Philosophy 360, Ethical Theory                                                    Donna Chapman

Spring, 2005

 

 

Question 1

Why does Aristotle think here must be an ultimate good? Why does he think that neither honor nor wealth nor virtue can be the ultimate good? Name two of the criteria he uses to help us determine what that ultimate good is. (HINT: in your answer, be sure to first explain what a ÒcriterionÓ is.) In your answer, be sure to cite and explain the key texts on which you have relied.

 

Part 1 –  Why does Aristotle think there must be an ultimate good?

            Aristotle believes that as every activity that we engage in results in a ÒgoodÓ. Most of the time, these resultant ÒgoodsÓ then lead to other goods. Some of these goods  are constructs of the goods that comprise them. Such as the example given in class of saddle making, a saddle maker creates a saddle, the resultant good is the saddle, but the saddle is part of another good..that is horsemanship (you need the gear to be a good horseman) but it does not stop there, some horseman are warriors, so saddle making leads to horsemanship which leads to war. Sometimes the relationship of the good is causal to another good but not dependent on it. For example, the man who is a woodcutter, to brings his wood to market for a carpenter to purchase and use to make furniture. However any woodcutter would work, there is no dependency on a particular wood cutter.

 

            He goes on to define areas of activity which generate goods. They are: crafts, inquiries, actions and decisions. The results are all ÒgoodsÓ. But the best good is a good that transcends its parts. Aristotle describes this transcendent good in the quote below:

 

                        Wherever there are ends apart from the actions,

                        the products are by nature better than the activities.  

                        pp., 1094a5

 

            Such a transcendent good could be illustrated as Mozart writing notes on a page of paper. Some notes that he writes ÒbecomeÓ the Jupiter Symphony, some do not. But it can certainly be seen that The Jupiter Symphony is more than the sum of the notes scribbled on the page. Also it certainly cannot be assumed  that all the notes that Mozart ever put to paper transcended to become symphonies (altho most of them seem in fact to have done so) nor can it be assumed that if you or I write notes on paper, that we will write symphonies. But when a set of notes transcends, and becomes something ÒotherÓ than the sum of its parts - that is a good that is better than the goods which comprise it.

 

            If all activities result in a good, and if all goods are part of greater goods, then,                 Aristotle believes, there must be an ultimate good toward which all other goods point.  This is his basis for the concept of the Òultimate goodÓ. The following quotation illustrates Aristotle's reasoning about this.

 

Suppose, then, that the things achievable by action have some end that we wish for because of itself, and because of which we wish for the other things, and that we do not choose everything because of something else- for if we do, it will go on without limit, so that desire will prove to be empty and futile. Clearly , this end will be the good, that is to say, the best good. 

                        pp., 1094a18-20

 

            If an activity results in a good which exists of itself, and leads to no other end, then this is a best ultimate good. Understanding what this ultimate good is leads to understanding what is necessary to lead a good life.  English translations of Aristotle use the word ÒhappinessÓ for this ultimate good, however the Greeks did not have a work for happiness per se. The word they used was ÒeudaimoniaÓ which means Òliving wellÓ or Ògood spiritÓ. Aristotle acknowledges the value, that knowledge of the ultimate good is, in the quote below:

 

Then surely knowledge of this good also carries great weight for [determining     the best] way of life; 

                        pp2, 1094a24

 

            Today we still use the word ÒhappinessÓ to represent the ultimate good, or the definition of living a good life, but Aristotle warns against doing this without careful consideration. He warns us not to stand on the basis of belief, that is belief in the definition of happiness because that definition is volatile. Happiness to a crazy person is not the same as happiness for a sane person, the same argument holds for wealthy vs poor. For lack of a better inclusive word we will continue to use happiness, but in doing so we must keep AristotleÕs caveats in, the quote below, in mind as we continue to pursue the meaning of happiness relative to the ultimate good.

 

As far as its name goes, most people virtually agree; for both the many and the cultivated call it happiness, and they suppose that living well and doing well are the same as being happy. But they disagree about what happiness     is, and the many do not give the same answer as the wise. 

                        pp3, 109b16

 

            I mention this as a foundational caveat because Aristotle is going to go on to describe what an ultimate good in greater detail. He will refine the way the ultimate good is described and the procedures for attaining it in such detail that Aristotle's Òultimate goodÓ becomes an ideal which is true for every person without qualification.  

 

Part 2 – Why does he think that neither honor nor wealth nor virtue can be the ultimate good?

            Wealth and virtue cannot be the ultimate good for two reasons: 1- because their definitions differ from person to person based on beliefs, 2 - the ultimate good is pursued. It is active not passive.

For the many think it [the ultimate good] is something obvious and evident - for instance pleasure, wealth or honor. Some take it to be one thing, others another.

                        pp3 1095a22           

 

            Wealth is a particularly useful good for arguing the case for reason 1. Most will agree that wealth is in fact an ultimate good, but this is only on the surface. When asked Òwhat is wealth?Ó everything changes. One persons wealth is owning a home. To another it is millions of dollars in the bank. To yet another is a healthy family and food on the table. Remembering also that AristotleÕs qualification of the ultimate good as pursued for its own sake, in spite of trying to say that they are pursuing wealth for its own sake, when you drill down (cast the beliefs aside), reasons surface like: for power, for social status, for security, etc. No one wants to be wealthy simply for the sake of being wealthy.

 

            Monetary wealth also carries its own weight. It was mentioned that Bill Gates gives away millions to charity, but Aristotle would ask if it was really an ultimate good. If Bill Gates gives millions without consulting his tax attorneys to see how much of his money he gets to keep if he gives $xxx.xx to yy charity, then perhaps his wealth is  an ultimate good, however I doubt that the amount that he gives purely for the sake of giving  is very high at all. So by Aristotle's definition of an ultimate good, monetary wealth as discussed here cannot be an ultimate good, because most of the time it leads to another good driven by self interest: someone keeping the lions share of their money, the third motivator is  benevolence to the receiving charity.

 

            Virtue is perfect for arguing reason 2. The ultimate good is the result of focused activity toward specific goals. One can display virtue, however  the ultimate good must be an activity (living a good life). Virtue is a state-not an activity, achieved through teaching and guidance coupled with practice and habit. Aristotle says one can have virtue while one is asleep.

 

Part 3 – Name two of the criteria he uses to help us determine what that ultimate good is.

            A criteria is the standard upon which a judgment or decision may be based. ThatÕs from Miriam Webster. Perhaps a more thorough definition is the set of characteristics which become reference points to help define a concept, in this case the ultimate good, and to which other resultant goods may be compared or measured against to see if they qualify as ultimate goods.

 

            Aristotle gives three criteria for determining what an ultimate good is.

First, an ultimate good is complete without qualification as stated below:

 

                        But the best good is apparently something complete.

                                    pp.7, 1097a27

 

 

            An ultimate good exists for its own sake and enables and depends upon no further goods to make a persons life better.  Aristotle uses the term Òchoice worthyÓ in the quote below to indicate that it makes a life better.

 

 

                        Hence an end that is always choice worthy in its own right, never                                        because of something else, is complete without qualification

                        pp.7, 1097a36

 

 

            An ultimate good is a target that you want Òjust becauseÓ and and when you attain it, youÕre finished. We choose to pursue activities that  lead us to some ultimate good Òjust becauseÓ. In the quote below, Aristotle begins to suggest that Happiness is an ultimate good.

 

 

                        Now happiness more than anything else seems complete without                                      qualification. For we always choose it because of itself, never because of                          something else.

                        pp7, 1097b15

                                   

 

            The second criteria is that an ultimate good is Òself-sufficientÓ  An ultimate good is stand alone. All by itself it makes life worth living. This is as opposed to pursuing personal good after personal good, allowing our desires to go on and on until our pursuits are pointless and vain.            This awareness of the potential for desire run riot is part of AristotleÕs core extrapolation of the Òultimate goodÓ.       

                       

                                    Suppose, then, that the things achievable by action have                                                      some end that we wish for because of itself, and because of                                                   which we wish for the other things, and that we do not                                                            choose everything because of something else- for if we                                                   do, it will go on without limit, so that desire will prove                                                          to be empty and futile. Clearly, this end will be the good,                                                            that is to say, the best good. 

                                    pp. 1, 1094a18-20

                                               

                                   

            The third criteria is that an ultimate good is most choiceworthy. An ultimate good is not one among many.

 

                                    We regard something as self-sufficient when all by itself it makes a                                   life choiceworthy and lacking nothing;

                                    pp.7, 1097b14

                       

            This is a life pointed at the ultimate good is a life worth choosing. A life lead in this way is unique and stands alone. We want it because we know it will make our life better. Now Aristotle makes the connection of happiness as an ultimate good:  

 

Moreover we think happiness is most choiceworthy of all goods since it is not counted as one among many, 

                                    pp7, 1097b16

           

            At this point Aristotle is now comfortable asserting that happiness is indeed an ultimate good, and he has used his own criteria to back up his claim. He is laying the ground work for virtue as  the Golden Mean, a point of balance between excesses and deficiencies, driven by primary and secondary motivators. This will be pursued further in Question 2.

                                               

Aristotle concludes:

 

Happiness then is apparently something complete and self-sufficient since it it the end of the things achievable in action.

                                    pp 8, 1097b20
Question 2

Aristotle does not think that each and every pleasure is a good thing, regardless of its source? Why not? Does he think that we should engage in virtuous activity for the sake of the pleasure it brings? Why or why not? What is the relationship between virtuous activity and pleasure in the life of a good person, according to Aristotle? In your answer, be sure to cite and explain the key texts on which you have relied.

 

Part 1 – Aristotle does not think that each and every pleasure is a good thing, regardless of its source? Why not?

            Aristotle would say NO! Each and every pleasure is not  a good thing. Because again of arguments of belief. What you think is pleasure(what pleases you), or inversely, what you think is pain (what displeases you) depends on your character. A good character is formed by right upbringing, right habituation (guidance and training), and practice.  If you experience pleasure by squashing snails barefooted, you may have a lucrative career pending in adult fetish film making, but no one would call you of virtuous character. If seeing others to well and achieve in their lifetimes makes you angry, no one would say you were of virtuous character.   Aristotle reasons:

           

                        That is why we need to have had the appropriate upbringing – right

                        from early youth, as Plato says - to make us find enjoyment or pain in

                        the right things; for this is the correct education.

                        pp45 1104b11

 

            A person who has mastered their pleasures and pains has attained a mean (balance point) which contributes to what Aristotle calls ÒereteÓ. Erete translates to ÒexcellenceÓ which is very similar to our western concept of virtue. 

            It is obvious that pain corrupts virtue, but excessive pleasure corrupts virtue too.

 

Virtue is about pleasures and pains; the actions that are its sources also increase it or, if they are done badly, ruin it; and its activity is about the same actions as those that are its sources.

                        pp46, 1105a26

 

            In this quote we see that there is the human component also. After all humans are the source of actions both virtuous and non-virtuous. Aristotle implies in this quote that pleasure, then, is good if a good person has it, and bad if a bad person has it. This statement begs the question: What is a good person? Aristotle expects us to use common sense in this. He would say that we already know what a good or virtuous person is. He goes on to assert that if  you are having trouble deciding if something is worth pursuing in life (virtuous) all you have to do is ask a virtuous person.            

 

Part 2 – Does he think that we should engage in virtuous activity for the sake of the pleasure it brings? Why or why not?

 

            Aristotle would say NO! We should not engage in virtuous activity for the sake of the pleasure it brings. He says that we must engage in virtue for the sake of itself (ultimate good remember).

           

            Because virtue exists as a mean between pleasure and pain  (excess and deficiency), and implies that we have these extremes under control (our primary motivation is for the sake of the virtue, not for the pleasure it brings), Aristotle observes that extremes of pain or pleasure actually corrupt the intent of virtue:

 

                        Further the sources and means that develop each virtue, also ruin it.

                        pp43 1103b6

           

            If pleasure was all there was as a motivator for virtue, weÕd just do it all the time and there would be no need for a mean called virtue at all. This would also land us in the place of doing everything for our personal pleasure, desires run riot, and our pursuits become pointless and vain.

 

            Let us examine the virtue called courage. If a person is brave to the point of being over confident, he is rash and the virtue of courage is corrupted. If a person is afraid the point of being paralyzed, he is a coward, again the virtue of courage is corrupted.

 

            Aristotle makes an interesting observation here:

 

                        Your behavior following your actions is a sign of character

                        pp45 1104b5

 

            Often a persons true character shows in their behavior after an action is done. Bragging - hints at over confidence and may be a loud cover up for rash behavior. Hiding, or lying about you involvement may signal cowardly behavior. Courage then is the  mean between over confidence (rashness) and paralyzing fear (cowardice)

 

            We can take pleasure in virtue in a way which exhibits a bit more finesse. (as a secondary motivator). It is ok to take pleasure in the doing of the virtue, as opposed to the displaying of it or the resultant of it. It is ok to enjoy the feeling of well-being that the doing of a virtuous thing brings. There is a profound feeling of satisfaction which comes with virtuous activities. Virtuous people are usually liberal (generous) with their virtuous activity. Aristotle would say this type of pleasure is fine but that it must never, ever be the primary motivator. If the feeling of well-being (pleasure from the doing) becomes the primary motivator for a virtuous action, then the virtue is corrupted.

 

Part 3 – What is the relationship between virtuous activity and pleasure in the life of a good person, according to Aristotle?

 

            Aristotle observed that from birth all of our activities are mediated by pleasure and pain. He also observed that pleasure and pain can be shaped by guidance, training, and laid the path for the birth of the advertising business.           

 

                        every feeling, every action implies pleasure or pain

                        pp 45 1104b14

 

            By the quote above, Aristotle indicates that he indeed understands how difficult it is for us to get our pleasures under control. He goes on in the quote below to connect pleasure and pain with respect to virtue as a balance point.

 

Again if he stands firm against terrifying situations , and enjoys it, or at least         does not find it painful, he is brave, if he finds it painful, he is cowardly. For virtue of character is about pleasures and pains.

                        pp45 1104b6

           

            In the next quote, Aristotle acknowledges that we naturally tend to view every activity through the lenses of : ÒwhatÕs in it for me?Ó. 

           

every state of soul is naturally related to and about whatever naturally makes it better or worse.

                        pp45 1104b20        

 

            From birth all of our virtuous activities are conditioned by pleasure and pain. We cannot help but be driven by them. The idea is that through good training, and lots of practice, our primary motivation for virtuous activity is for its own sake. With lots of training and lots of practice, we get personal desires under control, and they drop into a secondary motivation position. In the quote below Aristotle says that this is where these pleasures and pains belong. Pleasure must never be the primary motivator in our virtuous activities. Aristotle illustrates this point:

 

Virtues are about pleasures and pains; the actions that are its sources also increase it, or if they are done badly, ruin it; and its activity is about the same actions as those that are its sources.

                        pp46 1105b15
Question 3

AristotleÕs official definition of virtue has five clauses. Explain what he is saying in each of the five clauses of that definition. Then paraphrase the whole definition in a sentence ot two. How would Aristotle define ÒdutyÓ? According to him, what is the standard we should follow in deciding what to do? In your answer, be sure to cite and explain the key texts on which you have relied.

 

Part 1 – AristotleÕs official definition of virtue has five clauses. Explain what he is saying in each of the five clauses of that definition.

            Aristotle's virtue is procedural. There is a real systematic process for the nature of and determination of Òwhat is virtueÓ. But we need some foundation first.

 

            Aristotle uses the process of elimination in many of his determinations. In other words, he illustrates what a concept is not, and then uses the attributes remaining as indicators of what a concept is. IÕm not sure that I like it, but nevertheless it is the cornerstone of his logic. We have to begin by classifying the genus of virtue in order to get us to the point that we can effectively outline clauses necessary for something to qualify as virtuous.

 

            He begins by stating that humans have 3 conditions: feelings, capacities and states. By ÒfeelingsÓ he means emotions, by capacities he means our ability to be emotional. For example we have the capacity to be angry, or be happy etc. He eliminates virtue as a feeling because we donÕt make decisions to be angry or happy we just are angry or happy. Virtue exists as a point of balance. In order to establish this balance point decisions must be made with regard to it. This also implies that we have given it some thought. (we reasoned about it) At the same time, it cannot be said that you have lived a good life if you have felt anger. Therefore, feelings cannot in and of themselves be virtues. One down, two to go. Capacity is out because we all have the capacity to make a virtuous choice. We are not excellent because we can make a virtuous choice, we are excellent because we have made virtuous choices. Here we are at the answer by the process of elimination, virtue is a state. Aristotle asserts:

           

If then, the virtues are neither feelings nor capacities, the remaining possibility is then that they are states

                        p48, 1106a12

 

            So, virtue is a state but - what kind of state is virtue? Well, the first thing is that a virtue must make you a better you. See quote below:

                       

every virtue causes its possessors to be in a good state and to perform their functions well.

                        p48, 1106a16

 

            It has a moderate nature. not too excess, not too deficient. Either extreme is considered by Aristotle to be a vice. Virtue strives for the balance between excess and deficiency. This mean is an internal mean and an external mean. Let us again revisit the virtue of courage. The internal mean of the virtue of courage is the achievement of the balance of behavior ( not rash and not fearful).  The external mean is our behavior after a courageous action is performed. (how do we handle the notoriety) Aristotle understands that feelings are important to defining virtue, however as mentioned in the previous question, they cannot be virtuous in and of themselves. Feelings are intrinsic to our survival instincts. We need them for that, and Aristotle sees the value of a state that transcends conscious reason in determining what a virtue is. Our feelings are usually a good indicator of what Òtoo much excessÓ or Òtoo much deficiencyÓ actually is.

 

            In a nutshell then, Aristotle's 5 clauses for defining virtue are stated as:

 

Virtue, then, is a state that decides, consisting in a mean, the mean relative to us, which is defined by reference to reason, that is to say to the reason by reference to which the prudent person would define it. It is a mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency.

                        p49 1107a1

           

            So AristotleÕs virtue is a specific procedural process. Again using the example of courage to illustrate the procedure: 1. I decide if a courageous act is a good thing to do based on: 2. a sense of balance derived from: 3. enough feeling (IÕm not too afraid, and IÕm not too over confident), 4. whether it makes sense or not to do it, 5. with the comparison standard being: would a wiser person do it too?

 

            Restating: virtue is a state that discerns or decides, what it decides upon is based a point of balanced achieved by measuring appropriate feelings, tempered by reason.  When we are in doubt about whether or not something is the ÒrightÓ thing to do, or is virtuous,  we fall back on our common sense knowledge about virtuous people. Aristotle says that we already know what good people are. So we should always check what we are doing against what a ÒvirtuousÓ person would do in the same situation.

 

Part 1a – Then paraphrase the whole definition in a sentence ot two.

            AristotleÕs virtue is a state of character developed from the repetition of virtuous actions.  These actions are based on a decision which establishes a balance point (mean). This decision is made relative to an internal reference point (me) rather than an external one (object), and it is grounded in reason. So, virtue is a state that decides - is in process, the decision is a located and chosen intermediate (mean), and the decision is reasonable, always based on the standard of Òwhat a reasonable person would doÓ.

 

Part 2 – How would Aristotle define ÒdutyÓ?

            Aristotle has absolutely no word or concept for what we know to be duty.  I think that this concept is better illustrated through the lens of St. Augustine. St. Augustine says: ÒLove God, and do as you pleaseÓ. By this he means that if you love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind, then lies, mistrust, cowardice or other behaviors of vice just donÕt have a logic for existence. If you love God, you will not do anything to hurt yourself in God. And you will do the things that are coherent with loving God. You will not lie, cheat, steal, brag, be cowardly etc. It is not a coincidence that these look like the excesses and deficiencies that Aristotle speaks of . In the same sense then, Aristotle believes that if you are pursuing a live of virtue through reason, then then you are already doing virtuous things.  Duty just doesnÕt exist. You are already making good, rational decisions. There is no basis for a state such as duty. 

 

Part 3 – According to him, what is the standard we should follow in deciding what to do?

            Aristotle would suggest that the standard we should follow is to do what other good people do. Again he uses the process of elimination to illustrate this. The only way a person can be come virtuous is by doing virtuous things, and if someone does not do these things, they can never be virtuous. This is a dependent relationship. Therefore if you see someone who is going good, they are good. We should do as they do.

 

a person comes to be just from doing just actions, and comes to be temperate from doing temperate actions; for no one has the least prospect of becoming good from failing to do them.

                        p47 1105b10

 

            By this quote Aristotle means that a ÒgoodÓ person is called a good person because they are doing good things. If they are good, then they are doing good things and they know what good things are.  Good people are a reliable and reasonable source for what is good. Therefore, to decide what to do we do what a good person would do.
Question 4

What is our natural function, according to Aristotle? What he mean by calling it our function? How does Aristotle argue for the claim that only a rational, thought-out life (a life of activity according to reason) can be a truly happy one? Explain his argument step by step, numbering each of the premises and conclusions. In your answer, be sure to cite and explain the key texts on which you have relied.

 

Part 1 –  What is our natural function, according to Aristotle?

            Everything has a function. Saddles function as a means for us to mount and ride a horse safely. A saddle makerÕs function is to make saddles. The saddle maker is not a saddle maker unless he is making saddles, and he wonÕt be making saddles for long unless me makes excellent saddles. Therefore, saddle making is dependent on making saddles, and the happiest saddle maker is a saddle maker who makes excellent saddles. Aristotle asserts that if this is true for a craft, such as saddle making, then it is also true for the human condition at large. See quote below:

           

whatever has a function and characteristic action, seems to depend on its function, the same seems to be true of a human being, if a human being has a             function.

                        pp8 1097b29

 

            After differentiating us as a somewhat more sophisticated life form than plants, Aristotle goes on to assert that as the function of a saddle maker, continuing the example, is to make saddles, then also humans at large must have some sort of life action that we were built for. He calls this our Ònatural functionÓ

 

            Once again by the process of elimination (stating what our natural function is not) Aristotle comes to the conclusion that our natural function is to live a good (happy) life. The way we achieve this is to first figure out what our purpose in life is, then to do all the actions necessary to fulfill this purpose, and to do these activities well. Aristotle will also assert that part of this natural function is the process of reasoning. A happy life is a rational life. Living a good and rational life depends on doing the activities well. Aristotle is now ready to define our natural function:

 

Moreover we take the human function to be a certain kind of life, and take this life to be activity and actions of the soul that involve reason; hence the function of the excellent man is to do this well and finely

                        pp8 1098a14

 

 

Part 2 –  What does he mean by calling it our function?

            For Aristotle everything is about activity. Our natural function is what we were born to do. There can be no greater happiness than doing what you were born to do, and doing it well. The classic example of this is the acorn. The purpose of an acorn is to become an oak. If an acorn could have consciousness...it would be happy merely from participating in its process of growing into an oak because the oak is evidence that the acorn did its job well.

(concept paraphrased from: A History of Western Philosophy, Vol 1, The Classical Mind, W. T. Jones, 1970, Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovitch College Publishers)

 

            As I said above, living a good and rational life depends on participating on good and rational activities.

 

Part 3 –  How does Aristotle argue for the claim that only a rational, thought-out life (a life of activity according to reason) can be a truly happy one? Explain his argument step by step, numbering each of the premises and conclusions.

            Aristotle believes that our natural function is to live a reasonable life. To prove this he begins by examining the function of various living things.

 

The classic example, which I used earlier, was the acorn. The acorns natural function is to become an oak. A catÕs natural function is to be a cat and so on. We arrive at Aristotle's first premise:

 

                        1. Every living thing has a function

 

            But where do we fit in terms of the category Òliving thingsÓ?

 

For living is apparently shared with plants, but what we are looking for is the special function of a human being hence we should set aside the life of nutrition and growth. The life next in order is some sort of life of sense perception; but this too apparently shared with horse, ox and every animal.

                        pp81098a1

 

In the quote above Aristotle acknowledges that we have characteristics in common with plants and animals such as growth and nourishment, but we are something else. There is certainly more to us than there is to the Acorn whose sole function is to become an oak. We have more to us than a cat. We are capable of decision and reason. When was the last time you saw a cat defer its gratification and NOT chase a mouse? However, we humans do have enough in common with other living things to qualify, and we arrive at Aristotle's second premise:

 

                        2. Human beings are one type of living thing.

 

            Now, do we have a natural function?

 

Then do the carpenter and the leather worker have their functions and actions but has a human being no function? Is he by nature idle, without any function? Or just as eye, hand, foot and in general, every bodily part apparently has its function may we like wise ascribe to a human being some function apart from all of these?

                        Pp8 1097b30

 

In the quote above, Aristotle examines the function of  craftsmen. He uses the example of a carpenter. If a carpenters function is to be a carpenter (build things of wood), then shouldnÕt  a human being have a function too? Even the parts of our bodies have functions. Our eyes see, our ears hear, our noses smell, so what about a human being? Is the human being something ÒotherÓ than these?

So a human being must have a function.  Here we arrive at the conclusion:

 

                        3. Therefore, human beings must have a natural function.

 

            Well, what IS our natural function?

 

The remaining possibility, then, is some sort of life of action of the part of the soul that has reason. One part of it has reason as obeying reason; the other has it as itself having reason and thinking. Moreover, life is also spoken of in two ways as capacity and as activity, and we must take a human beings function to be special function to be life as activity, since this seems to be called life more fully. We have found, then, that the human function is activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason.

Pp8 1098a5

 

In the quote above Aristotle argues that our natural function should be something ÒotherÓ in nature. It should be something unique to humans compared to the natural functions of other living things because each living things natural function is unique. Only acorns are acorns and only cats are cats.  Since we are capable of actions chosen by thoughtful decision, the primary components of which are thinking and reasoning, and since no other living things do this, and since thinking and reasoning are what defines humans as unique from other living things, then our natural function must be related to this capacity for thinking and reasoning. (another sort of process of elimination argument) In argument form:

 

            A generalized hypothesis emerges

 

                        4. Any living things natural function is:

                                    a) a thing it does

                                    b) a thing it does that nothing else does

                                    c) a thing that it does which is its defining characteristic

 

            Applying this generalization specifically to human capacity for reasoning:

 

                        5. a) Humans are capable of living a reasonable live

                            b) Humans are the only ones who do it.        

                            c) This ability to live reasonably the main activity which defines humans

 

            Therefore:

 

                        6. Living reasonably is the natural function of a human being.

 

            How do we connect  this natural function with living a good life?

 

But presumably the remark that the best good is happiness is apparently something generally agreedÉFor just as the good i.e. doing well, for a flautist, a sculptor and every craftsman and in general  for whatever has a function and characteristic  action seems to depend on its function. The same seems to be true for a human being, if a human being has some function.

                        Pp8 1097b 25

 

In the quote above, Aristotle again examines the function of craftsmen. He uses the example of a carpenter again also. If a carpenterÕs function is to be a carpenter (build things of wood), then the ÒgoodÓ for a carpenter is to be a good carpenter. Being a good carpenter is happiness for a carpenter. Mainly because he wonÕt be a carpenter who is earning a good living unless he is a good one. So the function of a carpenter is not just to make things of wood, but to make things of wood well. This is a dependent relationship which leads Aristotle to another premise:

 

                        7. To do well at your natural function is ultimate happiness for every living                                        thing.

 

            In the case of human beings, therefore, since we have already argued that our natural function is to live a reasonable life, based on conclusion 6 & 7, conclusion 8 follows logically:

 

                        8. Our true happiness is found in living a reasonable life and doing it well.

           

            Aristotle expresses it this way:

                        Moreover, we take the human function to be a certain kind of life, and take this life to be activity and actions of the soul that involve reason; hence the function of the excellent man is to do this well and finely.