Aristotle Case

erwerwerThe foremost difference between Hobbes and Aristotle that need to be discussed for a comparison of Hobbes and Aristotle with regard to their conceptions of good life/happiness is that Aristotle offers normative judgments about the good life, whereas Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the ideal life, and describes human actions without attributing to them a moral quality. Aristotle's Ethics is replete with such statements that differentiate between virtues/vices, good and evil actions, desirable and undesirable purposes of life, and defines what the best good (summum bonum) is for humans. Hobbes on the other hand rejects all the normative judgments attached to human actions, argues that good and bad varies from one person to another, and he also explicitly rejects the idea that human life has an ultimate purpose (summum bonum). As he states, "For there is no such finis ultimus nor summum bonum as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers...Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter" (Hobbes, 57). In another passage, Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one's passions: "Continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call Felicity" (Hobbes, 34). In another crucial passage, he explicitly states that humans name as "good" the objects of their desire and appetite, and they label as evil the objects of their hate and aversion (Hobbes, 28). In these passages Hobbes argues that origin of the moral concepts like good and evil can be found in humans' appetites and aversions; they do not have a transcendental source. And consequently, there is not a universal morality or ultimate purpose of life for mankind. There are as many goods and evils as there are human beings in the world. Humans desire different things, and what they desire is good for them. Those who seek an epistemological foundation for a universal conception of morality in the Leviathan will experience nothing but disappointment.

Aristotle's Ethics on the other hand emphatically rejects relativism in the moral sphere. First and foremost, Aristotle's definition of virtue is predicated upon a criterion that Aristotle uses consistently to determine what is virtuous with respect to a certain action. For Aristotle, a virtue is a "mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency" (Aristotle, 25). My reading of Aristotle is that Aristotle believed that there is only one ideal mean, that is to say the mean between two vices should not change from one person to another. My inference from the text is that the "excellent man" who seems to represent in Aristotle's thought the person who embodied all the ideal virtues establishes the criterion for determining what is mean and what is excess and deficiency with respect to a certain action. In the following illuminative passage, for instance, Aristotle states that what is pleasurable and objectionable should be determined on the basis of the excellent person's behavior, and that if other people disagree with the excellent person, their arguments should be disregarded because these people strayed from their original good nature, and therefore their views on morality do not constitute a valid standard: "In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For the same things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable...But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures... and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising; for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to these people in these conditions" (Aristotle, 161). Therefore, for Aristotle, what excellent person finds pleasurable and objectionable should be taken as a standard while judging the moral quality of human actions, not the appetites or the passions of the corrupted people. This important claim of Aristotle illustrates my contention that in contrast to Hobbes, Aristotle's conception of morality is anti-relativist and offers us a standard on the basis of which we can discuss what is virtuous and what is vicious.

Aristotle's definition of the mean also supports my reading of him as a thinker who believes in one correct answer with respect to the questions of morality. Aristotle defines mean as having certain feelings or doing certain actions "at the right times, about the right things, toward the right people, for the right end, and in the right way" (Aristotle, 24). This definition explicitly states that there is one right answer in the moral dilemmas that humans face. In a couple of sentences after this passage, Aristotle also affirms that there is only one intermediate (mean) solution in moral questions: "there are many ways to be in error...But there is only one way to be correct" (Aristotle, 24-25). For determining what is intermediate in a certain moral dilemma, Aristotle suggests that humans should work hard, and through trial and error try to figure out what is the mean of excess and deficiency. Aristotle adds that if humans cannot reach the mean exactly, they can at least come closer to it, and that would be something praiseworthy too (Aristotle, 29-30). These passages once again suggest that there is one correct answer in moral debates, and humans by and large have the capacity to develop their ability to deliberate about moral dilemmas and come closer, if not reach, to the intermediate position in a certain moral question, and approximate to the level of the excellent person. According to my interpretation the important point that needs to be underlined is that the idea of following mean is rooted in our human nature. Unless people were corrupted because of their bad upbringing, every person inclines towards the mean, and appreciates that doing the intermediate action is the right thing. All these points are to suggest that in contrast to Hobbes, for Aristotle morality is not something everyone can define differently. It comes from human nature, and there are standards for judging human behavior. Aristotle's world is not a world of anything goes.

Another point that needs to be discussed in comparing Hobbes to Aristotle and in elucidating Aristotle's moral vision is that in contrast to Hobbes, Aristotle believed that there is an ultimate good that gives meaning and purpose to humans'