Post summary and study notes about Aristotle here.

Book One

Every action is aimed at some good, just as medicine aims at health. The end in each case is greater than the act. Should there be an end that we desire for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else, this then must be 'the good', and the chief good at that. Money cannot be the chief good, because money is merely the ends for something else. Therefore, knowing what is good is likely to have an effect on us and influence our life, just as the archer knowing his mark is more likely to hit it.

It is taken that by 'the good', we mean happiness (both philosophers and men agree). However, happiness is thought of differently by each individual, for example, some associate it with wealth, others with honour. And even these same people may associate happiness differently at different times, for example when one is ill, happiness may be associated with good health.

Generally, however, happiness is associated with pleasure by the vulgar types, while men that are more refined may tend to identify it with honour. Honour, however, is seen as superficial, as it depends more on the person bestowing it than the person receiving it. The person bestowing honour is admired on the grounds of their virtue, and so it is apparent that virtue is better - the superior man should associate happiness with virtue.

Happiness is a final goal - it is self-sufficient and is the end of an action. However, to properly define what happiness as the chief good is, the function of man must be defined, for the good is thought to reside in a function. Life cannot be man's function, for it is common even to plants, nor can perception be man's function, for it is also common to animals. What remains is that man's function is his rational principle. So if the function of a man is to act in a way that implies a rational principle, the function of a 'good' man is to perform this action in accordance with virtue - a good and noble performance of these actions.

There are three types of goods - those external, those of the soul and those of the body. Those belonging to the soul are most important, including a person's actions.

It must be asked whether happiness can be learned or habituation, or from some divine providence or simply by chance. Even if happiness is not god-given, it seems so as the end of virtue appears to be the best thing in the world. To say that happiness is a result of chance would be to demean it. Therefore, it must be learned, as no animal or even a young child can share in it as it appears to require a full life.

Book Two

Virtue exists in two forms, both intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue is the result of education, while moral virtue arises from habit. From these definitions it is clear that neither arise in us by nature, fo nothing that exists by nature can form such a habit that is contradictory to its nature. If virtues are not a result of nature and nor contradictory to it, it must be that nature equips us to receive them, and are made perfect through habit.

Contrary to our sense, we must exercise virtue in order to attain it, just as to become a builder one must have experience in building. For example, one becomes brave by displaying brave acts, temperate by displaying temperate acts, and so on. Also, it is this same causes that both produce and destroy virtues, just as poor and excellent builders are produced through building things poorly or excellently. If it were not so, virtues would be the result of birth and no teaching would be required.

Thus, this is how virtue arises in us. Through our transactions with other men we become just or unjust, as in acts we do in the presence of danger will define us as brave or cowardly, and so on. States of character arise out of related activities.

We become just by doing just acts, but is this true in all situations? Is a man virtuous if he is so by chance? One who acts virtuously must have three qualities:
1. They must have knowledge of their actions
2. They must choose to act
3 .The action must proceed from his character

The soul consists of three parts - passions, faculties and character. Passions are feelings of pleasure or pain that are weak or small, such as fear and joy. We do not choose these, so passions cannot be virtue. Virtue cannot be a faculty because it is not merely feeling a certain way. Therefore, virtue must be found with character.

However, what state of character is virtue?. We know that things are destroyed by deficiency and excess. For example, the body needs food and water for survival, yet too much and too little is damaging. The same principle exists for virtue - it must be practiced in the right quantity. Virtue brings about excellence - it is the virtue of a man that makes his work good. As with any variable, there are extreme versions of it - deficiencies and excesses, and it is the intermediate of these two where we find virtue. For example, the intermediate of two and ten is six.

However, it is important to understand that the mean is not an objective value. If two pounds of food is too little while ten pounds is too much, the trainer does not order every athlete six pounds. Six pounds may be too much for a beginner, and too little for an advanced athlete. The intermediate must be relative to the man.

So, the master of an art seeks the intermediate, where one finds virtue. However, as Pythagoras taught, there is but one way to succeed and many to fail, just as it is difficult to pinpoint the centre of a circle. Maintaining that there are three different dispositions - deficiency, intermediate and excess - it must be recognised that while each is, in a sense, opposed to each other, the intermediate can be closer to one end than the other. For example, courage is closer to rashness than cowardice. It is with this example in mind that Aristotle says that is best to aim at mean by avoiding the extreme most contrary to it - to aim for rashness is better than to aim for cowardice in the search for the intermediate. To feel at the right time towards the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive and it the right way is the intermediate, and is virtue.

Evaluation of Aristotle
Argument that there is a final telos, and that it is Happiness:
1. All human actions aim towards certain ends (they are not done for the sake of themselves)
2. All actions can not aim towards other means (otherwise the process would be infinite and desires would be meaningless)
Conc - All human actions aim towards one ultimate end or telos, which does not have any other goal as its end, and we call this final end the 'Good'.
3. Happiness is the only thing which has no higher end, but to which all human pursuits aim.
Conc - Happiness (eudaimonia) must be the Good, the final end towards which all means aim.
Evaluation - The conclusion conforms with what we personally experience - for example, we do not want money for the sake of having money, but because we think it will make us happier. However, in theory, there is no reason why there could not be more than one equal final end. Aristotle acknowledges that actions can aim towards more than one end, but defines the final end as 'the most final' and as one which trumps all others. If one end (happiness) can have no ends, couldn't there be others (at least in theory)?

Argument that humans have a function, and that Happiness involves fulfilling our function:
1. Different types of humans have functions (e.g. tanners, carpenters, etc.)
2. The parts of a human have functions (e.g. the foot, the eyes, etc.)
Conc - Humans must have a function
3. The Good of something is thought to lie in fulfilling its function with excellence(e.g. a good musician in performing their musical function well)
Conc - For humans, the Good (which is happiness - see above argument) must lie in fulfilling our function with excellence
Evaluation - The conclusion may not seem so strange, but the argument that we have a function appears to be invalid. It is a logical leap from claiming that our parts and examples have functions to concluding that humans must collectively have a function. Couldn't we be a collection of individuals with different functions? The accuracy of the two premisses could also be questioned - what is the function of an unemployed person, or of the human appendix?

Argument that our function is to be rational:
1. The function of humans must be that which is peculiar to humans - it is unique to us.
2. Rational thought is peculiar to humans (while other things such as perception or growth are common to animals)
Conc - The function of humans is to use our rationality ("an activity of the soul in accordance with the best and most complete form of goodness")
Evaluation - Premise 1 is unsupported and clearly false in light of examples - the function of a knife is to cut, but so is that of certain other implements. Premise 2 is true, but there are many other features peculiar to humans - for example, gratuitous cruelty, language, civilisation, etc. Why is rationality selected as the one function? Also, Aristotle has argued that the reasons for why we have a function are that different examples of humans have functions and that different parts of humans have functions - wouldn't the overall function of man relate to these functions? e.g. the foot, the eye, the carpenter and the doctor all have different functions, but a common function might be the survival of the person themself; it is odd that the overall function (of rationality) is remote from these smaller functions.