Ateneo de Naga University PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT College of Arts and Sciences Naga City Philosophy 4 Moral Philosophy Topic:

: History of Moral Philosophy ARISTOTELIAN MORAL PHILOSOPHY Background According to certain historical accounts, Aristotles childhood academic interests may have delved into science and biology. In his teen-age life, he entered the Academy founded by Plato who turned out to be his teacher. At the outset and for quite sometime, he demonstrated how he was profoundly influenced by Platos philosophical system of thinking and reasoning though, lately, Aristotle broke away and made his own philosophical views of things existing under the sun. In his study at the Academy, several scholars who specialized in empirical sciences came. Likewise, in his twilight years, Plato was noted to have some shift in his rational queries towards natural sciences along with mathematics. It was Platos latest area of concentration specifically on natural sciences together with the enormous amount of knowledge of empirical sciences brought about by the presence of the cited scholars that must have fortified Aristotles childhood curiosity towards scientific processes of things and contributed to the formulation of his own philosophy in harmony with science and its processes and facts. When Plato died at the age of 80, the administration of the Academy was delegated to his nephew by the name of Speusippos. Speusippos was so inclined to mathematics that it became a discipline of much emphasis at the Academy. Mathematics was obnoxious to Aristotles academic orientations so that he finally decided to leave the Academy and Athens and altogether philosophized in contrast with Platos theory of knowledge particularly along what Plato described as the world of forms. For Plato, the world of the sensible things is not real. Why? Because things in this world are changing and passing. If things are changing they cannot be trusted as to what they truly are. However, their existence also indicates that which remains to be permanent the principle that from which these things proceed the world of forms - the world of ideas existing out there apart from the sensible world. But then, Aristotle dismissed this kind of framework. According to him, there is no need to postulate the so-called world of forms or world of ideas. Everything that we see right here and now is real. The sensible world was where Aristotle began philosophizing in opposition to that of Plato. Man is real. Even if man, like everything, is changing, what is however changing in him is his body. There is something permanent in him as he actually exists in the world of the sensible things - his soul.

To assert his doctrine, Aristotle employed two principles: a. The material principle b. The spiritual principle In these two principles, there is a substantial unity. According to Aristotle, there is a substantial unity between body and soul, between the material principle and spiritual principle, between matter and form. It should be noted that for Plato, the union between the body and soul is accidental. For Aristotle, the union is substantial. Aristotle simply attacked the position of Plato. Philosophically, what is a substance as opposed to an accident? To Aristotle, a substance refers to the essential nature of a thing. The substance of a thing can be discovered in the way a thing is. A thing is known truly when what is known about it is that which it truly is as it is in itself. Accidents are properties or qualities that distinguish and establish the particularity or individuality of a thing. But they do not, in any manner, alter or affect the substantiality of a thing as what it is in itself. Examples of which are shape, size, color, height, etc. Humans remain humans despite their psychological, physical, social, and cultural properties that may vary from one to another. The accidents are the ones changing and not the substance of a thing constituting its essential nature. It means that a human person remains to be what he/she is despite changes in his/her properties. Aristotle underscored that man is a composite nature of body and soul. A body is not in itself man. A soul is not in itself man. To be a man, he has to be a composite of both body and soul. There is substantial union between the two in reference to the existence of man as man. Man has his own essential nature what makes him what he is. What makes him what he is, is not merely his body neither his soul. He is not a pure body - nor a pure spirit. He is a composite of both body and soul; he is an embodied spirit or an ensouled body. Moral Philosophy Aristotles theory of morality centers on his contention that people, like everything else in the cosmos, have a distinctive end to achieve and function to fulfill. The concept every human act tends towards an end comes from him. Types of Ends a. Instrumental ends b. Intrinsic ends Instrumental ends these refer to the ends achieved to be a means for another end.

Intrinsic ends these refer to the ends achieved for their own sake and not for the sake of something else. These two types of end are illustrated, for example, in activities connected with a war. To consider, step by step, what is involved in the total activity of a war, it can be noticed that there is a series of special kinds of acts to be performed with corresponding ends to be achieved. When an ammunition and armaments maker finishes his work of making the same, he achieves his end as an ammunition and armaments maker. Also, the ammunition and armaments are means for the soldiers to be able to fight. A carpenter builds a barrack and when it is completed, he has fulfilled his function and has achieved his end as a carpenter. The barrack also fulfills its function and achieves the end of sheltering the soldiers. Note that the ends attained by the ammunition and armaments maker, carpenter, and the barrack are not intrinsic ends for they are achieved not for their own sake but for other ends sake. They are merely instrumental in preparing the soldiers for their next stage of action. Similarly, the functions of the builder of ship or airplane are fulfilled when the builder achieves his end of making the ship or airplane. But then again, this end is in turn a means for transporting the soldiers to the battle field. The doctor fulfills his function of keeping the soldiers in good health and in which case, achieves his end as a doctor. But, keeping the soldiers in good health is only a means for effective fighting. The commander may also have an end in fighting which is to achieve peace and order. But peace and order cannot yet be considered as intrinsic ends as these can be a means to another end that is, to create a situation in which human beings can fulfill their functions as human beings. Now, when we get to know what people aim at, not as ammunition and armaments makers, not as carpenters, not as soldiers, not as ship or airplane builders, not as doctors, and not as commanders, then we can arrive at an end for its own sake and not for the sake of something else, and for which all other activities are only means. According to Aristotle, this must be intrinsic end of mans action. Indeed, every human act tends towards an end. Aristotle further contended that every human act tends toward an end which is good. In short, every human act tends toward what is good. The question is: what is the good toward which every human act tends? How do we understand good? Like Plato, Aristotle ascribed what is good to the fulfillment of the function of a thing. A carpenter is good if he fulfills his function as such; a doctor is good if he fulfills his functions of treating, curing, and preventing diseases and of promoting health; a student is good if he fulfills his function as a student as in obtaining good grades, performing in class so well, and so on. Actually, these would all be true to all crafts, professions, and occupations. But Aristotle further said that there is a distinction between a good doctor/ a good carpenter/ a good student and a good human person. It does not necessarily follow that when a carpenter or a student is good for fulfilling his

functions as such, then, he is already a good person. In fact, you can be a good student but not a good person and vice versa. It is possible that a good teacher is not necessarily a good human person. Now, to know the good toward which a person should tend which would make him a good human person, there is a need to discover the distinctive functions of human nature. The good person is one who is fulfilling his functions as a rational, human being. This is the Good of the humanity, Aristotle would assert. The Functions of Human Persons While our functions are different in view of our occupations, our human body also has different functions to fulfill in view of its various parts. Our eyes have functions distinctive of them so that when they fulfill their functions, we can say, our eyes are good, whereas, when they do not fulfill their functions, they cannot be considered good. So, we submit them for medical treatment to bring them back to their normal standing, to make them fulfill their functions again; the same with our nose having functions to fulfill different from those of ears, hands, and all other organs and systems in the anatomical structure of our human body. However, these functions are not distinctively human since they are also fulfilled by brute animals. Aristotle analyzed human nature to discover its unique activity saying first of all that our human end is not mere life since it is shared even by plants and brute animals. There is also a life of sensiency or corporeality, but that life is shared by brute animals like dogs, cats, oxen, etc. Hence, such functions are not distinctively human and that these will not make man a good human person as such. Let it be pointed out that there remains an active life of the element that has a rational principle. Aristotle insinuated that the distinctive and unique function of a human person is an activity of the soul which implies a rational principle. Therefore, the human good turns out to be an activity of the human soul whose fulfillment brings about virtue. Since a persons function as a human being means the proper functioning of the human soul. Aristotle sought to describe the nature of the human soul. The Human Soul According to Aristotle, the human soul is the form of the human body. As such, the soul refers to the total person. In other words, it is the function of the human soul which is distinctively human and which would make man good as a human being. Two (2) Parts of the Human Soul Rational Part Irrational Part

The irrational part is composed of 2 subparts, namely; the vegetative component and the sentient/corporeal/appetitive component.

The vegetative component- gives us the capacity to engage in nutrition and sustain our biological existence. The sensient/corporeal/appetitive component- gives us the capacity to experience desires, urges, and passions, which in turn, moves us to fulfill those desires, urges, and passions. Both of these irrational parts of the soul tend to oppose and resist the rational part. The conflict between the rational and irrational elements of the soul in man is what raises the issue of morality. Morality involves action, Aristotle contended. The specific action he referred to was the rational control and guidance of the irrational parts of the soul. To make human action good, the irrational parts should be tamed, guided, and led by the rational part. The rational part is at play directing the human act to conform to the rational nature of man which is distinctively human. Moreover, the good human person is not the one who performs a good act here and now, it is rather the one whose whole life is good. Happiness as the End Human action should aim at its proper end. People seek pleasure, wealth, and honor. Although these ends have some values, they are not the chief good for which human beings should intend. Human persons should tend towards the ultimate end of human actions. The ultimate end is that which is self-sufficient and final. It is that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Aristotle was certain that happiness is the end that meets all the requirements for the ultimate end of human actions. We choose pleasure, fame, and wealth since they are perceived as instruments of happiness, since they are viewed to make us happy. Moreover, once we fulfill our functions which must be good, then such fulfillment naturally brings about happiness. Thus, good is identical with happiness. The question is: how does our human soul attain happiness? The general rule of morality is to act in accordance with right reason. The rational part of the soul should control, guide, and lead the irrational part. Otherwise, the irrational part may go wild which may lead us not to happiness but to its opposite as our human experiences would tell us. When looking at our appetites, we discover first that they are affected and influenced by things outside of the self, such as objects and other people. Likewise, there are 2 basic ways in which the appetitive part of the soul reacts to the said external factors these ways being love or the concupiscent passion and hate or the irascible passion. Love as a form of concupiscent passion leads us to desire things and persons, whereas hate as a form of irascible passion leads us to avoid or even destroy them. It should be noted that the passions for love and hate could easily go wild when pursued by themselves. In themselves, they do not contain any principle of measure or selection. They could not provide accurate answers to

the questions such as; what/who should a person desire?; How much should his desire be?; -Under what circumstance/s?; How should we express the manner we relate with others?; etc. We do not automatically act the right way by following our passions. They should be guided and led by the rational part of the soul. Aristotle said: None of moral virtues arises in us by nature which means that moral virtues are developed, enriched, and constantly practiced. In fact, a virtue is a habit of good acts presupposing repetition of their performance. Aristotle further stated, For nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. This is why, it is imperative for us human persons to ensure that the habit being formed in us conforms to our human nature. Indeed, morality has to do with developing habits the habits of right thinking, right choices, and right behaviors, and of course, wholly good life. Virtue as the Golden Mean Passions are capable of inciting a wide range of action, from too little to too much. For example, take a look at our appetites for food. On one hand, we can be dominated by an excessive desire to eat, on the other; we may have a deficiency in our appetite for food to the point of starvation. The proper course of action to take is the course of virtue the virtuous course. Virtue serves as the mean or the middle ground between the line of excesses and the line of deficiency. The middle ground must be sought to avoid excesses or deficiencies. Passions are innate, as they are part of the soul no matter how irrational they may be. But then reason dictates that they be guided as they could not guide themselves. When we fail to achieve the middle ground, we expose ourselves to the vices of excess or deficiency. Vices must be replaced by virtues. And virtues can be achieved by constant practices of attaining the middle ground, the mean. It will make us control our passions through the rational power of the human soul thereby forming virtuous habits that lead us spontaneously to follow the middle course. Example: the virtue of courage is the mean between two vices, cowardice (a deficiency) and rashness (an excess). Virtue then, is a state of being, a state apt to exercise a deliberate choice, being in the relative mean, determined by reason, and as the person of practical wisdom would determine. Therefore, virtue is a habit of choosing in accordance with a mean the middle ground. Nevertheless, mean is not the same for every person nor is there a mean for every act. The mean is relative to each person depending on the circumstances that vary from one person to another. In the case of eating, the mean would obviously be different for an adult athlete and a five-year old child. But for every person, there is a proportionate or relative mean which is the virtue of temperance. This stands between 2 vices, namely; gluttony (an excess) and starvation (deficiency).

Although a large number of virtues stand between 2 extreme vices, there are other actions that do not have a mean at all. There very nature implies and indicates intrinsic wrongness in them. They are bad in themselves regardless of there excesses or deficiencies, examples of which are murder, theft, rape, and so on. Moral virtues then consist of cultivating habits that will spontaneously incline us to take the middle course of action or simply avoid evil conducts. Deliberation and Choice Two kinds of reasoning: 1. Theoretical reasoning gives us knowledge of fixed principles and/or philosophical wisdom. 2. Practical reasoning gives us rational guide to our moral actions under a particular circumstance where we find ourselves. It can also be called practical wisdom. Without the role of reason, without our reasoning faculty, we would not have any moral capacity to distinguish good acts from evil acts. Aristotle stressed, that although we have a natural capacity for right behavior, we do not act rightly. Goodness is in us potentially. This means that we need to actualize our potentials, we need to practice goodness, and we need to form habits of good acts. Virtue, indeed, is constantly practiced. Unlike Socrates and Plato who thought that knowing what is good is sufficient to do what is good, Aristotle said that there must be deliberate choice in addition to knowledge. Thus, Aristotle taught that the origin of moral action its efficient and not its final cause is choice and the origin of choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end. There is an important connection between free choice and human responsibility. The freer the human person is in the performance of his acts, the more responsible he becomes. If there is impairment in the exercise of his freedom, then, his moral responsibility is lesser than that of a person who fully exercises freedom. There are also involuntary acts performed which may lessen or even exonerate the agent from moral culpability. (We shall discuss this in detail when we tackle Morality of Human Acts). Contemplation For Aristotle, human nature consists not simply in the rationality but in the full range covered by vegetative, appetitive, and rational components of the soul. Virtue does not imply negation or rejection of any of these natural capacities. The moral person employs all his mental and physical capacities. Corresponding to these 2 broad divisions in human nature are 2 functions of reason; the moral and intellectual. Both have virtues. Moral virtues help us follow the middle course in response to the desires of our appetitive aspect.

Intellectual virtues focus on our intellectual rather than bodily nature. Chief among these is philosophical wisdom (Sophia) which includes scientific knowledge and the ability to grasp first principles of things. Aristotle concluded his principal works on ethics with a discussion of philosophical wisdom and the act of contemplating intellectual truths. If happiness is the product of our acting according to our distinctive nature, it is reasonable to assume that we are most happy when acting according to our highest nature. To act according to our highest nature is to do the act of contemplation. For Aristotle, contemplation is the best activity of man since not only is reason the best thing in us but also the objects of reason are the best of knowable objects. Moreover, contemplation is most continuous, since we can contemplate truth more continuously than we can do anything. Finally, we think happiness has pleasure mingled with it, but the activity of philosophical wisdom is admittedly the pleasantest of virtuous activities.