On Goodness

In response to the following readings,

Ethics, Books I-V by Aristotle

Meno by Plato

Gorgias by Plato

Crito by Plato

Symposium by Xenophon

                The readings from Aristotle, Plato, and Xenophon all deal with aspects of ethics (sometimes called politics), i.e. the pursuit of happiness by means of being a good person.  Book I of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics helps to define what “good” is and how one defines it for himself or for society and the methods to seek it. Aristotle suggests that In order for a person to be able to realize what his or her higher good is and the methods for achieving it, thus achieving happiness, he or she needs to be mature and knowledgeable; i.e. they need to be able to use reason. Once able to use reason, man can keep desire under control (within the “golden mean”) and become a moral person. Book II goes on to expand on what moral virtues are.

                Aristotle sees each person as a particular nature and particular tendencies to desire an excess (above or below) what brings them to their highest good. He explains that self-realization is the way to understand one’s inclination and to learn to control the vices in life. He goes on to explain how we must use reason to look at the long-term outcomes when making choices for our highest good. He expands this idea to society at large and suggests that the good of the majority supersedes that of the minority (perhaps relating the minority to the likes of special interest groups that would operate like desire out of control).  He suggests that disorganization of human nature is what amounts to moral evil; that we are born neither good nor bad but have the possibility to become either and that our nature grows by the choices we make and the habits we acquire.

                The formation of our habits may be difficult, but with the use of reason, we can overturn bad habits and take on good ones. Aristotle supposes that only with a good set of habits can one be a good person and to form these good habits, one must follow the “golden mean doctrine”, or as Plato refers to in his writings, temperance: i.e. avoiding excesses. There is no set standard to follow and each person must use reason to find out where the golden mean is in each situation that he encounters – to use intellect rather than emotion. The golden mean however, never allows for the toleration of injustice or cruelty.  Aristotle goes on to explain moral responsibility regarding the choices we make in Book III.

                Moral responsibility, to Aristotle, meant that we are responsible for any voluntary course of action we follow and the resulting consequences. He does admit that sometimes coercion or ignorance causes us to makes choices that we might otherwise not choose, and in those cases, he removes responsibility. To him, good moral choices are not based on the intent or the outcome, but comes from a good intention, uses good methods, and ends in good results, as  much as can be determined ahead of time.  A wise decision is usually based on the deliberation prior to making the decision, involves thinking for the long term and using reason over emotion. Finally, in the end of Book III, Aristotle differentiates between vice and virtue as vice being something we over-indulge in. A virtue he mentions is courage, which is between cowardice and foolhardiness and thus follows the golden mean. Again he is referring to the need for temperance. He gives further examples of virtues in Book IV of Nicomachean Ethics.

                Aristotle continues to give examples about how virtues demonstrate the golden mean, avoiding any excess. He also points out that the moral quality of an action or decision is situation specific, and thus must be measured on its own merits and should be based on reason versus emotion (as previously mentioned).  

All of the arguments in Aristotle’s first three books of Nicomachean Ethics lead to a description of how to be a good person in Book IV.  To begin with, a good man will be generous, but without exceeding the long-term needs of those s/he helps; it is by wisdom that s/he will know how and when not to exceed. S/he will not be generous for sake of attention and public honor, but because it is right and good and will be generous quietly, occasionally publically, will be modest, and accept what is due, even if it be public honor. Such a person would be considered magnificent by Aristotle. Further, s/he will be kind and considerate, gentle in disposition, but know when appropriate anger is necessary, without letting it get out-of-hand. S/he will be honest and modest, and ambitious but not greedy.

Book V turns away from the description of a good man to the topic of justice. Again he uses the doctrine of the golden mean as his tool by which to measure; however, this time he discusses not only individual justice, but more so, societal justice (the golden mean doctrine is for individuals).  Society has rules, or laws, and laws are given to provide for freedom more so than anarchy does and supplies a system of rewards and punishments (much like a parent/child relationship, as Socrates later suggests in Plato’s Crito).  The rewards and punishments must conform to the golden mean in order to be just – they must not be too light or too severe. The just state will provide a just system and distribution of wealth that provide for the best way for its people to realize their highest good. This does not mean equal distribution, as the distribution in Aristotle’s mind is to be based on merit as well as need. Aristotle sees justice as being “good”, whereas Aristotle and Socrates call it a virtue.

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates says ruling (government) can only be virtuous if it is just. If we put his words with Aristotle’s, it would seem that virtue is equal to “good”; however, Socrates seems to be unable to define what virtue is, but can only come to the conclusion that it is something neither innate or learned, but is, as he puts it, “a gift from the gods”.  Plato continues to describe how Socrates considers virtue in the dialogue, Gorgias.

In Gorgia’s, opposite natures are expressed: true/false, flattery/routine, good/evil, etc. Another distinction is made regarding “good” – it is different from pleasant. Socrates especially differentiates between rhetoric and wisdom. He sees rhetoric as false, as it is persuasion to convince others that something is true when it may not in fact be. Wisdom regards acknowledgement of actual truth. Virtue is something that Socrates says arises from the balance of the arts (i.e. temperance ), which is similar to Aristotle’s idea that following the golden mean doctrine provides for what is good. Further, Socrates suggests that virtue manifests in righteous living and suggests its importance beyond life.

Socrates further discusses justice in regard to the State and laws and ethical behavior in Plato’s Crito. Here, Socrates is portrayed in prison when a friend comes to persuade him to escape. Socrates refuses, saying that to do so, he would have to cause others to do wrong and he himself would be doing wrong and go unpunished, which he believes is the worst evil. Crito is concerned about what others think of him if he is unsuccessful in helping Socrates escape, to which Socrates answers that a person should not care about public opinion, but rather wise advice, and to just behave well and justly. (This is much like what I tell my son: that when others say things about him that are not nice and not true, I remind him to ignore their lies and be confident in his truth).

Socrates continues to show the parent/child relationship mentioned earlier that the citizen has with the State. If one is a citizen of the State, s/he must follow the laws that are set forth with the assumption that the State (or parent figure) is looking out for the citizen’s (child’s) best interest. If you continue to live in the State and not leave, it is an unspoken contract to follow the Law. As Socrates had lived in Athens for over seventy years, he shows Crito that he would be very wrong to escape now, as he had contracted for all this time to follow the laws and never left when he had the opportunity to.

At this point in the readings, it seems to me that a “good” person is one that:

·         practices the golden mean in their actions

·         uses wisdom in deliberations

·         seeks the  long-term highest good

·         follows the Laws of the State in which s/he chooses to reside

·         uses good intention, good methods, and has good results

The final reading, Xenophon’s Symposium appears to me to expand the idea of good and how each of us have different highest goods, or rather, that each of us have his or her own purposes in life to fulfill, and what we pride ourselves in seems to help us to define our purpose.

                In the beginning of Symposium, Socrates suggests that love of the soul is much more important than love of the body. In this, I think he refers not only to human desires, but also the material versus the immaterial. The man focused on material things or human desire rather than the quality of his soul is like the short term renter and not a mortgage holder. The renter does not care to look at the long term, whereas the mortgage holder wants a return on his investment and is willing to put the work into increasing the quality of the home. He continues to discuss how our relationships also have effect on the moral quality of our souls, as if we keep good company, they will help us to also become good, and if our company is corrupt, we will be likely to pick up their habits. And since habit has much to do with our moral quality, we should only seek to keep company with the righteous. This also works in reverse, for how can we provide real help to our loved ones to become good if we ourselves are not good? He finalizes this message by explaining that a virtuous life will be self-evident, which is reminiscent of Socrates’s chastisement of Crito about being worried about what others think of him. Live righteously and do not let others deflect your path to immortality. 

I would love to hear your critiques, comments, and more, so write something below! :)      

Written for my Intro to Political Philosophy class on 3/5/12