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.