[MUSIC] For centuries, Aristotle was considered an authority.

Today, we are goin

g to look into the risks and advantages of his ethical position, but I'd like to
quickly touch on Aristotle's legacy first. In every field, Aristotle's thought
struck people as so assured, so solid, that people saw what Aristotle saw. For e
xample, Aristotle said that celestial bodies were pure. And so, despite the fact
that the naked eye can see spots on the Moon, these spots went unnoticed for ce
nturies. Similarly, because Aristotle said that hares reproduce asexually, that
came to be considered as true, -- and in fact the hare became a symbol of virgin
ity in Western art. Aristotle had a particularly powerful influence on religious
ethics. And it's certainly through religious ethics that Aristotle's legacy has
had the greatest impact, and continues to today. Whether in Judaism or Islam -the names Averroes and Avicenna come to mind -- or Christianity, particularly t
hrough Thomas Aquinas, who deeply influenced Catholic theology and ethics, the A
ristotelian model was viewed as the dominant model in medieval European thought.
The middle and late Middle Ages saw a rediscovery and revival of Aristotle's th
ought, beginning in the 13th century, particularly through the influence of lite
rature from the Arab world. Such religious reinterpretations of Aristotle may se
em surprising, since Aristotle, unlike Plato, is portrayed as pointing not to th
e sky but rather to the earth below. Aristotle's thought is not ostensibly of a
religious character. But it acquired a religious extension, so to speak. If you
believe that humans naturally tend to the Good, the sovereign Good, and that thi
s sovereign Good is in fact merely an intermediary on the way to the true Good,
-- the divine beatitude which, to the believer, is achieved in the next world -then it's natural to consider Aristotle's ethical theory, his architectonics of
the Good, as basically correct but needing to be extended all the way to the ul
timate Good, which is to be found in the life beyond. This remained the ethical
model of Catholic theology for a very long time. It follows that whatever humans
discover using reason must necessarily be true, since reason is given to us by
God. And whatever belongs to the realm of faith must not contradict things that
are true by virtue of reason. Thus the position adopted was that Aristotle's the
ory is true but incomplete -- it needs to be supplemented by faith. So this poin
t of view largely subscribes to Aristotle's ethical theory. For example, when we
contemplate nature all around us, assuming our reason allows us to properly dis
cern nature's purpose or teachings, then whatever we thus learn is necessarily t
rue. There are numerous examples of this type of reasoning, including in contemp
orary ethics. For instance, an Aristotelian might say that when we feed meat to
cows to make them more productive, this goes against nature and therefore we sho
uld not be surprised when they become mad and make us sick, because it's contrar
y to the purpose nature intends for each thing. In some cases, however, the issu
e is more difficult. For example, is it possible for a human being to go against
nature in his or her sexual behavior? What is the purpose of sexuality? If you
believe that sexuality is meant to produce life, then you'll say that its purpos
e is to make babies, and anything that prevents sexuality from accomplishing its
purpose is necessarily an evil. This is the argument that some people use to cl
aim that the use of condoms is a bad thing, since it goes against nature. A key
issue, then, is who defines nature's purposes, who decides what constitutes the
Good. In religious reinterpretations of Aristotle's thought, as we've seen, reas
on maintains its place but is extended, or supplemented, by faith. The question
is to know who determines how this extension of reason through faith is to take
shape, and how individuals are to conform and comply with those purposes that ha
ve been defined as good. In other words, the issue is the place of the magisteri
um -- the authority in the Church who establishes the authentic teaching. Can th
is be determined by any person of faith, or must the authentic teaching be expou
nded by a magisterium, that is, an authority figure? Religious disputes arose, a
fter a time, about the interpretation of the Good. This is one way to look at Eu
ropean history, and the Reformation in particular -- a particularly relevant exa
mple here in Geneva. One side defines its conception of the Good, the other disa
grees and this leads not only to intellectual disputes, but real bloodshed. Thes
e attempts to reconfigure Aristotle's model, which is concrete, practical and ba
sed on the idea of self-perfection, for religious purposes thus revealed the lim

its and drawbacks of his ethical doctrine. The sculpture you see behind me is Ch
aponnire's <i>David</i>. David, of course, is the biblical character who was able
to defeat Goliath thanks to his faith. And while religion has often had the ambi
tion of reappropriating Aristotle's ideas, improving on his philosophy, and even
correcting philosophical errors in general, it has also itself been a frequent
object of criticism and scrutiny by philosophers of all schools.