Aristotle’s idea of moral virtue as expressed in the Nicomachean Ethics
Introduction
The choice of human conduct has been one of great
importance to humankind since the beginning of existence. This is because human
beings desire to be happy. There is possibly, a general agreement that the
pursuit of happiness is that which drives every human action. However, there is
no agreement as to what kind of human actions bring about happiness.
Interestingly, one of the trends in contemporary society suggests that when one
acts the way one feels like or engage in merely pleasurable human actions, it gives
the person happiness. On the contrary, Aristotle, in his NicomacheanEthics, posits that happiness is found in acting in
accordance to virtue.[1]
Put differently, the happy life is the virtuous life.
Consequently, we purpose in this essay to attempt a critical
exposition of Aristotle’s idea of moral virtue as expressed in the NicomacheanEthics by systematically
presenting the contemporary relevance to our society. In doing this, we shall
present Aristotle’s conception of virtue and the doctrine of the mean;
afterwhich, we shall look briefly into his distinctions on the types of virtue
and streamline our discussion to moral virtue. Thereafter, we shall highlight
its contemporary relevance; then ageneral evaluation and critique of
Aristotle’s concept of virtue shall follow afterwards.
1.0
The Meaning of Virtue
The book I of Aristotle’s ethics lays a ground work for
what is known as the “virtuous character.” He explains that all human actions
are aimed at some end or some good. However, since there are many apparent
ends, the only end that meets the criteria for completeness is happiness since
it is always chosen for itself and never because of something else. Hence, the
ultimate good is Happiness. The role of
virtue comes to the fore as he explains that Happiness is acquired by virtue
and it requires both complete virtue and complete life.[2]
The prelude to Aristotle’s teaching on virtue is in his
recognition of the end (goal) of human existence. He identifies that the
highest good of humans is Eudaimonia
which is translated to happiness;[3]
and opines that happiness is neither a gift of the gods to humans nor something
acquired by chance.[4]
But, Aristotle defines happiness as “an activity of the soul in accordance with
virtue.”[5]
Hence, this definition inevitably leads us to the concept of virtue. Since virtue is
regarded by him as an activity of the soul and so important for the attainment
of happiness which is considered as the end of every creature, it is equally
necessary for us to know how he defines it and how it can be attained.
According to Aristotle, “virtue then is a settled
disposition of the mind determining the choice of actions and emotions,
consisting essentially in the observance of the mean relative to us, this being
determined by principle, that is as the prudent man would determine it.”[6]Thus,
virtue is a state of the soul from which choice of action emanates. It is a
trained faculty or habit of choice. With this definition and by the statement
“virtue… consisting essentially in the observance of the mean”, Aristotle
invariably hinges the understanding and practice of virtue to the understanding
of the ‘mean’.The question before us then is: what is this ‘mean’?
1.1 The doctrine of the “Mean”
Since the passions
are capable of a wide range of action, from too little to too much, and virtue
is concerned with our various feelings and actions, then, there is need to
discover the proper meaning of excess and defect and thereby discover the
appropriate mean. Hence, Aristotle tries to expatiate on this doctrine to
enable a proper discussion on virtues.
Explaining this doctrine, Aristotle employs the use of
the concept of ‘mean’ first as merely a mathematical image but, he has no
intention of invoking a mathematical meaning for it. He adds that the ‘mean’
can be said to be the ‘locus’ of value (virtue), while the extremes of excess
and defect are the ‘loci’ of disvalue (vice). Hence, the doctrine of the mean
presupposes that an excellence of character is a state often flanked by two
vices, one of excess and one of defect, that is, of too much and too little.
Courage, for instance, is the ‘mean’ state between rashness and cowardice.
Hence, he lists twelve virtues flanked by their contrary vices.[7]
He considers therefore,that “excess and deficiency are a mark of vice, and
observance of the mean a mark of virtue.”[8]
Aristotle asserts
that “By the mean of a thing, I denote a point equally distant from either
extreme, which is one and the same for everybody; by the mean relative to us,
that amount which is neither too much nor too little, and this is one and the
same for everybody.”[9]
Consequently, in defining virtue, Aristotle was careful to say that in choosing
among actions and feelings, the mean is individually determined. In fact, the
mean is not the same for every person, nor is there a particular mean for every
act. Each mean is relative to each person inasmuch as the circumstances vary.
It is virtuous for instance, a woman selling “Garri” to make her sales at the
end of the day and from her gain, gives a portion to beggars around her. It is
vicious, however, for her to give to the detriment of her children at home.
Hence, Aristotle holds the view that true virtue is found in the mean.In this
regard, what is ‘mean’ to one person, may be an ‘excess’ or ‘deficiency’ for
another.[10]Nevertheless,
the concept of the mean presents an idea of a standard choice that each moral
agent has to refer to.Therefore, the true character of a mean is that:
Ø it is not a mean for everybody; not an arithmetical proportion. It
is a mean for this or that person.
Ø the mean is universal in the sense that it should be seen to be a
mean for anybody in that situation; it should agree with the nature of the
mean.[11]
The central theme of this doctrine is that right conduct
is incompatible with excess or deficiency in both feelings and actions, for it
is in the nature of moral goodness that they are destroyed by excess or
deficiency but preserved by the ‘mean’. These entire attempts to understand the
doctrine of the ‘mean’ is to enable us understand what Aristotle means by
virtue since the ‘mean’ shows the true nature of virtue and how virtue is
practiced. Meanwhile, applying this to his idea that happiness consists in an
activity of the soul in accordance to virtue, we can rephrase this statement as
follows; happiness consists in acting in accordance to the mean of two vices,
as dictated by right reason.[12]
To have a better understanding of practical virtue, let us consider the types
of virtues.
2.0
Types of Virtue
From our story of the NichomecheanEthics, it is evident that Aristotle’s investigation
into the nature of virtue is closely tied to his discussion on the nature of
human soul such that it is illogical to successfully distinguish between
different types of virtues without first investigating into the faculties of
the soul. For Aristotle, the soul is part rational and part irrational.[13]
The irrational part is further subdivided into the nutritive and the appetitive
soul. The nutritive soul is the cause of growth or reproduction while the
appetitive soul is inclined towards the emotions; though it (appetitive part)
can be controlled by reason and thus, considered rational. Hence, it is to this
appetitive part that ethical virtues and vices belong.
Moreover, the rational part of the soul is also
subdivided into the speculative (scientific) soul and the practical
(calculative) soul. The speculative soul aims simply at knowing while the
practical soul is geared towards particulars and contingent realities and aims
at actions or productions.[14]
However, the attainment of truth is the task of both the scientific and
calculative parts of the rational soul.
With these distinctions on the faculties of the soul,
Aristotle hereby adds that “virtue, too, is divided into classes in accordance
with this differentiation of the soul. Some virtues are called intellectual and
others moral…”[15]
With this, he makes a clear distinction between two types of virtue, virtue of
thought (Intellectual virtue) and virtue of character (moral virtue).
Intellectual virtue is acquired through learning or instructions. They are
qualities of the mind such as wisdom, understanding, judgement. Moral virtues
consist in the habit of always choosing the golden mean between two extremes,
directed thereto by the intellectual virtue of prudence or practical wisdom.
To begin with, it must be noted that virtue here for
Aristotle refers more particularly to the moral virtues such as generosity and
temperance. That is, virtues which are more practical than theoretical, like
the intellectual virtues of wisdom and intelligence. As it were, Aristotle
considers the moral virtues as having a more direct influence on our happiness
than the intellectual virtues.[16]
Since our topic is limited to Moral virtue, our discussion shall proceed with
it.
2.1 Moral Virtue
Aristotle defines moralvirtue
alongside its corresponding opposite, vice, as “… a quality disposing us to act
in the best way when we are dealing with pleasure and pain, while vice is one
which leads us to act in the worst way when we deal with them.”[17]
For him, to act in the best way is simply to act in accordance with reason and
to act in the worse way is to deviate from the dictates of reason. Hence, for
Aristotle, a harmonious interplay of emotions and reason leads to an excellence
of character. With this, Aristotle seems to have placed on reason a mark of
infallibility as though reason does not lead one to error or act viciously once
ones emotions are played out in accordance with reason, for reason moderates
the emotions.In addition, it is necessary to have the right disposition to the
right things and for the right actions.
Notably, habituationis the process through which one
receives the constant disposition to act virtuously;and it is given prime
importance in moral virtues, because ethical excellence arises from
habituation. These moral excellences are not born with humans nor are they
developed by nature, but are rather “adapted by nature to receive them and are
brought to perfection by habituation.”[18]
Aristotle however, insists that moral excellences are necessarily built up by
repetition of individual acts as in acquiring art: “we become just by doing
just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts…”[19]
It is only by behaving in the right way, that we train ourselves to be virtuous. For him, we all are born with the potential
to be morally virtuous. Just as a musician learns to play musical instrument,
we learn virtue by constant imitation of a virtuous person/act, practicing or
repetition, until we reach our perfection through habit. When through habituation, one becomes a just
person, which is as a result of the repetition of a particular response in the
past; he/she equally attains the disposition to the same response in the
future. In other words, if an individual’s acts are constantly just, the
individual develops the moral excellence of justice, which is a fixed
disposition to respond in a just way in all situations. This is, however,
different from the case of an individual who is occasionally just. Such a
person cannot be said to possess moral excellence of justice. This obviously
poses a fundamental question; how can merely imitating a virtuous person result
to being virtuous? We can say that Aristotle tried to answer this question when
he explained that merely doing as a virtuous person does is not sufficient for
us to be virtuous. Rather, one must do what a virtuous person does in the way
he does it.[20]
Similarly, moral
evil or vice develops in the same way, by habituation, for one is said to be
vicious, if the person has a consistent and persistent disposition to act
viciously, that is, missing the ‘mean’ and inclining always either to the
excess or defect of a particular action or emotion. The same powers of emotion
and action which produce good acts also produce evil acts to develop
corresponding vices as Aristotle will put it: “it is from the same causes and
by the same means that every virtue is both produced and destroyed, and
similarly in every art.” In fact, the goal of moral virtues is to rationally
organize the human passions.
For those who
presume that a particular virtuous act makes them virtuous, Aristotle explains
that to act virtuously is different from being virtuous. Consequently, he
proposes three criteria for making a distinction between acting virtuously (by
accident) and being virtuous:
Ø the person must know that he/she is doing virtuous actions, that is,
proper knowledge
Ø he/she intends toact virtuously for its own sake, that is, it is
chosen deliberately
Ø he/she does the actions from a well-established habit, firm and
certain disposition[21]
In addition, Aristotle goes further to discuss the role
of pleasure and pain in moral excellence. In a strictly Aristotelian sense, the
pleasures or pains that an action causes in the moral agent may serve as an
index of moral progress, since good conduct consists in a proper attitude
towards pleasure and pain. Expatiating, Aristotle gives this example:
A man
who abstains from bodily pleasures and enjoys the very fact of so doing is
temperate; if he finds it irksome, he is licentious. Again, the man who faces
danger gladly, or at least without distress, is brave; the one who feels
distressed is a coward.[22]
3.0 Contemporary Relevance of Aristotle’s Idea of Moral Virtue to
Our Society
Aristotle’s views as we have exposed so far are
obviously of high esteem and relevant in our situation today than it ever was.
Virtue ethics for its part carries with it the legacy of Aristotle’s work.
Although, action is also very important, but it is what motivates the action
(disposition) that is basically emphasized in virtue ethics.Hence, we shall
consider its relevance from the perspective of the individual, family and
state.
Aristotle’s
idea that the moral virtues are formed via habit, as are the corresponding
vices is still relevant today especially to a moral agent. By virtue of his/her
exceptional quality of deliberating well, the agent through free choice, is
capable of the right management of his/her own acts with a view to his/her
personal uprightness. Due to the consistent moral propriety of their actions,
they become an epitome of moral conduct so that those who lack virtues look up
to them so as to learn to act according to right conduct. Also, since
habituation plays an important role in moral life, we experience daily, through
their way of life, the distinction between a virtuous person and a vicious
person. We also see in some of our daily encounters that some habitsa person
manifests repeatedly in most cases, become difficult to stop, for example;
smoking, lying, and drinking. Consequently, the emphasis on the importance of
forming good habits out of virtuous actions becomes more relevant.
In addition,
moral virtue is also relevant in the families. It has to do with right
administration or proper direction and ordering of the affairs of a family. The
moral agent due to his/her inestimable moral worth, coupled with his/her rich
repertoire of experience in life is able to order the moral lives of the
members of the household.
Moreover, moral virtues provide to political leaders,
the rightful management of the affairs of the state. By virtue of the moral
agent’s ability to deliberate well and to marshal the right means to their
appropriate end, the leader is able to regulate the conduct of the people
through good laws and their executions. In the Nigerian context for example,
where many of the citizens drift in the direction of utilitarianism, egoism,
and selfish interests; where many of the political leaders consider the
rightness of what they do based on the gains they are able to make, regardless
of the number of fellow citizens that suffer from their acts, where corruption
has become the bane of the day, the relevance of Aristotle’s virtue ethics here
cannot be overemphasized since it aims at ordering the state, not just in their
virtuous acts, but that which involves the right disposition to do what is
good. Hence, Aristotle posits that “the best man is not he who exercises his
virtue towards himself, but he who exercises it towards another.”[23]When
virtuous leaders are elected and good policies are made, it positively affects
the citizens also. Hence, since it is the individuals that make up the society,
it is impossible to have a bad society if the individuals are virtuous.
On the
other hand,MacIntyre also sees the importance of Aristotle’s idea of Virtue
when he makes the connection between Aristotle’s theory and western religious
traditions,viz:
No doctrine vindicated itself in so wide
a variety of contexts as did Aristotelianism in Greek, Islamic, Jewish and
Christianity. Hence, when modernity made its assaults on an old order world,
its most perceptive exponents understood that it was mostly Aristotelianism
that had to be overthrown.[24]
This simply implies that the connection was (and still
is) very tight between Aristotle’s notions and the many doctrines of the
western religions.
4.0 General Evaluation and Critique of Aristotle’s Concept of
Virtue
Moral virtues enable humans, in the light of their
conception of the good life in general, to perceive what, say generosity,
requires of them, or more generally, what virtue requires of them in the
particular case, and it motivates them to act accordingly. Thus, moral virtue
will save a person from giving too much or too little through the doctrine of
the mean; or even to the wrong causes, in particular instances (where the act
of charity is concerned).
One hallmark objection that is often cited against
Aristotle’s ethics is Immanuel Kant. An aspect of Kant’s views is his claim
that virtue is not a "free skill" unless it is free acts of moral
will which in adopting a rule, also declares it to be a universal law.[25]
Whereas Aristotle sees the mean as individually determined, Kant sees moral
virtue as universal. Moral virtue is considered the same way no matter the
circumstance and personality. Though Aristotle considers it both universal and
individual, but the question we can ask is: can moral virtue be considered only
as relative?
Be that as it may, the fact that Aristotle’s concept of
moral virtue is that which must not elude anyone interested in living a
meaningful moral life does not mean that the concept is sacrosanct. One of the
problems considered against Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean is that it may
sometimes be difficult to objectively identify a person of virtue because one
will have to consider the frequencies of the person’s virtuous acts,
disposition, and most importantly, reason for action which is hard to
ascertain. We know of cult leaders and political leaders, who are revered and
followed by many in Nigeria today. They sing their praises and sometimes hold
them in high esteem because of some infrastructures, they may have provided,
whereas their motives most times are not genuine. Is this not a vicious act
under the disguise of virtue?
Furthermore,
if virtue is associated with constant disposition to act rightly; could it not
be said that former South African President, Nelson Mandela orMother Theresa of
Calcutta, and other respected people of virtue could have changed before death?
Hence, objective identification of people of ‘consistent’ virtue is a problem
in Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Also, in the whole concept of virtue, there is a
glaring omission of the importance of education by reasoned instruction.[26]
Thus, if the good is always necessary, how can one without formal education
identify it?
Conclusion
Our aim from the beginning was to carry out a critical
exposition of Aristotle’s idea of moral virtue as expressed in the NicomacheanEthics. In order to achieve
this,we presented Aristotle’s conception of virtue and the doctrine of mean;
afterwards, we looked briefly into his distinctions on the types of virtue,
streamlined our discussion to moral virtue, considered the contemporary
relevance anddid a general critique of Aristotle’s concept of virtue.
From our study and analysis of Aristotle’s virtue
ethics, we have learned that moral virtue is both in the rational and
appetitive part of the soul, but they are present in different manners. They
consist in the habit of always choosing the golden mean between two extremes,
directed therefore by the intellectual virtue of prudence or practical wisdom.
By and large, despite the Criticisms leveled on
Aristotle’s ideas, it is clear to us that his views are not to be regarded as
out dated or irrelevant in our time and society, for if the individuals try to
live a life of virtue, not just exteriorly, but with a right disposition from
the interior, we will find ourselves in a better society. Hence, it is
imperative that we think about situations in terms of virtues. Rather than ask,
‘could everyone do this?’ (as Kant suggests); we can ask a better question:
‘would this action be kind, courageous or loyal?’ If we think of actions as
expressions of virtue, this could be very helpful practically. Thus, we can
simply state that in the light of Aristotle’s concept of virtue, contemporary
society may never find happiness until it begins to seek virtue rather than
vice and deception.
[24]Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), p. 118.
[25]Cf. Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals,
third edition, translated byJames Ellington (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), pp.
66 – 67.
Comments
Post a Comment