Aristotle Morality

1 Aristotle and Hume have different conceptions of the world that inform and affect their ethical theories. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he demonstrates a teleological1 conception of the world. Aristotle believes strongly in rationality and man’s ability to reason. Hume, writing in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, takes a consequentialist2 approach. Hume is a non-cognitavist, which means that he does not believe in rationality. We will examine these two theories and determine that both are rich theories that have a lot to say about the nature of morality, yet each has its own flaws that prevent it from capturing the whole of morality. We will begin with a look at the basic difference between their worldviews and then look at how these differing worldviews inform Aristotle and Hume’s views on the nature of virtues. We will then examine their views on self-interest, the good human life, and morality. We will examine the flaws and assumptions made by each of the theories to see where the authors went wrong. BASIC THEORY Aristotle has a teleological conception of the universe. He believes that everything has a function (ergon), and can be categorized according to their definitive function (Aristotle 15). The definitive function of a thing is what is unique to things of that kind, or what things of that kind do best. He believes that these categories are in nature and await our discovery of them, rather than being categories imposed by us. Aristotle points out that things that look quite different from each other often fall into the same category. For example, a human eye and a fly eye look quite different, but they are categorized as being the same thing because they perform the same function. Aristotle’s view requires a life of action because one must act in order to fulfill one’s function. In the Nicomachean Ethic Aristotle uses this conception as a basis for his ethic. He looks at human beings and tries to decide what is unique about human beings. He decides that rationality is the function of a human being (Aristotle 16). This first premise is the basis for the Teleological is defined as a conception of the world that looks at things in terms of the function that they perform. It is opposite to the causal conception of the world, which looks at things as being caused by prior events. Teleological explanations look at things in terms of their point, the reason for the thing. 1 2 rest of his ethics. Aristotle’s theory is a virtue ethic; in which he discusses what kinds of characteristics one must have in order to live a good life. And the good life is understood as being the life in which one is performing one’s function to the fullest. Hume’s approach is very different. He rejects Aristotle’s reverence of reason. Hume does not see reason as being definitive of human beings. Hume writes that reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions (Hume 15). Hume believes that reason can’t inform us of the value of things because values are not intrinsic properties of any given thing. Value, according to Hume is something that humans impose upon things, and not characteristics of the things themselves. Hume is an empiricist, he believes that there are no a priori ideas or concepts3. Hume says that all our ideas must be attributable to sense experience. Any idea that cannot be traced to sense experience has no meaning and is non-sense. Normative language cannot be attributed to outer sensations. Words, such as “good” and “evil” must be attributed to inner sense. These words do not describe the object to which they refer; rather, they express the speaker’s relationship to the object. Reason is restricted to the realm of determining between true and false claims. Hume does not want to say that all actions have the same value, however, so he relies on consequentialism. Hume’s ethics are based on the idea that the merit of a given action can be determined by the consequences that are likely to result from such an action. THE NATURE OF VIRTUES In Aristotle’s conception of the world everything has a function. A good thing of type X is a thing that performs the function of Xs well. A virtue is understood as a quality that allows the X to perform the function of Xs well. We will take the example of a knife in order to clarify these points. The function of a knife is to cut, because this is what is unique to knives as a group. In order to cut well, a knife must be sharp, and so sharpness is a virtue of knives. A good knife is 2 Consequential theories are those that evaluate the value of a given action by the consequences that are the products of the action. 3 An a priori idea is one that exists before it has been observed by the senses. These do not rely on empirical evidence to determine their existence, truth or falsity. 3 a knife that is sharp and is used to cut, so that it can fulfill its function. Aristotle believes that the function of human beings is to reason, since this is what is unique to humans and what we do best. Therefore, according to Aristotle, human virtues are those traits of character that allow humans to reason well (Aristotle 17). Thus, Practical Wisdom is a virtue that straddles all others because it is practical wisdom that determines the mean in which all other virtues lie. Human virtues lie in a mean between deficiency and excess. The virtues are states of character and dispositions that lead one to react effectively in a rational manner. They are dispositions to choose the right object, to act in the right ways, at the right time and place, for the right reasons. The virtues that Aristotle examines are: wisdom, justice, courage and temperance (Aristotle 49). The mean is determined by a rationally justified principle (Aristotle 149). Aristotle believes that reason is the only thing that is good in itself. It is so good, in fact, that it can be called divine. He believes that he needs no justification for this position, and that it is self-evident upon reflection. Hume rejects Aristotle’s notion of the nature of virtues. Hume believes that normative language is merely expressive and not descriptive. However, Hume is not a normative skeptic, and believes that humans can agree on basic principles that guide human action. For Hume these principles are not based on reason, they are based on the fact that humans respond emotionally in a common way. Hume postulates a sentiment- the moral sentiment- that approves of human happiness and disapproves of human suffering (Hume 39). For Hume, virtues are those character traits that are useful to humans living together in society and these tend to promote human happiness. Vices, on the other hand, promote human suffering. There are two categories of human virtues: those that are useful or agreeable to their possessor and those that are useful or agreeable to others (Hume 51 & 68). 4 SELF-INTEREST Aristotle’s theory is a theory that can be classified as psychological egoism.4 He believes that everyone is motivated by his or her own self-interest. He believes that one goes after X for one of two reasons: because X leads to something that is integral to one’s own happiness or well being, or because X is integral to one’s happiness or well being (Aristotle 2). Aristotle believes that the only person whose well being we can view as intrinsically good is our own well being. However, Aristotle’s theory is not an anti-social theory. Aristotle believes that there is no distinction between individual good and the good of the community in which an individual lives. For Aristotle, what is good for the individual is the same as what is good for society (Aristotle 3). Hume stands in sharp contrast to Aristotle. He believes that psychological egoism is immoral. He believes that the selfish doctrine of motivation is convoluted and complex (Hume 43). He examines a plethora of situations in which humans act, or appear to act, in selfless manners. Hume believes that in order to maintain the selfish theory one must invent secret motives. These motives must be so secret that even the agent will deny that they are acting on these motives (Hume 92). Instead, Hume postulates an emotional mechanism that responds favourably to human happiness and unfavourably to human suffering. He believes that this mechanism is as fundamental as self-love (Hume 83). Hume believes that moral oughts are other-interested oughts and that these are directed by the human sentiment. THE GOOD HUMAN LIFE For Aristotle the good human life is a life of reason (Aristotle 9). He believes that the good human life is one in which each decision is defensible by logical arguments. A person who lives well has true beliefs about what is valuable. According to this doctrine, those without the capacity to deliberate are not fully human, and so, their well being is not worthwhile. Aristotle believes that the good life is a life of reasoned activity and there are two versions of the good life: Psychological egoism describes theories in which the self is the most important. They are theories that postulate a self-interested theory of motivation. 4 5 the first is the contemplative life, and the second is the political life (Aristotle 157). The contemplative life is considered to be good because it is the life of “fully realised theoretical reason.” This life is one that is devoted to the discovery of truth. The political life is best because it is a life devoted to the society. This is the best life in practical terms. Aristotle believes that no life can be fully contemplative because we are social creatures, and thus must devote at least some of our efforts to society. Hume takes an egalitarian stance5 on the issue of whose well being counts. He believes that everyone’s well being counts and must be calculated into the equation balancing net happiness over net suffering. The good human life is a life that is full of pleasure and devoid of pain. Hume believes that the virtuous life is necessarily a good life because since we take pleasure in other’s happiness, and promoting happiness is what constitutes a virtuous life, then the virtuous life will be a pleasant life. MORALITY For Aristotle morality consists of acting according to a mean that is variable depending on the given situation and the agent in question. There are no straightforward rules to tell one what one ought to do in a given situation. Instead, a standard of practical wisdom is invoked to determine what is right. Moral reasoning is an important aspect of Aristotle’s ethic and when we say a person is blameworthy for his actions, we are saying that this person’s personality is defective, as exemplified by this person’s actions. A person is blameworthy if they make the wrong choices. What is moral is the life that is lived according to a rational principle that is determined by a man of practical wisdom. Hume’s version of morality is drastically different. For him reason has little to do with morality. Moral judgements are founded on considerations of utility and disutility. Where utility is understood to mean their tendency to promote the happiness of people and disutility is An egalitarian stance postulates that everyone counts for the same amount. We must regard everyone as having the same importance and the same worthiness. 5 6 understood as its opposite. For Hume moral judgements are expressions of sentiment and not of reason. These moral sentiments are not merely taught because there must first be the emotional response in order for it to be conditioned in the appropriate manner. Moral approvals are not expressions of self-interest, they are other-directed sentiment. CRITICISM OF THE TWO THEORIES Regarding their basic worldviews: The worldviews of both Aristotle and Hume are questionable. Aristotle believes that everything has a function, and that we can determine the definitive function of a thing. This is an assumption that he makes and does not defend. It is true that the world exemplifies order. However, it is uncertain that we can determine what a thing’s function is with precision. This is a common question of both teenagers and philosophers: “what am I here for?” or “What is my point?” Aristotle did not answer these questions in any satisfying manner. Proof of this can be found in the fact that people continue to ask this question long after Aristotle published Nicomachean Ethics. Hume assumes that there are no ideas that exist a priori. He says that all ideas come to us from sense experience. They result either from sense impressions from outside the person, or from inner senses. Recent research by Noam Chomsky has questioned the validity of Hume’s assumption. Noam Chomsky looks at language and language acquisition in humans. He asserts that there must be deep structures that allow us to learn language. He looks at the infinitely large array of possible sentences and says that humans must have a way to understand words, even if they have never seen the thing to which the word refers (Gleitman 330). Chomsky insists that what Hume calls non-sense words (such as Unicorn) do actually have meaning since anyone who speaks them is referring to the same thing. If this is true then Hume’s theory of idea formation is thrown into question. Furthermore, it is possible that there are a priori ideas,6 this makes Hume’s theory of normative language questionable. It is indeed possible that there are some things we think are bad because bad is an a priori concept. 7 Regarding the nature of virtues: Once again we will see that the problematic assumptions made in Aristotle and Hume’s world views create problems when they begin to define the virtues. Aristotle’s virtues are all dependent on reason as being the function of human beings. Hume questions this thesis. He points out that rational thought is all based on induction7 or deduction.8 Induction is questionable because there is no reason to believe that just because something has happened in a given manner thousands of times in the past, it will continue to happen that way in the future. Hume says that the only way to justify induction is by induction, and therefore the justification begs the question. Deduction is questionable because it is based on inductive premises (Perry 218). Hume questions the foundations of logic in a manner that is not answered by Aristotle. If rationality is not reasonable then it can be questioned whether virtues are actually those qualities that exemplify human rationality. A further argument against Aristotle’s theory of virtues is his insistence that they lie in a mean. There are certain qualities that cannot be plotted against Aristotle’s conception of the mean.9 For example, murder seems to defy classification according to a mean. It is ludicrous to postulate that there is a proper amount of killing or an excess of not killing. Aristotle tries to deal with this by stating that there are some things that are always wrong (Aristotle 45). This explanation is not satisfactory because it doesn’t explain why he finds it necessary to postulate the mean in the first place; especially when there are all kinds of exceptions. Aristotle does not explain why the concept of the mean is more useful then the concept of some things that are always wrong. Hume’s theory of virtues is also incomplete. He says that virtues promote human happiness, but neglects to note that some virtues involve human suffering. Martyrdom is often applauded, yet it involves great human suffering. His theory also leads to suggestions that seem Hume never proves that there are no a priori ideas, he only states this. Induction is the method of reasoning where we extrapolate from past regularities and project these into the future. 8 Deduction is the method of reasoning from given premises to a logical conclusion that is contained in the premises. The premises, upon which deduction depends, are necessarily inductive premises. 7 6 8 immoral. For example, according to Hume’s moral theory one could justify sacrificing the life of one or several human beings in order to promote the happiness of others- an inherent injustice. Regarding self-interest and motivation: Aristotle’s theory, as Hume points out, fails to address many situations in which people act altruistically. Aristotle does not have any mechanism that demonstrates why some people risk their own life to save a stranger. However, Hume’s theory of the human sentiment is not complete either. Hume fails to account for situations such as the one that arose in Nazi Germany where a whole class of people was regarded as sub-human and did not trigger the human sentiment of the population. It may be true that we react to the suffering of those people who we believe count, but we do not necessarily believe that everyone counts. We have seen that Aristotle and Hume have different worldviews and these affect the way they have developed their ethical theories. These two systems of ethics stand in contrast to each other, yet are both compelling. However, they both contain unproved assumptions that lead to problems within the theory. It is difficult, if not impossible for anyone to completely rid himself of his assumptions. In a pluralistic world one must realise that the assumptions one holds will not seem true to everyone. We do not have to reject these theories because of their assumption, since they still provide us with useful information to guide our conduct. However, we should not condone immoral behaviour simply because it is in accordance with a moral theory. 9 Aristotle himself admits this. 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WORKS CITED Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis, 1985. Terence Irwin, trans. Hackett Publishing Company: Gleitman; Henry. Psychology: Fourth Edition. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 1995. Hume; David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis, 1983. Perry; John & Michael Bratman, eds. Introduction to Philosophy: Clasical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford University Press: New York, 1986.