Aristotle (384-322 BCE) believed that ethics have a clear, definite purpose. He defined ethics as the science of achieving eudaimonia, which means “a happy, thriving, flourishing life.”
He argued that human beings can only achieve happiness by living a life of virtue. Unfortunately, in some cases, he wrongly identified virtue with the “golden mean,” a middle-of-the-road attitude between two evils.
In general terms, Aristotle’s ethics promote the virtues of courage, temperance, and justice. Aristotle’s taught that, only by cultivating those virtues, we can achieve harmony and joy in a sustained manner.
Aristotle presented his views on ethics primarily in two of his works. They carry the titles “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics.”
Aristotelian ethics versus consequential ethics
Aristotle’s ethical theory is often referred to as virtue ethics because it focuses on behaviour patterns. It all revolves around having good habits and not deviating from them, especially in periods of crisis. If you stick to your good habits, they’ll lead you to success and happiness.
In contrast, other ethical systems focus on prescriptions that are coupled to various rewards and punishments. Whether you earn rewards or punishments will depend on your adherence level to the rules.
Christianity is a prime example of a consequential ethical system, but beware that I am using the term “consequential” to mean “ethical precepts associated to consequences.” In this context, I’m not employing the term “consequential” to mean “of high importance.”
Thus, consequential ethical systems are driven by carrots and sticks. They promise you that you will go to heaven if you comply with their rules, and at the same time, they threat you with eternal damnation in hell if you disobey.
Most consequential ethical systems take their precepts from divine revelation. God instructs human beings how to behave, and promises rewards to the obedient, and punishment to those that refuse to comply.
Are those precepts always logical and practical? Yes, to a large extent they are. If God tells us to respect other people’s life and property, I see absolutely no reason to question his commandments. In fact, those basic rules are accepted by most philosophers in all centuries.
However, there are situations where consequential ethics are rather unreliable. Once you start to complicate situations with multiple players with opposing interests and priorities, it may prove exceedingly difficult to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
The inherent complexity of consequential ethics explains why there are dozens of Christian denominations holding their own particular interpretation of the Bible. God has given them the same instructions, but applying them to everyday life is far from trivial.
Aristotle’s ethical system is not “consequential” in the sense that it does not revolve around reward and punishment. Those do not play a central role in Aristotle’s ethics because they will happen automatically (due to the nature of reality), not because God decides to reward or punish you.
Aristotle’s view of ethics as a practical science
For Aristotle, ethics as a practical science that needs to be studied systematically. If you want to lead a moral life (that is, a happy life), you’d better pay attention to Aristotle’s advice. In the last twenty-five centuries, nobody has come up with better recommendations.
Nowadays, universities place humanities studies (languages, history, ethics, sociology, etc.) outside the realm of practical science. In doing so, they are contradicting Aristotle’s views.
In his works, he also distinguished between theoretical and practical sciences, but the logic of his distinction was different. He only regarded as theoretical sciences mathematics, physics, and astronomy. For Aristotle, ethics belonged to the category of practical sciences because it teaches us how to lead a good life and attain happiness.
Aristotle’s views on happiness or eudaimonia
The central concept in Aristotle’s ethical philosophy is “eudaimonia.” As I have mentioned above, this Greek term can be translated as “happiness,” “thriving,” or “flourishing.”
Nevertheless, it’s very important to grasp that, for Aristotle, eudaimonia does not just mean pleasure or contentment in the sensory realm.
Eudaimonia has a much deeper, wider meaning. This is why plants and animals cannot attain eudaimonia. You need to be human to experience such a deep happiness level.
Aristotle defined eudaimonia as the ultimate good attainable by human beings. It’s the highest objective in human life and the most difficult to achieve.
Eudaimonia is the state in which a person’s life goes well because the person is living in accordance with his true nature. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the person feels happy because of external circumstances such as winning in a sports game.
Aristotle’s views on virtue
Aristotle taught that the cultivation of a virtuous character is the path to eudaimonia. The path is defined by good habits that you need to practise every day. Otherwise, it does not work.
If you practise courage only from time to time, it does not count as a virtue you have acquired. If you show courage once in a blue moon, it doesn’t count either. A coward who displays courage once a year shall still be categorized as a coward.
Aristotle regarded courage, temperance and justice as major virtues, but they should be complemented by intellectual ones such as wisdom and practical wisdom or “phronesis.”
Unfortunately, when it came to defining the content, scope, and applicability of each virtue, Aristotle was not a paragon of clarity. He could have given ten examples of what it means to be courageous, prudent and righteous, but instead, he created the doctrine of the golden mean.
The golden-mean doctrine is one of the few weaknesses in Aristotle’s philosophy. Not because it is wrong in all cases, but because it provides fluffy, vague, floating definitions for topics that require razor-like intellectual sharpness.
Virtue and Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean
Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean asserts that virtue is defined by the middle point between deficiency and excess. To illustrate this concept, he refers to the virtue of courage.
Deficiency in courage results in cowardice, but excess leads to recklessness. The virtuous point is the golden mean between these extremes. You need courage to stand your ground when necessary, but not in a foolish way. You should be neither too timid nor too rash.
Another example of Aristotle’s golden mean can be drawn from the virtue of generosity. Deficiency of this virtue leads to stinginess. A stingy person will refuse to share or help others when he should.
Conversely, excessive generosity will lead to extravagance. An extravagant person will give his wealth and support away without discernment, without giving it a second thought.
The virtuous mean, according to Aristotle, involves giving when appropriate and only in the right measure. Aristotle says that virtue means finding “a point of balance” in each case. I’m disappointed at such sloppy definition of virtue, but this shows that even the greatest philosopher in history wasn’t perfect.
How do you acquire virtue and set yourself on the path to a happy life? Aristotle emphasized that virtues are not innate. It’s up to each person to develop them through assiduous practice and education.
According to Aristotle, individuals will become virtuous if they repeatedly act in virtuous ways. If you want to become a righteous person, you must practice acts of justice. Each virtue is a product of long-term moral training, not of chance.
In order to remedy the chaos created by the golden-mean doctrine, Aristotle distinguished between moral and intellectual virtues.
Moral virtues such as courage pertain to one’s personality or character. Intellectual virtues relate to one’s intellectual ability and skills. Both need to be cultivated harmoniously if you want to attain happiness, but the golden-mean doctrine applies only to moral virtues.
In addition to encouraging his students to practise virtue in general, Aristotle provided explanations on how to bring ethics in the assessment of real-life situations. His explanations are also trying to remedy the uncertainty generated by his golden-mean doctrine.
Aristotle’s concept of practical wisdom
The application of ethics in real-life situation takes place by means of “practical wisdom” (or “phronesis” in Greek). What does practical wisdom mean exactly? It is the ability to pass moral judgement correctly in complex situations, especially if they demand a quick resolution.
Practical wisdom entails applying general moral principles to specific cases in order to find practical solutions. It’s not just about identifying what is ethically correct, but it includes also the specific steps to take in order to get the problem sorted out.
While moral virtues are concerned with long-term habits, practical wisdom is a matter of thought and deliberation to sort out short-term problems.
For instance, consider a situation where someone is placing you under extreme pressure to get you to do something illegal. The virtue of justice will lead you to say no, but in addition, it requires practical wisdom to extricate yourself from the whole affair without suffering losses.
I must say nonetheless that a truckload of practical wisdom won’t suffice to remedy the uncertainty created by the golden-mean doctrine. Let me explain why by giving a few examples.
Examples of Aristotle’s views on virtue
Aristotle defined courage (“andreia” in Greek) as the mid- point between cowardice and recklessness. When confronted with threats, a courageous man acts bravely, but not recklessly.
How does this definition help you find the mythical middle point between cowardice and recklessness? What should you do if the threat does not allow middle-of-the-way responses?
Aristotle defined temperance as the systematic moderation of one’s desires and pleasures. A temperate person enjoys life’s pleasures to a modest extent and avoids overindulgence.
How does this definition help you find the mythical middle point between renunciation and overindulgence? What should you do if overindulgence can be rendered inconsequential by a medical procedure?
For Aristotle, generosity is the mid-point between stinginess and extravagance. It’s about giving your wealth and support away only if such gift is appropriate and well-measured.
How does this definition help you find the mythical middle point between stinginess and extravagance? What should you do if you have plenty of money, but the person asking for help is a total stranger? Should you be generous to everybody?
Aristotle defined honesty as the mid-point between being truthful and blunt. Honest persons should not practise flattery, but on the other hand, they should not talk too harshly.
How does this definition help you? What should you do if a situation calls for telling the truth to prevent vast damages, but there is no way to sugar-coat the message? Should you remain silent because people will react badly to truthfulness?
Just one last example. Aristotle defined friendliness as the middle point between being sociable and sycophantic. You do not want to be too lonely, but also not too gregarious. You want to handle new acquaintances with respect, but avoid excessive obsequiousness.
How does this definition help you? What should you do if a job requires you to display excessive obsequiousness to people that don’t deserve it? Is it really a good idea to be friendly in a hostile environment, where friendliness will be interpreted as weakness?
As you can see, Aristotle’s golden-mean doctrine generates more problems than it solves. You cannot define a key term by pointing to other terms and saying that it should fall somehow in the middle.
The purpose of philosophy is to learn to see the world more clearly. We can only attain this goal by using clear definitions that enable us to pinpoint the right course of action.
If you are interested in learning how to find quick practical and ethical solutions to complex challenges, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s perspective on the purpose of human life
Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality
Aristotle’s concept of practical wisdom
Happiness and Aristotle’s theory of the soul