MacIntyre uses the “Nicomachean Ethics” as the text for discussing “Aristotle’s Account of the Virtues”. Virtues are a state of character in the aim for achieving the ultimate goal, happiness. True happiness can only be achieved through the cultivation of virtues to make a human life complete. Not all state of character are virtues. Many more state of character are vices. Aristotle uses the nature of the virtues and the vices for moral evaluation in order to achieve happiness.
In “Aristotle’s Account of the Virtues” Aristotle insists that virtues have a place in the life of individuals but also in the life of the city-state. He believes that the city-state is where the virtues of human life can be most noticed. The virtues are the qualities which will enable an individual to achieve personal well being through a life governed by reason and moral obligation. Through the practice of virtues, we can make choices to achieve what is good for man.
According to Aristotle for each virtue there are two corresponding vices. For example, courage is between rashness and timidity. He speaks about the virtue of justice within a community. He states that the intellectual virtues of the virtues of character cannot be separated. Intelligence requires knowledge of the good, so man cannot be intelligent unless he is good. I would argue that you do not have to be intelligent to be generous. This is why Aristotle’s interrelation of the virtues is not a clear criteria on which to judge if a person is good or not. He also speaks about the virtue of friendship and how a community who has a common purpose of realizing good forms bonds of friendships.
He argues that the virtues are not to be available to slaves or barbarians and therefore that is for the good of men. Only the rich and people of high status could achieve certain virtues. Craftsmen and tradesmen are inferior and have no place in the virtues. His limitations do not affect his understanding of the importance of the virtues in our lives as it relates to enjoyment, pleasure or happiness in life and his account of practical reasoning.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It bothers me how Aristotle believes only people with a high status and wealth could achieve happiness. There are conditions to achieve true happiness but why can't any person be happy and virtuous? In the essay, Mike says that Aristotle believes craftsmen and tradesmen are inferior and cannot be virtuous. Why not? This has been bothering me from the beginning. People don't have control over what class they are born into, so will these never achieve happiness?
Maggie, this is sort of an unsettling thought for me, too. In fact, Aristotle does not believe that everyone is predisposed to achieve happiness--plain and simple.
It's funny, because whenever we talk about his "prerequisites" to happiness, his "external goods," the class sort of laughs, as if to say, "yeah right, this guy is crazy...I don't need to be wealthy or older to be happy."
This is an indication that our definition of "happiness" is different than that of Aristotle--homonyms of sorts. To Aristotle, happiness is a habit, a constantly practiced virtue that categorizes an entire lifetime. Nowadays, we tend to think of happiness more in terms of emotional fulfillment, perhaps more associated with our spirited or appetitive sides of the soul.
Whereas Aristotle would say that happiness is the rational soul acting in line with virtue, we might contend that happiness is the good feeling we get when we eat a delicious meal with our best friend, or when we have a great job.
While the average Joe cannot attain Aristotle's version of happiness, I take some consolation in thinking that Aristotle would agree that our subjective ideas of "happiness"--that seem to appeal more to the appetitive and spirited sides of the soul--are certainly attainable by the craftsman or the tradesman, because this is easy and often indulgent.
I think the ending to this chapter makes a strong attempt to clarify any lingering inquiries and tie up any loose ends. As Mr. MacIntyre implies, human nature should not revolve around the good of the polis, but rather the good of the telos. Now that city-states and their social constructs are outdated, is it possible to apply "Aristotelianism" in today's world and have it be a recognizable and powerful force (163)? MacIntyre seems to think that we must instead concentrate on the telos and turn away from the superficial that may decide what is vituous. Otherwise, we, too, are in danger of falling victim to this "blindness of Aristotle [and] ... the general blindess of his culture" (159).
It seems that Mr.MacIntyre also has a similar problem with Aristotle's "writing off of non-Greeks, barbarians and slaves" not being able to posses political relationships, but actually be incapable of them. While on this issue, he connects it with the issue of those of high status being able to achieve key virtues (those of "munificence and magnanimity"). Aristotle seems to consider the craftsmen and tradesmen an inferior class, even though they are not slaves, because he has a belief that the talents of craft and manual labor are invisible from his "catalogue of the virtues."
MacIntrye explains to us that this bias was a seemingly general belief of the culture. Not only did most Greeks think that craftsmen and tradesmen were an inferior class, but they also had the belief that Greeks were better than "barbarians" and slaves. In Aristotle's view, he just believed that some men are just slaves "by nature". Though we would consider this type of statement outrageous in our times, and rightly so, we cannot expect Aristotle to be so far ahead of his time that he would agree with us on this issue. Even with the brilliant mind of Aristotle, it is almost impossible for a man to completely break the mold of his culture. Despite Aristotle's shortcomings on this issue, we cannot deny that he has made some invaluable points on the concept of virtue and happiness. These shortcomings do not hurt him in helping create an understanding of the place of virtues in human life enough that his point is still not an important point of study in philosophy.
That part particularly stuck out to me as well. It doesn't really seem fair that Aristotle just assumes that "some men just are slaves 'by nature'." For although I agree that Aristotle's time was much different than ours, especially in regard to political correctness, it doesn't justify his ignorance. I also think it does hurt him in his accounts of virtue of human life because he limits who can be virtuous by means of social status, which some people do not have the capacity to change.
I agree that Aristotle is out of touch in regards to virtue. I think that anybody can attain happiness and virtue, no matter what their social or economic standing. If happiness has different meanings for different people, according to Aristotle (sick= health, poor=wealth, etc), then how come only those with wealth can be attain happiness and moral virtue?
I do not agree with Aristotle's view that "virtues are not to be available to slaves and barbarians." However, I was trying to think of it in his perspective and noticed one reason he might have thought this way. Virtues are supposed to be learned and put to practice frequently. A slave or a barbarian would have always been under the control of another person. They would not have had the opportunity to learn virtues or practice them. However, I don't see how barbarians and slaves not having virtues would be for the good of men.
Post a Comment