Political Crossfire Forums

[Cato]

A little Aristotelian ethics for you:

If one is poorly habituated, his desires propagate ad infinitum. To be poorly habituated is to derive pleasure from vicious ends. These ends are vicious because they run contrary to the final human end: happiness (eudaimonia). One who is vicious cannot be happy because human happiness is acting in accordance with the virtues (excellence) particular to humans; viciousness is acting as would an animal; virtuousness is acting as a human being. Since the only type of happiness humans can achieve is human happiness, acting like an animal won't bring one such.

Pleasure is not happiness; it is merely a product of action, and is completely relative to habituation. One can derive pleasure from stealing from a charity as well as from giving to a charity; pleasure is arbitrary. Happiness, conversely, is not. It is a motion, an action, and is sustained as long as one acts in accordance with those virtues particularly human, such as reason, courage, and contemplation. Pleasure derived from vicious ends aims one away from happiness, and pleasure derived from virtuous ends aims toward happiness as its absolute end.

As has been said, pleasure is based on habituation. This means that the type of action (virtuous or vicious) through which pleasure is derived is based on how one is educated, socialized, or trained. If one is trained to have insatiable desires through not being directed appropriately by his education and training, he will be incapable of deriving pleasure from virtuous actions, and be dragged head-long away from happiness his entire life.

Pleasure is a self-propagating end for the very reason that it doesn't provide happiness; if pleasure is all one has in one's life, he will seek to maximize it to the greatest extent possible. In so doing he will become tyrannical, and attempt to control others, amass as many possessions as he can, and change the nature of reality to achieve his twisted, fruitless ends. He will become vicious, aggrandizing, tricky and evil, but never happy.

Since the object of one's pleasure is relative to one's habituation, society is responsible for the type of individual it produces. A society that feeds peoples desires, and has that as its exclusive end, can be thus understood to be a vicious society. A society which drives at creating virtuous people through appropriate training (training people to act in accordance with practical reason) is alternatively to be understood to be a virtuous society.

The society we live under today, this material utopia, is a vicious society as it aims people toward vicious ends. We have turned society into the realm of necessity, that of economy, and have deprived ourselves of the ability to achieve happiness in turn. We are glutted, we are licentious, we are vicious, and we seek to dominate each other and reality itself. We must change; we must become moderate and tame our desires such that we may follow our intellect.

[mojo]

Material things are products of man's virtue and purpose. When man sets himself to the purpose of being the best in his respective field then progress takes place. Because material progress is not the goal but the measurement of the virtue of men. Did you know that America was the first country to coin the phrase "to make money". Throughout Western civilization it has always how do I take and loot the money. Collectivists find new and more creative ways to try and convince these producers of goods that they are greedy heartless people that only care for material things. Eventually it works and the producers give in to this theory that they are bad people for making money. In the process fewer producers have to do even more work to keep the beggers alive. This "material utopia" is not cold and heartless. It is a measurement of man's convictions to achieve something greater.

[Cato]

You haven`t responded to the argument.

[The Philosopher]

Aristotle actually makes a slippery slope in his argument. He tells us that if your end is pleasure you will become tyrannical and vicious. Its weird that he would say something like that considering it is rather invalid. If I am rational and if I want pleasure then I will do what is at my means to maximize it. Plato said there are things that a person could not attain without a government. If they are going to maximize their pleasure they are going to give away things they gain enjoyment from. Even a hedonist can thrive in a society if they are rational.

Aristotle always makes the following grand assumption:
It is irrational to enjoy pleasure; therefore people who enjoy pleasure are irrational.

Modern philosophies like Hobbes and Locke duel with this type of philosophy.

Another problem is Aristotle always thinks there has to be some grand ends to life that is greater than life. If there is no afterlife of "just reward" then the life you live on Earth must be a humanistic one that one can say is "worthwhile" to the individual (as opposed to worthwhile to the collective). Material pleasures can easily factor in to a good life.

[Cato]

Quote: Aristotle actually makes a slippery slope in his argument. He tells us that if your end is pleasure you will become tyrannical and vicious. Its weird that he would say something like that considering it is rather invalid. If I am rational and if I want pleasure then I will do what is at my means to maximize it. Plato said there are things that a person could not attain without a government. If they are going to maximize their pleasure they are going to give away things they gain enjoyment from. Even a hedonist can thrive in a society if they are rational.

I don`t see your argument.

Quote: Aristotle always makes the following grand assumption:
It is irrational to enjoy pleasure; therefore people who enjoy pleasure are irrational.

No he doesn`t. The object of pleasure is relative to habituation.

Quote: . . . Aristotle always thinks there has to be some grand ends to life that is greater than life. If there is no afterlife of "just reward" then the life you live on Earth must be a humanistic one that one can say is "worthwhile" to the individual (as opposed to worthwhile to the collective).

Again, no he doesn`t make such an assumption. Happiness is acting in accordence with virtue; you must be alive in order to act.

Quote: Material pleasures can easily factor in to a good life.

And Aristotle wouldn`t disagree.

[Skiazo]

Aristotle, to be sure, is one of the greats.

Quote:
We have turned society into the realm of necessity, that of economy, and have deprived ourselves of the ability to achieve happiness in turn.

We may be men, but we are still bound to the same realm of necessity as an animal. Food and shelter, among other things are necessities, even for mankind. I do not believe that consuming goods necessarily will make you unhappy, or incapable of being happy.

Quote: We are glutted, we are licentious, we are vicious, and we seek to dominate each other and reality itself.

Men that are this way will likely become unhappy as you have said, but it is not the act of consuming that they are unhappy or incapable of being happy about, It is the means by which they consume. A man that consumes more than he produces should be unhappy, as he is no doubt violating his fellow man's rights[/quote]

[mojo]

Cato wrote: You haven`t responded to the argument.

I justified a material world. One in which you critisized.

[Cato]

Quote: I justified a material world. One in which you critisized.

Not effectively enough to defeat the argument. Besides, your method was rhetorical, not philosophical.

[Cato]

Skiazo wrote: We may be men, but we are still bound to the same realm of necessity as an animal. Food and shelter, among other things are necessities, even for mankind. I do not believe that consuming goods necessarily will make you unhappy, or incapable of being happy.

Aristotle wound agree. The realm of necessity is necessary. One cannot have a city without an economy; one must have his bread before he can have his peace of mind.

You see, what separates man from animals is that man has reason. With such he can create civilization. The very point of civilization, as a product of human reason, is to allow humans to transcend the realm of necessity (economy). Once out of the realm of necessity, man creates politics to exercises his virtue. So, the city exists both to feed and nurture and to make possible that life particular to humans, that in which humans have the ability to exercise their virtue and thereby achieve human happiness. The city should be built such that it points toward human happiness (the final human end) just as its citizens lives should point toward this end. The city is simply a tool that brings its citizens into a happy state.

The society we have today does not aim toward human happiness. Material gain is all that it concerns itself with. A society oriented around material gain is one oriented around desires; one in which men crave more for its own sake; one in which our initial training teaches us the sorry maxim 'get the most for the least'. This is a consumer world; virtuous men have no say, and those least tamed in their greed spread their sickly influence to the ends of the earth. Our realm of politics is a sorry joke where men versed in deception try to sway a glutted crowd through offering them more of what they don't need. This crowd has no knowledge of real happiness, because anybody who dissents is turned on by an unruly mob made simpletons by a mindless life-style (you use more of your brain while asleep than while watching tv). At any rate, our society is not enlightened; it is not aiming toward achieving human happiness despite all that it has. It is itself an expression of self-propagating, infinite regressing, endless greed. The realm of economy has overtaken the realm of politics.

Quote: Men that are this way will likely become unhappy as you have said, but it is not the act of consuming that they are unhappy or incapable of being happy about, It is the means by which they consume. A man that consumes more than he produces should be unhappy, as he is no doubt violating his fellow man's rights

Again, you are right. Consumption is necessary. But one does not become happy through consumption, and one cannot be happy if consumption is all he is directed by, and thereby all he has in his life. Consumption is mechanical function, like gears in mesh. It is the action of the lowest form of life. Human beings are not turning gears, nor are they festering pools of bacteria, and therefore will not find the highest human end through the mechanical activities associated with these things. Humans find human happiness through perfecting that which is uniquely human. A good saw cuts well, effective cutting is its virtue; a good human is likewise he who exercises those functions unique to him excellently (virtuously).

[Skiazo]

Cato wrote: Humans find human happiness through perfecting that which is uniquely human.

What specifically is uniquely human?

I think we may be on the same page, so I would guess that Reason is this virtue, but correct me if im wrong.

[Cato]

Yup. According to Aristotle, reason and contemplation are unique to humanity.

[jawsome]

Cato,

first off, i have to ask: what do you personally describe acting virtuously?

secondly, if one's ultimate end is personal happiness, and the intentions behind acting "virtuous" (this term is undefined as of now, so that is why i put it in quotation marks) are to reach this ultimate end, how could this not be classified as inherently self-interested and greedy?

i leave you with a few passages from The Fall by Camus that i read the other day and found eerily fitting for this thread: Quote: consequently i was considered generous, and so i was. i gave a great deal in public and in private. but far from suffering when i had to give up an object or a sum of money, i derived constant pleasures from this--among them a sort of melancholy which occasionally rose within me at the thought of the sterility of those gifts and the probable ingratitude that would follow. i even took such pleasure in giving that i hated to be obliged to do so...this is achieving more than the vulgar ambitious man and rising to that supreme summit where virtue is its own reward.

Quote: i was at ease in everything, to be sure, but at the same time satisfied with nothing. each joy made me desire another.

[Cato]

Quote: first off, i have to ask: what do you personally describe acting virtuously?

Acting in accordance with practical reasoning.

Quote: secondly, if one's ultimate end is personal happiness, and the intentions behind acting "virtuous" (this term is undefined as of now, so that is why i put it in quotation marks) are to reach this ultimate end, how could this not be classified as inherently self-interested and greedy?

'Virtue' has been defined twice already in this thread; it's excellence, or good function. A virtuous saw, for instance, is a saw that cuts well. A thing can be virtuous (excellent) or vicious (defective). A saw that's made of cardboard, for instance, is a vicious saw. Virtuousness is essentially the proper function of something. Your perfected function is your virtue, your defective function your vice.

I notice here that you're confusing the Christian notion of virtue with the Aristotelian. For Aristotle, acting excellently is its own reward. Moreover, humans are political (social) animals; so, excellence of action for humans is naturally mutually beneficial. Accordingly, one cannot be too greedy for excellence.

The type of greed Aristotle believes bad is pleonexia, greedy desires which turn us away from bettering ourselves and thereby from happiness altogether. These desires make us hollow consuming machines by stripping us of human purpose. They turn our minds to the flattering, useless, shinny, and colourful, and away from contentment in excellence.

[rainidame]

This theory only works if the majority is on the same page. Otherwise those that are willing to have less, strident in their efforts to be "good", strict with their childrens' ways, and so on; get so ostracized that they feel no real happiness at doing any of it. Unless they live in a closed society like the Amish I would guess, but having never met or been near the Amish I can't say for sure.

[Cato]

Quote: This theory only works if the majority is on the same page. Otherwise those that are willing to have less, strident in their efforts to be "good", strict with their childrens' ways, and so on; get so ostracized that they feel no real happiness at doing any of it. Unless they live in a closed society like the Amish I would guess, but having never met or been near the Amish I can't say for sure.

For what does the majority have to be on the same page?

Are you operating under the mistaken pretext that Aristotle is proposing a political system of some sort? Because this is not a political theory...

[jawsome]

Cato wrote: Quote: first off, i have to ask: what do you personally describe acting virtuously?

Acting in accordance with practical reasoning.

that's a little vague...care to elaborate?

Quote: Quote: secondly, if one's ultimate end is personal happiness, and the intentions behind acting "virtuous" (this term is undefined as of now, so that is why i put it in quotation marks) are to reach this ultimate end, how could this not be classified as inherently self-interested and greedy?

'Virtue' has been defined twice already in this thread; it's excellence, or good function. A virtuous saw, for instance, is a saw that cuts well. A thing can be virtuous (excellent) or vicious (defective). A saw that's made of cardboard, for instance, is a vicious saw. Virtuousness is essentially the proper function of something. Your perfected function is your virtue, your defective function your vice.

I notice here that you're confusing the Christian notion of virtue with the Aristotelian. For Aristotle, acting excellently is its own reward. Moreover, humans are political (social) animals; so, excellence of action for humans is naturally mutually beneficial. Accordingly, one cannot be too greedy for excellence.

okay, i understand now. that makes sense and i agree. but, couldn't one's action that benefits the 2 or more parties involved result in "externalities" that harm non-involved parties? would this be classified as virtuous?

so aristotelian "virtue" is not very similar to the commonly-held perception of "virtue"? or am i not understanding this correctly? it seems it is very much so a pragmatic model based on efficiency, which is interesting to me because i feel so much of modern day society is based on entirely the same thing. it strikes me as very utilitarian.

Quote: The type of greed Aristotle believes bad is pleonexia, greedy desires which turn us away from bettering ourselves and thereby from happiness altogether. These desires make us hollow consuming machines by stripping us of human purpose. They turn our minds to the flattering, useless, shinny, and colourful, and away from contentment in excellence.

again, if i am understanding this correctly, it strikes me as a very utilitarian argument. mill's classifications of "lower" and "higher" pleasures comes to mind.

[Cato]

Quote: okay, i understand now. that makes sense and i agree. but, couldn't one's action that benefits the 2 or more parties involved result in "externalities" that harm non-involved parties? would this be classified as virtuous?

Do you understand? This isn't an economic theory, jawsome; the virtuous man isn't an investor of some sort. Human beings exercise their virtue in the political realm, not in the economic realm. Economic function is something common to every organism, and is the final end of only the most base; it's not what makes one excellent.

For Aristotle, moral virtue (moral excellence) is the median between two extremes; it is a compromise of two excesses. Not something with the low end of increasing economic providence; that is a vicious end in life.

Quote: so Aristotelian "virtue" is not very similar to the commonly-held perception of "virtue"? or am i not understanding this correctly? it seems it is very much so a pragmatic model based on efficiency, which is interesting to me because i feel so much of modern day society is based on entirely the same thing. it strikes me as very utilitarian.

A model of efficiency? How? Do you presume 'excellence' translates into 'efficiency'? Again, I repeat, man does not fully realize his potential in the economic realm. Economic efficiency has nothing to do with Aristotelian ethics.

[jawsome]

i say all of that because of your analogy of a "virtuous saw cutting well" and the like. perhaps that is not the best of analogies? a saw that cuts well is indeed an efficient saw.

i know very well that nichomacean ethics is not an economic theory, but it still sounds very utilitarian, hence my referrals to efficiency and the like. aristotle it is a set of ethics that makes one live a full, meaningful, and worthwhile life. i'd say that is living an efficient life, meaning that you get the most out of it, right? that is why i believe it is a model of efficiency.

you previously stated: Quote: [Happiness] is a motion, an action, and is sustained as long as one acts in accordance with those virtues particularly human, such as reason, courage, and contemplation.

you claim that virtuousness leads to happiness, and virtue comes from acting in accordance to "reason, courage, and contemplation."

again, i will ask: is working to achieve one's personal happiness not self-interested?

[Cato]

Quote: i say all of that because of your analogy of a "virtuous saw cutting well" and the like. perhaps that is not the best of analogies? a saw that cuts well is indeed an efficient saw.

It's a perfectly apt example. The excellence particular to the saw is its ability to saw; the excellence particular to man is his ability to act as a human being. A virtuous saw cuts efficiently; a virtuous man does those things particular to man excellently. The former virtue is mechanical, the latter human. According to Aristotle, the greatest human virtue, contemplation, isn't mechanical at all, and serves no economic purpose.

Quote: i know very well that nichomacean ethics is not an economic theory, but it still sounds very utilitarian, hence my referrals to efficiency and the like. aristotle it is a set of ethics that makes one live a full, meaningful, and worthwhile life. i'd say that is living an efficient life, meaning that you get the most out of it, right? that is why i believe it is a model of efficiency.

How is it utilitarian? Also, Aristotle doesn't anywhere propose a 'set of ethics', nor is his aim to show how one may attain a 'full, meaningful and worthwhile life'.

Quote: is working to achieve one's personal happiness not self-interested?

Of course it is, but the only way to achieve personal happiness is through a virtuous life... That is in fact the thrust of the argument...

[jawsome]

Cato wrote: Quote: i say all of that because of your analogy of a "virtuous saw cutting well" and the like. perhaps that is not the best of analogies? a saw that cuts well is indeed an efficient saw.

It's a perfectly apt example. The excellence particular to the saw is its ability to saw; the excellence particular to man is his ability to act as a human being. A virtuous saw cuts efficiently; a virtuous man does those things particular to man excellently. The former virtue is mechanical, the latter human. According to Aristotle, the greatest human virtue, contemplation, isn't mechanical at all, and serves no economic purpose.

well i think it's much simpler and easier to determine if a saw is cutting well than it is to determine if a human is living excellently. i'm still not entirely sure how aristotle would qualify a human's living "excellently," because humans are extremely different and value things differently.

also, when i asked how one lives virtuously, you stated one simply needs to "[Act] in accordance with practical reasoning." that's not exactly precise and easily understood or determined if a human is doing so, whereas saws' abilities to cut is much easier.


Quote: Quote: i know very well that nichomacean ethics is not an economic theory, but it still sounds very utilitarian, hence my referrals to efficiency and the like. aristotle it is a set of ethics that makes one live a full, meaningful, and worthwhile life. i'd say that is living an efficient life, meaning that you get the most out of it, right? that is why i believe it is a model of efficiency.

How is it utilitarian? Also, Aristotle doesn't anywhere propose a 'set of ethics', nor is his aim to show how one may attain a 'full, meaningful and worthwhile life'.

well, maybe it's just how i've understood it from your summarizing it, but it seems a great deal of aristotle's beliefs on this rely on the practicality (utility) of one's actions. they also rely on others' benefiting from one's actions, not just yourself. perhaps it is not utilitarian per se, but it does ring of utilitarianism at times (to me at least).

Quote: Quote: is working to achieve one's personal happiness not self-interested?

Of course it is, but the only way to achieve personal happiness is through a virtuous life... That is in fact the thrust of the argument...

i know it is the thrust of the argument, but from what i've understood, acting greedily and to benefit one's self is frowned upon by aristotle. that is why i was asking about that.