Aristotle, one of the most influential philosophers in history, is known for his contributions to ethics, politics, and metaphysics. However, despite his intellectual achievements, the question remains: was Aristotle a good person?
In this article, we will explore Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia (happiness), his views on virtue and character, and his doctrine of the mean. By examining these ideas, we can gain insight into Aristotle’s moral philosophy and ultimately determine whether he was a good person or not.
So, let’s dive in and explore the complexities of Aristotle’s ethical framework.
Was Aristotle A Good Person
To answer the question of whether Aristotle was a good person, we must first understand his definition of eudaimonia. Aristotle believed that eudaimonia was the highest human good, and that it could only be achieved through the exercise of virtue. He argued that a virtuous person was one who possessed all the moral virtues, and that this person would choose the best life of all, which was the philosophical life of contemplation and speculation.
However, Aristotle’s concept of virtue was not simply a matter of habituation or mindless routine. Rather, he believed that virtue was an active condition, a state in which one actively held oneself in a stable equilibrium of the soul in order to choose actions knowingly and for their own sake. This stable equilibrium of the soul constituted character, and achieving good character was a process of clearing away the obstacles that stood in the way of the full efficacy of the soul.
So, was Aristotle a good person according to his own ethical framework? It seems that he believed that being a good person required more than just following rules or habits. It required actively cultivating virtues and striving towards eudaimonia.
Aristotle’s Concept Of Eudaimonia (Happiness)
Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia is central to his ethical framework. Eudaimonia is often translated as “happiness,” but Aristotle’s understanding of the term goes beyond mere pleasure or contentment. Instead, he saw eudaimonia as the highest good that humans could strive towards, a life “well-lived” or “flourishing.”
For Aristotle, eudaimonia could only be achieved through the exercise of virtue. Virtue, in turn, was not simply a matter of following rules or habits, but an active condition of the soul. Virtuous individuals actively held themselves in a stable equilibrium of the soul in order to choose actions knowingly and for their own sake. This stable equilibrium constituted character, and achieving good character was a process of clearing away the obstacles that stood in the way of the full efficacy of the soul.
Aristotle believed that the virtues necessary for achieving eudaimonia included courage, wisdom, good humor, moderation, kindness, and more. However, these virtues were not set in stone and could be subjective to each individual. What mattered most was that individuals actively cultivated virtues and strived towards eudaimonia.
Friendship was also an important virtue for Aristotle in achieving eudaimonia. He believed that the highest form of friendship was one based on virtue (arête), where individuals wished the best for their friends regardless of utility or pleasure. This type of friendship was long-lasting and tough to obtain because it required virtuous individuals who were hard to come by.
Aristotle’s Views On Virtue And Character
Aristotle’s views on virtue and character were central to his ethical framework. He believed that virtues were not simply habits, but rather active conditions of the soul that manifested themselves in action. Virtue was a mean between two vices, one of deficiency and one of excess. For example, courage was the mean between cowardice and rashness.
A virtuous person, according to Aristotle, was one who possessed all the moral virtues and actively cultivated them. This person would hold themselves in a stable equilibrium of the soul in order to choose actions knowingly and for their own sake. This stable equilibrium constituted character, which was a process of clearing away the obstacles that stood in the way of the full efficacy of the soul.
Aristotle argued that moral virtue was the only practical road to effective action. The person of good character loved with right desire and thought of things as ends with right reason. For Aristotle, the virtuous person saw truly and judged rightly, since beautiful things appeared as they truly were only to a person of good character.
Aristotle’s Doctrine Of The Mean
Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean is a central concept in his ethical framework. According to this doctrine, moral behavior is the mean between two extremes – excess and deficiency. Aristotle believed that finding a moderate position between those two extremes would result in moral behavior.
For example, consider courage. Excess in courage would result in recklessness, while deficiency would result in cowardice. The mean between these two extremes is courage itself. Similarly, excess in generosity would result in wastefulness, while deficiency would result in stinginess. The mean between these two extremes is generosity itself.
Aristotle argued that finding the mean required practical wisdom, or phronesis. This was not a matter of following rules or formulas, but rather a matter of using reason to determine the right course of action in each situation. It required an understanding of the particular circumstances and the ability to make judgments based on those circumstances.
The Doctrine of the Mean was not a strict mathematical formula, but rather a flexible concept that allowed for variation based on individual circumstances. It was not about achieving a perfect balance, but rather about striving towards balance and avoiding extremes.
The Criticisms Of Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy
Despite Aristotle’s emphasis on virtue and eudaimonia, his moral philosophy has been subject to several criticisms. One common objection is that Aristotle’s theory is too individualistic, as it focuses solely on the flourishing of the individual and does not sufficiently consider the impact of one’s actions on others. Critics argue that a moral theory should take into account the welfare of others and not just the individual.
Another criticism of Aristotle’s moral philosophy is that it lacks clear guidance on how to act in specific situations. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, which provide clear rules or principles for ethical decision-making, virtue ethics relies on the judgment of the virtuous person in each situation. Critics argue that this lack of guidance can lead to moral relativism and inconsistency in decision-making.
Furthermore, some critics argue that Aristotle’s theory places too much emphasis on luck and circumstance in the development of moral character. The ability to cultivate virtues is influenced by factors beyond an individual’s control, such as upbringing, society, and education. This raises questions about the extent to which individuals can be held responsible for their moral character and actions.
Was Aristotle A Good Person? A Conclusion.
In conclusion, it is difficult to definitively answer the question of whether Aristotle was a good person. While he certainly had a complex and nuanced ethical framework that emphasized the importance of virtue and self-improvement, it is also important to acknowledge that his views on certain topics, such as the role of women and slaves in society, are now considered outdated and problematic.
Ultimately, our modern understanding of what constitutes a “good person” may differ significantly from Aristotle’s own views. However, by examining his philosophy in context and understanding the nuances of his ethical framework, we can gain a deeper appreciation for his contributions to philosophy and his unique perspective on what it means to live a virtuous life.
