Aristotle's Nicomachian Ethics

A detailed Summary of Aristotle's Nicomachian Ethics

In Nicomachian Ethics Aristotle starts by explaining why people do what they do. Every action is the means to a greater end. Each end in turn can be seen as a means to an even greater end. A man makes horse shoes, the means, so he can shoe his horse, the end. He shoes his horse, the means, so he can ride into town, the end. So it goes until the ultimate end is reached, happiness. He is careful to explain that not all of these acts are good and just, saying we must examine them. To fall short of the end, or to exceed it is potentially fatal, and so moderation is the answer. By acting always in moderation a person is sure to be just and temperate, and so is sure to be virtuous. In order to know how to be virtuous we must know how to identify virtuous characteristics. Each virtue has two vices, the Philosopher claims, one excess, and one deficiency. Courage has foolhardiness as its excess, and cowardliness has its deficiency, just as confidence has arrogance and shyness as its vices. Some acts, by definition, have no moderation. These acts include murder, wrongful killing, theft, wrongful taking, and rape, wrongful sex. Anything not wrong by definition, however, must be done in moderation. Measuring moderation i

Some acts can be seen either in moderation or in excess/deficiency. A man is swimming in the ocean, and is attacked by a shark. His wife dives in, ignoring the risk of being attacked herself, and pulls him ashore saving his life. This is virtuous, as she displayed courage, but was not foolhardy and killed. Add a twist, the shark eats both, and she is foolhardy, not virtuous. With a different slant we see another side of the argument. She stands and watches while he is eaten by the shark. There is nothing she could do, as the shark would likely have consumed her also, therefor she cannot be called cowardly, and again is courageous and virtuous. However, had he swum to shore perhaps she would have been cowardly, there being little or no risk of her being eaten by the shark and she left him to die. In this situation there is no moderation, she either swims out or stands and watches, and depending upon the outcome she is labeled despite the fact that either action is acceptable in such a situation. Based strictly on the Philosopher's writings there is no way to know before hand which is the more virtuous action, you must play out the situation completely before knowing exactly what should have been done. Aristotle bases his entire theory on knowing what is virtuous then doing it, never mentioning what happens when no virtuous action is evident until after the fact. This serious flaw must be considered before committing oneself to a theory on the attainment of virtue.

Aristotle's first mistake comes in his idea that virtue is moderation of all things. He never fully states this, yet it is the only conclusion which can be drawn from the reading. This definition would require his high minded person to be perfect to achieve virtue. "Regarded in its essence, virtue is a moderation or middle state, but viewed in its relation to what is best and right it is the extreme of perfection." One fault, one desire that could push a virtue toward a vice would ruin such a man, condemning him to an unhappy life. Things that could fall into this category would include hobbies, emotions, or personal tastes. Having coin collecting as a hobby would mandate an excess of that with a deficiency in most other hobbies, which one would not think could cause you to stray from the path of virtue, but Aristotle makes no exceptions for this or emotions. Being happy is a vice itself, with unhappiness the other and contentment falling in the range of virtue, yet his formula for virtue is supposed to leave his followers happy, the ultimate end. Another example showing a weakness in his theory would be the case of a vegetarian. A person does not like the taste of meat, the slaughtering of animals, or it makes them sick, so their consumption is reduced to zero. Zero by definition is the ultimate deficiency, as you cannot eat less than zero steaks, so cannot be considered in moderation. This person is no less virtuous, and if he balances what he does eat, will die no earlier than one who does eat meat. These are a few examples of how Aristotle's strict theory of mean is at fault, and incomplete.

Philosophers throughout the ages, most of them after Aristotle, have continued to state their views on virtue, some being compatible, while others totally different. Plato writes that concepts such as justice and virtue can only be grasped by lovers of knowledge, or philosophers, who are extremely advanced in their studies, approaching complete knowledge. Yet, here is Aristotle, his own pupil defining virtue for the masses, who obviously are nowhere close to complete knowledge. With such

Some common words found in the essay are:
Mother Theresa, Ethics Aristotle, Supporters Aristotle, None Aristotle's, Sportswriters America, Nicomachean Ethics, Mark McGwire, virtue moderation, aristotle claim, definition virtue, virtue aristotle, mother theresa, condition perform function, virtue happiness, aristotle makes, moderation person, happy people, moderation people, aristotle's argument virtue, argument virtue moderation,

Approximate Word count = 2427
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Politics