Aristotle’s Ethics: Politics and the Nature of Man

To quickly review the first post on the Hillsdale course Aristotle’s Ethics, there were three main points.

1. We are looking for an appropriate level of precision and evidence. The precision and evidence expected of mathematics is different from that expected for biology, history, etc.
2. There is a hierarchy of “good” in things, pursuits, methods, etc. Some things, pursuits, methods, etc., are more valuable than others. I think it is easier to think of it as a hierarchy of value, maybe, but the Nicomachean Ethics (EN) consistently calls it good, the good, goods, etc.
3. This hierarchy is established first by the theory that if something exists for the sake of something else, that something else is a higher good, or more valuable.

The example was the work of the bridle maker, which, in ancient Athens, was for the sake of having cavalry, and cavalry was for the sake of military victory, and that was for the sake of preserving the city-state. So, the work of the bridle maker is good, but that of the cavalryman is a higher good, that of the general even higher, and the existence of the city-state yet higher. I surmised that this would make the work of citizenship, political engagement, the highest form of work.

The very highest goods exist for their own sake, like happiness.

The comments brought up a lot of good points, but I’d like to focus on something J Melcher brought out: How are we different than the ancient Athenian city-state, and how does that affect how we think about Aristotle's ideas?

First, though, we need some background. 

The second lesson in the course diverted from the EN to the first book of Aristotle’s Politics. The reading is chapters 1 and 2.

On a side note, for texts, Aristotle's works are freely available at The Internet Classics Archive:

• Nicomachean Ethics
• Politics

However, for the EN, I highly recommend Joe Sachs's Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics because he includes some extremely helpful footnotes and explanations of terminology, etc. This is the version the Hillsdale course uses, as well, and if you create an account you can download the readings from it for each lesson.

Back to the discussion.

With his hierarchy of goods in mind, Aristotle looks at communities. 

Aristotle claims that humans are by nature political because they have logos, a word that is translated both as reason and language. Logos, reason and language, makes us political.

The most basic community, he proposes, is the household, but while it is essential, the household is limited. Who will the children marry when they grow up? How can it defend itself? Who will trade for its goods or provide it goods it cannot produce itself?

The village is a collection of households. It is a higher good than the household, providing marriage partners, better defense, and better trade. But it is not self-sufficient.

The city-state (polis, in Greek -- the root of politics) is a partnership of villages. It can be self-sufficient, and its aim is enabling its residents to live well. As such, it is the highest good in terms of community.

Here, Aristotle clearly adds self-sufficiency to his method of determining the good. A self-sufficient good is higher than one that depends on other things. So now we have two criteria to determine value: purpose (existing for the sake of something) and self-sufficiency. He would say that those things that exist for their own sake and are self-sufficient are the highest good, or so I believe at this point.

My first question about this is: What about us today? Our states are a collection of urban and rural areas where often there are 2 or more large cities. Our nation is composed of 50 states and a number of territories. Is the nation-state a higher community than the ancient city-state Aristotle knew? Does it give us something the city-state cannot? If it is a higher good, then is there still a higher good? Would one world government be best?

Also, in today's politics rural areas and urban areas seem to be in great conflict. Is the nation-state simply too big? Aristotle proposes that a community is defined by a shared concept of what is just and unjust. Does the nation-state make that impossible? Is revolution and rebellion and civil war inevitable?

Also, last week I pointed out that there were no real politicians in the Athenian democracy. Every eligible citizen could vote on proposed legislation directly. However, our republic requires politicians. How does that change the hierarchy of work? Our nation does put civilian politicians above our generals, so we do value the work of politicians above the work of generals. However, the citizens elect those politicians, so can we still say that the work of responsible citizenship is the highest?

What say you?