Aristotelian Ethics

Aristotelian Ethics, by Atkinson and Frederick

Atkinson and Frederick challenge many of Aristotle's key definitions and processes. Such critical analysis is essential when applying theories from centuries ago to modern day issues. For instance, when Aristotle claims that one must receive a "proper upbringing in moral conduct," Atkinson and Frederick appropriately question the implications of this statement. Consider the nature of a proper upbringing in Aristotle's time as compared with today's version of "moral conduct."

In the author's review of Aristotle's theories, they note Aristotle's preliminary points about the study of ethics:

1. The aim of ethical inquiry is to become a good person or to develop a moral character. Knowledge, therefore, has practical consequences, and ethics relates to these consequences.

2. Aristotle asserts that, before one can even begin to inquire into the nature of the good, "one must first have received a proper upbringing in moral conduct." What does this mean?

3. It would appear that in order to become good, one has to be good already. Or, in order to learn of what goodness consists, one must have already been taught of its nature. How do we resolve this conflict, for if one already possesses knowledge of the good, then there is no need for inquiring further. Or is there?

Aristotle seems to be making a much deeper point here, specifically that the kind of practical wisdom necessary for moral action is not ultimately teachable. Far from being the mechanical application of universal principles, ethical inquiry requires a certain disposition - a desire, tendency, or willingness to do good - as well as a sufficient amount of life "experience" to draw from. This disposition is something that can only be nurtured over time, preferably from childhood on up. Aristotle is validating the belief that individuals are affected by their environment and are especially impressionable when they are young.

The question remains as to what constitutes "a good moral upbringing." Further, he contends that no amount of formal education will ever be sufficient if an individual does not care to discover what constitutes an ethical or unethical action.

What about Aristotle's "experience" requirement? He claims that practical wisdom is a form of perception. This kind of experience cannot be taught or learned in a formal or academic manner. It appears that we are stuck in a circle - to be wise, one requires experience, yet one first needs to be wise in order to reflect upon and understand one's various experiences, making sense of them in such a way that these experiences can provide material for moral deliberation. Is this an instance of circular reasoning or simply a fundamental and inescapable paradox of human existence?

Do you agree that means (the how of moral action) and ends (the objectives or aim of morality) are codetermined - that the "end itself is only concretely specified in deliberating about the means appropriate to a particular situation." This entails that a general rule for action can only be deemed correct retrospectively, as we cannot know beforehand what will follow from the choices we make. How much of positive outcomes are merely due to "good luck?"

In the reading, Nussbaum distinguishes three features of choice that show why it is the case that practical wisdom or moral deliberation can never by systematic.

a. There is the mutability of the practical. As much as we desire and seek security and stability, we live in a world of change that is inherently insecure. Thus, practical wisdom must remain responsive, perhaps even creative, in order to meet the demands of a world that is always in progress.

b. There is the indeterminacy of the practical. Using Aristotle's example of the difficulty in finding a comprehensive definition of good joke telling - there is no science of humor, and the components of a good sense of humor vary by culture and personality.

c. There is the feature of non-repeatability - we must recognize the existence of ultimate particulars. The occurrence of properties that are, taken singly, repeatable in an endless variety of combinations make the complex whole situation a non-repeatable particular.

We cannot expect the kind of comfort afforded by the universal application of basic principles when confronted with ethical choices. Rules have only a limited usefulness - they must be regarded as guiding rather than as binding. They point the way toward some general direction, but cannot function as definitive markers that point directly at something. They are referred to as "tentative guides" or "summaries" that enable us "to be flexible, ready for surprise, prepared to see, resourceful at improvisation."

According to Aristotle, "It is the experienced person of practical wisdom who acts as the standard of good deliberation and judgment. This person bases his or her judgment on long and broad experiences of the conditions of human life." What the practically wise person desires most is to act ethically, and this person will cultivate what is conducive to that.

For Aristotle, desires and inclinations are not merely animal impulses indicative of our bestial and immoral nature, as Kant has us believe. Instead, he claims that they are "responsive intentional elements, capable of flexible ethical development." Aristotle defines a choice as "deliberate desire." He also states that the affective (feeling/emotional) sides of our characters are able to be molded along ethical lines or distorted in various ways, similar to the ways in which our intellectual faculties can be cultivated or developed.

Nussbaum speaks of the person of practical wisdom as one who is rooted in community and committed to a conception of the good life. Most specifically, this is a character who seeks moderation in everything. We could say that this is Aristotle's universal principle. It is presumed that the practically wise person is one who has developed a harmonious relation between his/her passions and reason, which will allow him/her to make appropriate choices, or to "see" what the appropriate responses would be, in any situation. Is this an unrealistic ideal?

To what principles should a person appeal to when choosing between two universal goods?