4 November 2025
Aristotle
We're going to be looking at Aristotle's ethics, the nichomachean ethics. But when Aristotle
talks about ethics, he doesn't have in mind quite the same thing that we do. The word ‘good’,
in English, we use the word good in two quire different ways. We say, oh well that's a good
car, good tin opener. But we also use the word good in a very different sense, to mean
morally good, is he a good person? It's a different kind of meaning than saying is he a good
cricketer.
Nichomachean Ethics
Aristotle is going to create this whole system – this way of looking at ethics. Before he starts
Aristotle says two things. One is that this is designed for practice, designed to make us or
help us become better people. And he makes this little aside that since what he’s talking
about is about how to become a better person, it's a special kind of theory. It's the theory
about what a good person is, but it's a theory that it's about how to become a good person.
Therefore, this won't be much use to you unless you want to become a better person and have
the bright background and upbringing that will enable you to do so. He reckons you must be
on the way to do so. Because he says what it's going to do is clarify the nature and structure
of being good. And once it clarifies it'll be easier for you to do it. Secondary preliminary
thing he says is ‘different subjects allow for different levels of precision. If you're doing
maths, you can be incredibly precise. But this is a practical subject about real life which
means it's always going to be approximate. Were never going to be able to say this exact
thing is going to be the right thing to do.
Where Aristotle starts is the idea of ‘the good’. Because Aristotle is interested to find out
what is the ‘good human being’. And he doesn't really distinguish between what is the good
man and what is good for man. He also talks about ‘the good life’ and says what we want is
to know how to live in order to live a good life. And if I do that then I will be a good person.
What is the good life and what is a good human being.
Aristotle says when we says this question we must be aware that there is no such thing as ‘the
good’ as an abstract. There is only good for particular types of beings. An elephant doesn't
have the same qualities as a good egg. Or a good elastic band. What counts as good depends
on what you’re talking about. So, Aristotle says what we are seeking to find out about is what
is the good for human beings.
, What is the ultimate good for human beings. He is going to take two routes to doing that and
they come to the same conclusion, they reinforce each other.
1. Looking at what everybody thinks. He’s going to assume that that's going to be on the
right lines. Aristotle says – suppose that we ask just anybody what is it that is the
good for humans, what do people want, what do people seek, what is it they aim at as
their good. In other words what do people think as the good. He thinks that if we do
that, almost everybody gives the same answer. The good which everybody seeks is
eudaimonia, meaning flourishing. It is human flourishing, things going really well,
you are fulfilling yourself as a human. yes, it’s going to involve happiness, no doubt.
It's a practical thing to say as most people would say I want things to go well.
Aristotle says well that probably means (if everybody says this) that that’s the right
answer. That means the good for humans is to have eudaimonia. What we need
though is to put a bit more content into that. What specifically would we want to be
seeking to get eudaimonia. Aristotle says there are four suggestions we find as to what
is the ultimate good. He also evaluates those four suggestions to see which one is
most likely the answer. He evaluates them using certain philosophical criteria about
the ultimate good.
-Aristotle says that ‘the good’ is that which is sought for its own sake.
- ‘the good’ is that for the sake of which, other things are sought
- ‘the ultimate good’ cannot be improved by the addition of another good
- ‘the good’ for anything, in this case human beings, is unique to that thing
Some people say that the good is wealth, some people say that the good is pleasure,
some people say that the good is honour (reputation or celebrity status), and the fourth
suggestion is contemplation (rational contemplation). He immediately rejects wealth
because its obvious wealth is not sought for its own sake. It's sought for the sake of
other things that we can get with the wealth. So, wealth is not ‘the good’. It can't be
pleasure that is the ultimate good for humans because humans share that with animals
(it isn’t unique to human). Honour – the main reason he rejects it is that he says that if
you talk to those people who have most honour/reputation, they will all say that
honour is not the greatest good. later, he makes another reason, he says that honour
cannot be ‘the good’ because we can make it better by adding something to it.
Specifically, we could make honour better by adding to it the reality that the honour
or reputation relate to. Illustration of this point – you came into Collingham one day
and you walked around and they say wow there's the top mathematician. What would
be even better than that if you actually were the best mathematician. So that leave,
rational contemplation. Aristotle makes it clear, if you image what you are thinking
what is true or beautiful, that for Aristotle is what he means by rational contemplation.
You don't seek it for the sake of anything else. It checks all the boxes. Eudaimonia is
achieved by a life of rational contemplation. Or being, a philosopher. Aristotle says
that a life of rational contemplation is not available for everybody. You have to be
intelligent enough for philosophy to be a feasible lifestyle for you. But he says things
aren't that bad because he says use of the reason to figure out and analyse and work
Aristotle
We're going to be looking at Aristotle's ethics, the nichomachean ethics. But when Aristotle
talks about ethics, he doesn't have in mind quite the same thing that we do. The word ‘good’,
in English, we use the word good in two quire different ways. We say, oh well that's a good
car, good tin opener. But we also use the word good in a very different sense, to mean
morally good, is he a good person? It's a different kind of meaning than saying is he a good
cricketer.
Nichomachean Ethics
Aristotle is going to create this whole system – this way of looking at ethics. Before he starts
Aristotle says two things. One is that this is designed for practice, designed to make us or
help us become better people. And he makes this little aside that since what he’s talking
about is about how to become a better person, it's a special kind of theory. It's the theory
about what a good person is, but it's a theory that it's about how to become a good person.
Therefore, this won't be much use to you unless you want to become a better person and have
the bright background and upbringing that will enable you to do so. He reckons you must be
on the way to do so. Because he says what it's going to do is clarify the nature and structure
of being good. And once it clarifies it'll be easier for you to do it. Secondary preliminary
thing he says is ‘different subjects allow for different levels of precision. If you're doing
maths, you can be incredibly precise. But this is a practical subject about real life which
means it's always going to be approximate. Were never going to be able to say this exact
thing is going to be the right thing to do.
Where Aristotle starts is the idea of ‘the good’. Because Aristotle is interested to find out
what is the ‘good human being’. And he doesn't really distinguish between what is the good
man and what is good for man. He also talks about ‘the good life’ and says what we want is
to know how to live in order to live a good life. And if I do that then I will be a good person.
What is the good life and what is a good human being.
Aristotle says when we says this question we must be aware that there is no such thing as ‘the
good’ as an abstract. There is only good for particular types of beings. An elephant doesn't
have the same qualities as a good egg. Or a good elastic band. What counts as good depends
on what you’re talking about. So, Aristotle says what we are seeking to find out about is what
is the good for human beings.
, What is the ultimate good for human beings. He is going to take two routes to doing that and
they come to the same conclusion, they reinforce each other.
1. Looking at what everybody thinks. He’s going to assume that that's going to be on the
right lines. Aristotle says – suppose that we ask just anybody what is it that is the
good for humans, what do people want, what do people seek, what is it they aim at as
their good. In other words what do people think as the good. He thinks that if we do
that, almost everybody gives the same answer. The good which everybody seeks is
eudaimonia, meaning flourishing. It is human flourishing, things going really well,
you are fulfilling yourself as a human. yes, it’s going to involve happiness, no doubt.
It's a practical thing to say as most people would say I want things to go well.
Aristotle says well that probably means (if everybody says this) that that’s the right
answer. That means the good for humans is to have eudaimonia. What we need
though is to put a bit more content into that. What specifically would we want to be
seeking to get eudaimonia. Aristotle says there are four suggestions we find as to what
is the ultimate good. He also evaluates those four suggestions to see which one is
most likely the answer. He evaluates them using certain philosophical criteria about
the ultimate good.
-Aristotle says that ‘the good’ is that which is sought for its own sake.
- ‘the good’ is that for the sake of which, other things are sought
- ‘the ultimate good’ cannot be improved by the addition of another good
- ‘the good’ for anything, in this case human beings, is unique to that thing
Some people say that the good is wealth, some people say that the good is pleasure,
some people say that the good is honour (reputation or celebrity status), and the fourth
suggestion is contemplation (rational contemplation). He immediately rejects wealth
because its obvious wealth is not sought for its own sake. It's sought for the sake of
other things that we can get with the wealth. So, wealth is not ‘the good’. It can't be
pleasure that is the ultimate good for humans because humans share that with animals
(it isn’t unique to human). Honour – the main reason he rejects it is that he says that if
you talk to those people who have most honour/reputation, they will all say that
honour is not the greatest good. later, he makes another reason, he says that honour
cannot be ‘the good’ because we can make it better by adding something to it.
Specifically, we could make honour better by adding to it the reality that the honour
or reputation relate to. Illustration of this point – you came into Collingham one day
and you walked around and they say wow there's the top mathematician. What would
be even better than that if you actually were the best mathematician. So that leave,
rational contemplation. Aristotle makes it clear, if you image what you are thinking
what is true or beautiful, that for Aristotle is what he means by rational contemplation.
You don't seek it for the sake of anything else. It checks all the boxes. Eudaimonia is
achieved by a life of rational contemplation. Or being, a philosopher. Aristotle says
that a life of rational contemplation is not available for everybody. You have to be
intelligent enough for philosophy to be a feasible lifestyle for you. But he says things
aren't that bad because he says use of the reason to figure out and analyse and work
