These issues were discussed by Aristotle in Book II of Nicomachean Ethics: “ There are three objects of choice – the noble, the useful, and the pleasant – and three of avoidance – their contraries, the shameful, the harmful, and the painful. In respect of all of these, especially pleasure, the good person tends to go right, and the bad person to go wrong.’136 Man can therefore strive for something either because it is morally beautiful, which in the Latin tradition was defined as the ←44 | 45→decent good – bonum honestum, or because it is useful – bonum utile, or because it is pleasant – bonum delectabile. The difference between them relies on the fact that we desire the last one due to the pleasure it gives us and the second one due to the fact that it serves something different and the first one is the aim in itself, we want it for its own sake. Morality is not limited only to the decent good but it refers to each of the goods. The aim of the virtuous man is a proper selection of a particular good, bearing in mind the existing hierarchy. Therefore, he should treat the decent good as an end in itself, as a pleasant good, which is not a real aim of morality, it must be measured by the real relationship with the good per se, however, the useful good cannot only become the goal but it must be decent itself, as a means leading to the good (the end cannot justify the means used to reach it).137
The above explanations point to the fact that only the good-aim is morally beautiful in the proper sense. The remaining goods however, are moral goods but they are not morally beautiful. The indicated considerations concerned the objective aspect, namely, the aspect to which our actions referred. When we approach the action from the perspective of the subject itself, it turns out that the activity related to any of the goods will be morally beautiful provided that it is proper138. Therefore, Aristotle wrote that acting in compliance with the requirements of virtue was morally beautiful.139 It is the way in which the twofold nature of the moral beauty – objective and subjective – is revealed. What connects them is the direct or indirect (in the case of a pleasant or useful good) subordination to bonum honestum – the decent good. This good is man himself. He is both the subject and the object of morality. Apart from the hierarchy existing in the context of various goods, there is also a hierarchy between particular “parts” of which man is composed. They include the material “parts,” i.e. hands, legs, the internal organs, the psychological and emotional sphere and spiritual powers to which the intellect and will belong. The latter ones are immaterial and subjectified in something immaterial that in the Greek and Latin tradition was called the soul. The spiritual life distinguishes man from other earthly beings. He transcends the world of nature due to it, living a personal life, in a spiritual way. Thus, the inner hierarchy of various “parts” of man finds its justification in the human spirit. Man exists to activate that spirit whereas the remaining parts and their actions must be subordinated to that spirit. In the light of the above ←45 | 46→considerations we can conclude that finally our action is morally beautiful only when the inner hierarchy is respected with reference to both the acting subject and other human subjects. Only then is our action really oriented towards the good-aim.140 Therefore, the action we purse because of the goal in and of itself – is just the noble good, also called beauty. Aristotle defined it in the following words in the Rhetoric: “The beautiful is what merits recognition due to the fact that it is worthy of choosing as such.’141 The moral virtues of man targeted at the aim itself and at the decent good, were accentuated in the ideal of kalokagathía. That is why the term kalos related to the highest category in the moral order, to the good in itself which was the decent good, in contrast to the pleasant and useful good, which were goods due to the good in and of itself.142
The ideal of kalokagathía referred both to women and younger people, as well as the older ones. The ideal model was not only a beautiful woman in terms of looks but also the one who had the noble soul. It was emphasized that older people should remember to respect the high moral standards until the end of their lives, which was regulated by law. Kalokagathía was of great importance in public life – it was to characterize the ruler and be the opposite of laziness.143 What characterized the Greeks was therefore the combination of good and beauty with moral order, with human conduct in the broad sense of the word. We are dealing here with the primacy of the moral order over the sensual and aesthetic one and with the primacy of the spiritual order over the physical one.144
The word kalokagathía was used by Xenophon for the first time to describe the ideal guiding the activity of his master Socrates.145 The indicated ideal was mostly moral in character. As Xenophon wrote, Socrates claimed that only good and beautiful road led to true happiness.146 What makes man better and better is the moral improvement, in particular, the acquisition of the virtue of justice (dikaiosyné) and not the practical skills. The noble disposition was manifested by the religious cult.147 Xenophon himself was regarded as a representative of the ←46 | 47→aristocratic virtue placed by the Greeks at the highest level. His person reflected the combination of the physical beauty with the internal desire to reach what was beautiful.148 An ancient biographer – Diogenes Laërtius called Xenophon “modest and extraordinarily handsome (kalos).’149 In Diogenes’ account, Xenophon was beautiful (kalos) by nature but he was to become good (agathos) only under the influence of the teaching of Socrates. Socrates was Xenophon’s teacher of good manners and his model of moral conduct. Thus such features as: self-control, moderation, simplicity, inner harmony and fervent piety were attributed to Xenophon.150 However, his ideal was “a Doric hero with a beautiful, hardened, athletic body, able to cope with various situations, always full of good ideas, able to use the right word, humane in behaviour, faithful to friends, pious and brave.’151 He was the character resembling the characters from the works of Homer.
Kalokagathía denoted general culture, based on the ability to relate to all people and gods in a proper way. It was mainly associated with the moral beauty and belonged to the virtues of a free man.152 As we can therefore see, apart from the moral – personal dimension, the ideal of kalokagathía had also a social dimension. It referred to proper relations with other people, developed on the basis of a morally correct character. A society, contrary to a community, similarly to any individual person, should be internally ordered and organized. Only then does it deserve to be called a society. The indicated order is based not only on a certain type of unity but also on a hierarchy of goods. Therefore, there must be some chief good, called a common good that unites a given society. This is the social dimension of moral beauty.
1.4.1. Plato – the philosopher as a model
Plato gave a wider – cultural meaning to the term kalokagathía. The aforementioned word appears in his works in a decumulate form: kalos kai agathos. It is associated with an educational ideal promoted from an early age and primarily ←47 | 48→refers to morality. In Plato’s thought, Kalokagathía is the aim of paidéa. The character of the aforesaid kalokagathía is defined by Plato in opposition to injustice and wickedness and thus, it he provides it with a remarkably ethical colouring.153 In a narrower sense, it denotes an innate, natural openness to the truth that must be obeyed if one wants to become a philosopher, a beautiful, good man. In addition, it indicates an intuitive ability to recognize what is morally good and lawful and what is not, with no need to establish the law and improve the rights all the time. Moreover, it relates to the aristocratic layer. Beauty and good are also the features of thought which moves up to the Good in and of itself.154 Plato expressed the original sense of the “general” old Greek culture of the polis in the Laws. As he claimed, the essence of any true culture was to “training from childhood in goodness, which makes a man eagerly desirous of becoming a perfect citizen, understanding how both to rule and be ruled righteously.’155 Thus, culture is something general since the ability to be attuned to politics is the ability to understand general matters. The indicated ability is to a great extent possessed by a philosopher, referred to in the State by Plato as kalos kai agathos.156 It is the philosopher who has access to true cognition and true knowledge since he can notice the permanent in the reality, the universal and the immutable, namely its “idea.” He is the only one who can determine what is in fact truly fair and beautiful whereas