Greek Philosophy: The Good Life

Greek Philosophy: The Good Life

Today, the idea of the "good" may be applied to various components in life. Generally, the concept is accepted to refer to either something moral or pleasing. A good meal, for example, is pleasing to the senses. A good person is considered to be morally sound. When considering the idea of good, however, few would go very deeply into the idea of what exactly this constitutes. Most people assume that they have a relatively common concept of what "good" means. One might, however, reasonably question this assumption, especially in a world that has become increasingly integrated and accessible in terms of culture and communication. Indeed, more than ever before, it has become clear that concepts like "good" are flexible, depending upon cultural, ethnic, and other non-uniform values. For this reason, Aristotle's philosophy of "the good life" is worth examining for the possible value it can bring to what we consider to be a good life in today's world.

In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle devotes a large amount of time to determine the nature of a good life. He begins by discarding common concepts of the good life that cannot be applied exclusively to human beings as well as those that do not stand up to closer scrutiny and the application of "good." Aristotle considers happiness as a possible synonym for a "good" life. The state of happiness, however, fluctuates on a daily basis, depending on external conditions. For his reason, happiness cannot be the same as good, since being devastated by misfortune does not make a person bad. The philosopher, however, does connect happiness to activities that can be controlled, such as "noble acts." In terms of this connection, Aristotle argues that animals cannot be said to be happy or "good," since they have no concept of what it means to be noble. In this way, Aristotle provides a bridge towards his concept of connecting virtuous acts with the "good" in life. Aristotle's main argument is therefore that a person who engages consistently in "virtuous activities," because the happiness connected to these is far more permanent than what happiness can be brought about by material gain or stability. The "good life," therefore, is one that is filled with virtue.

I agree with Aristotle on his point, in that engaging in what we consider to be virtuous activities will bring about happiness. People who are seen living a life in this way are also considered to be good. Aristotle does acknowledge, however, that the concept of "virtue" cannot remain undefined. The same is true today. Before we can claim anyone to be "good" or "ethical," one must first define what is meant by this concept. In today's terms, I believe that a "good" action is any activity that focuses on creating something better for another person, an animal, or the environment. To be truly good, such activities must be unconnected to any expectation of personal gain. This, today, is what can be regarded as "good" in terms of virtue or ethics. In Book II of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines virtue as a "mean" between the two extremes of "excess" and "deficiency." In other words, he philosopher advocates temperance, especially as far as emotion is concerned. This is combined with actions or "habits," as Aristotle terms them. A person who is temperate while also engaging in "good" activities or habits can then be said to be virtuous. It appears that this definition fits well with what could constitute "good" even in today's terms.

A person who would disagree with the above might argue that both my and Aristotle's definition of "good" and "virtue" is far too vague to have any valid application. Neither definition, for example, acknowledges cultural variation in terms of what might constitute "virtue." A person from the Far East, for example, might consider it virtuous to obey one's parents in everything, including one's choice of a bride. In Western culture, on the other hand, and by the above definition, it is decidedly "bad" to make one's children miserable by choosing a life partner for them. Such a choice would not be based upon love, but rather on social or financial status, which is considered to be less noble than making a choice for love. In this argument, therefore, the entire concept of virtue is flexible, even when consisting of the requirement that others must not be harmed. The same action could, for example, be considered harmful or virtuous, depending upon one's viewpoint. How could one therefore argue that there is any single definition of virtue, and especially one that is thousands of years old? The answer is that there is not, because cultures and individuals have their own individual concepts of these.