Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics remains one of the most influential works on moral philosophy. In it, Aristotle explores the nature of the good, the purpose of human action, and the path to true happiness. Although written in the context of ancient Greek society, his insights continue to spark debate and inspire contemporary thinkers.
The Quest for the Ultimate Good
Aristotle begins his inquiry by noting that every action, every craft, and every inquiry aims at some good. In this sense, “good” is defined as the end toward which all endeavors are directed. He famously writes, “Every craft and every inquiry… seems to aim at some good; hence the good has been well defined as that at which everything aims.” By suggesting that there must be a supreme good—something chosen for its own sake rather than as a means to an end—Aristotle lays the groundwork for his subsequent exploration of human happiness.
According to Aristotle, although many goods exist (pleasure, wealth, honor), only one can be the final end of all our pursuits. This final end he identifies as eudaimonia, a term often translated as “happiness” or “flourishing.” However, eudaimonia is more than just a fleeting emotional state—it encompasses living well and doing well throughout one’s life. Aristotle argues that happiness is self-sufficient and final; if offered alongside other goods, happiness will always be chosen because it is not pursued as a means to something else. Thus, Aristotle establishes happiness as the supreme good for human life.
Virtue and the Path to Happiness
Central to Aristotle’s account is the idea that achieving happiness is inseparable from the cultivation of virtue. He explains that every human being has a specific function that distinguishes him from other forms of life. While plants and animals share basic life functions such as nutrition and growth, humans possess rationality—a capacity for reason that shapes our actions and choices.
For Aristotle, the unique human activity is the exercise of reason. In living in accordance with reason, and more specifically in acting virtuously, we fulfill our function as human beings. Virtue, however, is not innate; rather, it is acquired through practice and habituation. Just as a flute player becomes skilled through repeated practice, a person becomes virtuous by repeatedly performing virtuous actions. Aristotle distinguishes between two types of virtues:
- Intellectual Virtues: These include qualities like wisdom, intelligence, and prudence. They are usually acquired through teaching and deliberate learning.
- Moral Virtues: These include traits such as courage, temperance, and liberality. Moral virtues develop from habit rather than from nature.
The Aristotelian doctrine of the “mean” further refines his account of virtue. Virtue is a balance between two extremes—excess and deficiency. For example, courage is the mean between the extremes of rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). The idea is not to achieve an exact numerical balance but to find the appropriate level of emotion or action in context. While this concept of the mean provides a useful rule of thumb, its practical application requires judgment, which Aristotle identifies with the virtue of prudence.
Deliberation, Choice, and the Voluntary
A distinctive feature of Aristotle’s moral philosophy is his attention to voluntary action. According to him, praise and blame can only be meaningfully assigned to actions that are voluntary. An action is voluntary if the agent knows what he is doing and acts according to his own deliberations and choices. In contrast, actions performed under compulsion or ignorance are not fully voluntary.
Aristotle carefully delineates between actions done under compulsion and those done in a state of ignorance. For instance, if someone is forced to act by external pressure, their behavior is not truly reflective of their own will. Similarly, when ignorance about the circumstances leads to an unintended action, the moral responsibility attached to that action is diminished. Yet, there is a subtle point here: moral ignorance—being unaware of what constitutes virtue and vice—cannot be used as an excuse for vice. In this way, Aristotle reinforces the importance of self-awareness and the deliberate exercise of reason.
Deliberation itself is characterized by Aristotle as a process concerned with means rather than ends. When we deliberate, we weigh different options about how best to achieve a given end. The decision-making process is thus a practical syllogism: a general principle (e.g., “Dry food is good for man”), a particular observation (“Here is some dry food”), and the conclusion, which results in action (“I will eat it”). Such reasoning underlines the fundamental connection between thought and action, emphasizing that rationality is not just an abstract quality but a lived reality that informs our daily choices.
Contrasting Views: Aristotle Versus Plato
One of the key debates in ancient philosophy concerns the nature of the good and how it is understood. Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, posited the existence of a single, transcendent Form of the Good. In Plato’s view, the Form of the Good is the ultimate object of desire and the standard against which all things are measured. However, Aristotle challenges this notion by pointing out that the word “good” is used in multiple contexts. When we call something “good,” we refer not only to its inherent qualities but also to its desirability. Thus, Aristotle argues that good cannot be a unitary, transcendental concept if it is to explain the diverse range of things that people value.
Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s concept of the good is not simply an intellectual quibble—it has practical implications. Plato’s ethical theory, which makes goodness independent of this-worldly happiness, risks becoming irrelevant to everyday life. In contrast, Aristotle insists that an account of goodness must be intimately connected with human well-being. His focus on happiness as both a state of faring well and behaving well means that ethics, for Aristotle, is inseparable from the creation of a society in which the good life is possible. This difference in perspective is emblematic of the broader tension between the idealism of Plato and the practical realism of Aristotle.
The Role of Pleasure in Human Life
Another significant issue in Aristotle’s Ethics is the role of pleasure. Pleasure is a central concern for many ethical theories, and Aristotle is no exception. Some philosophers, like Eudoxus, argued that pleasure is the supreme good. Aristotle, however, contends that pleasure, while undeniably present in human life, cannot serve as the ultimate end.
Aristotle reasons that while pleasure accompanies virtuous activity, it is not the goal itself. When one enjoys an activity, that pleasure is a sign of doing something well rather than an independent objective. He notes that pleasure supervenes on the good life much like the bloom on a youthful cheek—it is a natural consequence of engaging in activities that fulfill our rational capacities. Importantly, pleasure in Aristotle’s account does not provide a clear criterion for choosing one activity over another. Instead, it supports the idea that the highest good lies in activities that express the best of our rational nature—namely, philosophical contemplation and speculative reasoning.
This view of pleasure is both subtle and complex. On one hand, Aristotle acknowledges that pleasure validates our actions by indicating that we are acting in accordance with our nature. On the other, he resists reducing the ultimate good of human life to the pursuit of pleasure alone. In his framework, the pursuit of pleasure is secondary to the realization of human potential through rational and virtuous activity.
The Social Context of Virtue
Aristotle’s ethics is deeply rooted in the social and political context of his time. For Aristotle, human beings are naturally social creatures, and the community plays a crucial role in shaping our moral character. In the small-scale Greek polis (city-state), social interactions and political assemblies provided the framework within which virtue was both practiced and admired. In these settings, citizens were not only involved in policy-making but also in the daily interactions that fostered moral development.
Aristotle’s analysis of various virtues often reflects the values of his social class. Traits such as liberality, magnificence, and greatness of soul are closely tied to notions of honor and social status. The ideal “great-souled” man, for instance, is characterized by a distinctive combination of self-confidence, generosity, and a sense of superiority. This figure, who claims and deserves much, exemplifies a particular aristocratic ideal that may not easily translate to modern egalitarian societies.
Yet, Aristotle’s emphasis on the importance of friendship and social bonds also underscores the idea that ethics extends beyond the individual. He categorizes friendships according to their basis—whether on pleasure, mutual utility, or shared virtue—and suggests that true friendship is indispensable for a flourishing life. However, his narrow view of friendship, which tends to emphasize relationships among equals or those based on mutual admiration, leaves little room for relationships defined by unconditional love or emotional depth. This focus reflects his broader social conservatism and his commitment to a hierarchical understanding of human society.
The Centrality of Prudence and Practical Wisdom
At the heart of Aristotle’s ethical theory lies the concept of prudence (phronesis), which he regards as the keystone of all virtue. Prudence is not merely cleverness or practical intelligence; it is the capacity to deliberate well about what is good and expedient for oneself. In making moral decisions, the prudent person is guided by a deep understanding of general principles and the ability to apply them to the complexities of everyday life.
Prudence is what allows us to recognize the mean in our actions—striking the right balance between excess and deficiency. It ensures that our choices are not just a product of instinct or habit, but are the result of careful consideration and reflection. This aspect of Aristotle’s thought addresses a longstanding debate in ethics: whether moral decision-making should be based on rational deliberation or spontaneous emotion. Aristotle clearly sides with the former, arguing that a well-reasoned life is essential to achieving true happiness.
At the same time, Aristotle is acutely aware of the inherent fallibility of human nature. He acknowledges that people can know what is right and yet fail to act accordingly. Whether due to weakness of character, conflicting emotions, or external pressures, such moral lapses are an inescapable part of the human condition. In this way, Aristotle’s ethics not only prescribes how we ought to act but also provides a framework for understanding the inevitable gap between our ideals and our actual behavior.
More Affairs
Reflections on the Limitations of Aristotle’s Ethical Vision
Despite its profound influence, Aristotle’s ethical framework is not without its critics and limitations. One key area of contention is the doctrine of the mean. While the idea that virtue lies between extremes offers a helpful guideline, critics argue that it can sometimes appear overly abstract or arbitrary. For instance, determining the precise “mean” in complex situations is not always straightforward, and what constitutes a virtue in one social context might not be recognized as such in another.
Furthermore, Aristotle’s ethics is deeply entwined with the values of his own society. His admiration for traits associated with the aristocracy, his acceptance of hierarchical social structures, and his limited conception of friendship and emotional relationships may seem out of place in modern discourse. These aspects of his thought raise questions about whether his account of the good life can be universally applied, or if it is inherently bound to a particular historical and cultural context.
Another significant point of criticism concerns the role of intellectualism in his theory. Some have argued that Aristotle’s emphasis on the rational and deliberate nature of human action risks neglecting the importance of emotion and spontaneity. Yet, as argued by his defenders, even proponents of more “irrational” approaches to ethics—those who champion instinct or heartfelt emotion—implicitly rely on rational principles to justify their views. Thus, while Aristotle’s framework may appear rigid to some, it continues to offer a robust model for understanding the interplay between reason, emotion, and moral responsibility.
Conclusion
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics offers a comprehensive vision of the human good—a vision in which happiness, virtue, and rational activity are inextricably linked. By defining the supreme good as that which is chosen for its own sake, and by arguing that true happiness is achieved through the exercise of reason and virtue, Aristotle provides a moral framework that continues to resonate. His detailed analysis of virtues, his emphasis on voluntary action and practical deliberation, and his recognition of the social nature of human life all contribute to an enduring legacy in ethical thought.
Despite its limitations and its ties to the values of ancient Greek society, Aristotle’s ethical theory challenges us to reflect on what it means to live well. It invites us to consider not only the ends we pursue but also the character we cultivate in the process. In an age where the demands of modern life often pull us in many directions, Aristotle’s insistence on the importance of deliberate, principled action remains a valuable guide to achieving a fulfilling and meaningful life.
