NICOMACHEAN ETHICS
By ARISTOTLE
Translated by W. D. ROSS
Introduction by R. W. BROWNE
Nicomachean Ethics
By Aristotle
Translated by W. D. Ross
Introduction by R. W. Browne
Print ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-5364-0
eBook ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-5365-7
This edition copyright © 2016. Digireads.com Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.
Cover Image: Portrait of Aristotle by Francesco Hayez, c. 1811, Venice Academy of Fine Art.
Please visit www.digireads.com
CONTENTS
Introduction
Ethics, according to the theory of Aristotle, formed but a subdivision of the great and comprehensive science of politics. Man is a political or social being; that science, therefore, which professed to investigate the subject of human good, would study the nature of man, not only as an individual, but also in his relation to his fellows, as a member of a family, and as a member of a state, or political community.
Aristotle, therefore, following out this view, divides politics into three parts: Ethics, Economics, and Politics strictly so called. Ethics, therefore, or the science of individual good, must be the ground-work of the rest; families and states are composed of individuals; unless, therefore, the parts be good, the whole cannot be perfect. The development, therefore, of the principles of man’s moral nature must necessarily precede, and be an introduction to an investigation of the principles of human society. This is the place which ethical science occupies in Aristotle’s system: it is the introduction to politics, or the science of social life.
It is plain, from these considerations, that ethics, according to Aristotle, form a subdivision of a great practical subject; he does not therefore consider it necessary to examine into the abstract nature of good, but only to pursue the investigation so far as it relates to man. So utterly unconnected with his subject does he consider any ideal or absolute standard of good, that he even denies that the knowledge or contemplation of it can be in any way useful to the study of that good which falls within the province of human nature, and is therefore attainable by man. In this, as well as in many other respects, the practical nature of his mind is strongly contrasted with the poetical idealism of his great master Plato.
The foundation of Aristotle’s system of ethics is deeply laid in his psychological system. On the nature of the human soul the whole fabric is built up, and depends for its support. According to our author, we are born with a natural capacity, for receiving virtuous impressions, and for forming virtuous habits: and his conception of the nature of this capacity is so high a one, that he does not hesitate to term it “natural virtue.” We are endowed with a moral sense, a perception of moral beauty and excellence, and with an acuteness on practical subjects, which, when cultivated, is improved into prudence, or moral wisdom. From all these considerations, therefore, it is plain that, according to Aristotle, virtue is the law under which we are born, the law of nature, that law which, if we would attain to happiness, we are bound to fulfill. Happiness, in its highest and purest sense, is our “being’s end and aim;” and this is an energy or activity of the soul according to the law of virtue: an energy of the purest of the capacities of the soul, of that capacity which is proper and peculiar to man alone; namely, intellect or reason. Designed, then, as man is for virtuous energies, endowed with capacities for moral action, with a natural taste and appreciation for that which is morally beautiful, with a natural disposition or instinct, as it were, to good acts; virtue, and therefore happiness, becomes possible and attainable. Had this not been the case, all moral instruction would be useless. That for which nature had not given man a capacity would have been beyond his reach; for that which exists by nature can never by custom be made to be otherwise.
But this natural disposition or bias is, according to Aristotle, a mere potentiality; it is possessed, but not active, not energizing. It is necessary that it should be directed by the will, and that the will in its turn should be directed to a right end by deliberate preference; i.e. by moral principle. From his belief in the existence of this natural capacity, and this bias or inclination towards virtue, and moreover from his believing that man was a free and voluntary agent, Aristotle necessarily holds the responsibility of man. Man has power over his individual actions to do or to abstain. By repeated acts, habits are formed either of virtue or vice; and, therefore, for his whole character when formed, as well as for each act which contributes to its formation, man is responsible. Not that men have always power over their acts, when their character is formed; but what he contends for is, that they have power over them whilst their moral character is in process of formation; and that, therefore, they must, in all reason, be held responsible for the permanent effects which their conduct in particular acts has produced, and which they must at every step have seen gradually resulting.
What then is virtue? In the solution of that part of this question which has not already been answered, the practical nature of Aristotle’s mind is exhibited in an eminent degree. It has been seen that it is a habit, that it is based upon the natural capacities of the human soul, that it is formed and established by a voluntary agent acting under the guidance of deliberate preference or moral principle. But to these conditions it is also necessary to add, what is the end or object at which the habit is to aim.
Experience then, that great practical guide in human affairs, teaches us what that end is. An induction of instances shows that it is a mean between excess and defect; not, indeed, an absolute mean, but a relative one; that is, one relative to the internal moral constitution, and to the external circumstances and condition, of the moral agents. Of this relative mean, each man must judge for himself by the light of his conscience, and his moral sense, purified by moral discipline, and enlightened by education. The moral philosopher can only lay down general principles for man’s guidance, and each individual man must do the rest. The casuist may profess to be more particular, he may profess to lay down accurate special rules of conduct, which will meet every individual case, but his professions will be unfulfilled: