a decision about what constitutes excessive or defective aspects.

The list of virtues proposed by Aristotle is somewhat different than the list later imposed by Christian teachings. Although some virtues have kept their importance, such as temperance, courage and liberality, the philosopher also speaks about the "greatness of the soul," a virtue that would never have been accepted by the Christians, since it implies a high opinion of oneself. The corresponding vice is unjustified vanity (excess) and humility (deficiency). The Christians value humility as one of the most important virtue of a man. It is ironical that modern society, although based primarily on Christian values (since the Roman church has been the only remaining institution after the fall of the Roman empire and the only one capable, through its authority, of keeping old values regarding civilization alive), now returns to the values of ancient Greece and Rome. Vanity was definitely not considered a vice at the time. After all, there are so many books popularizing self-esteem, that it is currently impossible to say that humility still plays a major role in our lives, as a moral value.

In his "Politics," Aristotle relates to a specific manifestation of virtue. Since virtue is a specific functional excellence (the virtue of the human being is what leads him to the ultimate happiness), the specific function of the citizen is the one that leads him to the preservation of the regime. Aristotle argues "the virtue of the citizens must necessarily be with a view to the regime." The two virtues (eudaimonia and preservation of the regime) may differ to the extent the regime itself is different from the best possible regime. If they live under the best regime, citizens and their virtue are the one and the same with human beings and their virtue, because the purpose of the city is to live well, i.e. according to virtue.

The virtue of justice has also been the starting point for many controversies during the development of Western culture. Aristotle distinguishes between justice in the distribution of wealth or other goods and justice in reparation (e.g. one's punishment for a wrongful deed). The key element for justice is treating all cases alike. Aristotle thoroughly examines in his "Politics" equality and justice, especially in connection with the claims to rule of aristocracies, democracies and oligarchies. Democrats and oligarchs both make a mistake regarding the relation between wealth or freedom and equality. Oligarchs argue that, since some people are poorer, they should necessarily be treated as inferior. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that, since all people are free, they should all be treated as equals. Aristotle states that both arguments are based on a partial truth about political life and on a specific vision about justice. Justice, in his opinion, means taking equal measures for equal and unequal measures for unequals.

Justice plays a key role in the life of each city, since the city exists "not only for the sake of living but primarily for the sake of living well." The consequence resides in the argument that "virtue must be a care for each city." The corollary is that a city can foster virtue only as long as it is just. Therefore, Aristotle arrives to the conclusion that "the political good is justice." Each of the regimes analyzed by the Greek philosopher has its own partial claims to justice, thereby making it necessary to create a mix between their elements in order to obtain the best possible result and mitigate their fundamental flaws.

The two greatest moral philosophers of Ancient China were considered Confucius and Lao-tzu. Lao-tzu has founded his views on the Tao (the "way," the Supreme Principle) on traditional Chinese values, such as simplicity, sincerity and kindness. Similarly to Buddha, Lao-tzu found such things as luxury, glamour and rank to be worthless values, when compared to the ultimate value of inner peace. Lao-tzu believed that all would become good, and to return evil for evil would result in chaos. On the other hand, Confucius was a more practical man. He was absorbed in tasks such as social reform and his teachings have had a much more important influence on China's culture, since they had a very practical nature.

Although there is no coherence in Confucius' ethical system, which is offered in the form of sayings, aphorisms, and anecdotes, these writings reach their aim of guiding the reader toward becoming a better person, a concept which is often translated as a "superior man" or "gentleman." The superior man, according to Confucius, does not coincide with the ideal of the aristocratic lord, but strikes by its humanity and thoughtfulness, the desire to be good stronger than the one to obtain personal profit. There is no abstract discussion on the details of this concept. Confucius gives a series of examples such as: "A superior man's life leads upwards... The superior man is broad and fair; the inferior man takes sides and is petty... A superior man shapes the good in man; he does not shape the bad in him.

It is said that a disciple once asked Confucius to define the conduct of one's entire life with a single word. The Chinese philosopher replied: "Is not reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself do not do to others." This rule might be considered the foremost principle of Confucius' ethics, as it is often repeated in the literature. However, despite the importance of this principle, Confucius does not explain other notions by using this particular idea, as a derivate thereof, nor does he present in greater detail what a man should do in the relationship with others (parents, friends), when faced with opposite choices, as a natural consequence of "reciprocity."

Confucius did not explain some other things, such as why superior man chooses righteousness rather than personal profit. His follower, Mencius, was later interested in finding a solution to this problem. He stated that humans are naturally inclined to do what is humane and right. Evil was not considered an inherent trait of man, but a result of poor upbringing and lack of education. However, another of Confucius' followers, Xun-xi (also known as Xun-zi or Hsun-tzu) argued that it is the very nature of man to be envious of others and in constant look for self-profit. The consequence would be a constant conflict, which the rules of morality (and later, those of the state), avoid. Although all Confucians shared the ideal of a superior man, they were divided over the issue of how this "superiority" is achieved: either by letting people to follow their natural instinct or, on the contrary, by prohibiting them to do so, by way of education and upbringing.

Confucius' greates work is the Lun-yu (the Analects), which was probably compiled by the second generation of Confucian disciples. It is based on the Master's sayings, preserved in both oral and written transmissions. It resembles in its spirit the Platonic dialogues, since they embody the in a similar way the teachings of the Chinese philosophers.

Being primarily a teacher of humanity, Confucius stated his desire as a concern for human beings: "To bring comfort to the old, to have trust in friends, and to cherish the young" (5:25). His intention was to develop a moral community, which was based on a holistic reflection of the human condition. He did not try to abstractize the true nature of man, regardless of time and space, as his European counterparts did, but established points of reference. A practical man, he intended to restore people's trust in the government and to transform the society intro a moral community, based on the cultivation of the sense of humanity applied in politics and society. A premise of such an aim was the creation of a fellowship of chin-tzu (noblemen). The true nobleman, according to Tseng-tzu, a Confucian disciple, must be "broad-minded and resolute, for his burden is heavy and his road is long. He takes humanity as his burden. Is that not heavy? Only with death does his road come to an end. Is that not long? (8:7) Confucius himself argues: "A man of humanity wishing to establish himself, also establishes others, and wishing to enlarge himself, also enlarges others. The ability to take as analogy of what is near at hand can be called the method of humanity" (6:30).

As mentioned above, one of the greatest Confucian followers, Xun-xi, was characterized by moral pessimism, (much as the European Hobbes, many centuries later). He stressed that human nature is evil and that humans are prone by nature to pursue gratification of their passions, therefore creating the need for powerful social constraints. Without them, Xun-xi argued that social solidarity, conceived as the precondition for human well being, would be undermined. He contradicted Mencian commitment to the goodness of human nature by stating that it leads to neglecting the necessity of ritual and authority.

Xun-xi believed that rationality was the basis of morality. Human beings become moral by harnessing their desires and passions, as the result of a social necessity, in accordance with society's norms. Learning is defined as socialization, which is indeed a concept attributable to Xun-xi. He argued that tradition and conventional norms, the authority of ancient sages and teachers, laws, rules and regulations all play a part in this process. He defined a cultured person as a fully socialized member of the human community, who arrived at the point where public good was so important that the instinctual demands were sublimated in that good.

2. If "good" was defined by the three philosophers in such a way, "evil" was what they were trying to fight against. Aristotle wanted to counter not only the natural tendencies of man, either excessive or deficient, but also his opponents, the sophists, who argued, basically, that it is not the truth that's important, but if the crowd believes the speaker or not, regardless of the quantity of truth in his speech. Ironically, modern society is more attracted and dominated by the sophistic values than by Platonic or Aristotelian ones. The Golden Mean is easy to pass by. People sometime behave like human animals, like slaves, and not like proper human beings, characterized by their capacity to rationalize. This is what Aristotle was fighting against. As for the state, any contradiction to his idea of polity would be wrong.