One of the more peculiar concepts drawn out in Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" essay was what I took away as Aristotle's feelings on what makes a man good and virtuous. For one, he seems to always point back to the same reasoning on both fronts, being that someone will know what is good and virtuous and make the conscious decision to act in a certain way. While talking about his concept of the Ideal Good, Aristotle writes, "having the ideal good as a pattern we shall more easily know what things are good for us, and knowing them, obtain them.(p.25)" The Ideal Good is represented as a concept that everyone understands. Everyone knows the good choices in life, and strives to try to make as many of those choices as they can, but no one can be completely good. People know what good is, they want to be good, but they cannot. This is a very interesting view on good, and then Aristotle's take on the concept of "Virtue" causes somewhat of a head scratch.
Aristotle somewhat rehashes his scheme while discussing virtue, and stating that virtue is measured by a combination of emotions and actions (p.117). During his discussion of involuntary actions, he mentions that ignorance is one reason that an action could be classified as involuntary. Further on, he claims that "all wicked men are ignorant of what they ought to do" and that ignorance is the cause of all vice and injustice in the world (p.123). Aristotle has to be giving the human race a little too much credit with all of these arguments. To say that a man does not choose to be a bad person or do evil things only because he is ignorant of what the right things are in life seems pretty ignorant in itself. Human beings do bad things consciously on a daily basis, and not even in cases where they believe that the ends justify the means, which also is found in part of Aristotle's essay. To say that pure ignorance is the root of all wickedness comes off unrealistic and slightly naive. This world is filled with bad things, and sadly not all of them stem from an ulterior motive or a lack of understanding. Wickedness for the sake of wickedness does exist, even if it isn't as prevalent.
I feel that the point here is not so much that 'wickedness for wickedness's sake exists' --the inversion of 'good for good's sake'-- but more a question of what is wickedness?
ReplyDeleteFollowing your interpretation of Aristotle's logic, wickedness is Bad Action causing Bad Results which Badly effect People out side of one self, by way of one self. This being said, if a person deliberated with a Good goal in mind (meaning measuring an action against a patterned set of righteous experience in the realm of Good) before making an action it would likely be more focused on something tangible and in the realm of attainable Good.
This sense of realism ties into the practicality of The Good as one who has experienced enough Supreme Good would likely wish and know how to attain a Good result for more than just the individual; thus politics.
Here we must pause for a moment realize the subjective nature of The Good, Aristotle writing, "But while some hold that what is wished for is the good, others think it is what appears to be good"(141). Here we can see that one's vulgar search for pleasure could result in carnage for others, but it also means that those with more experience with what is good should be involved in political action. Their choice to be involved in politics would yield more experience in making good decisions for society. Choices about the future of a society that could feasibly keep that society's ultimate goal outside the realm of the wicked and misinformed pursuit of individual pleasure.
I feel the point here is that though wickedness does exist in reality, experience of the good and thoughtful deliberation regarding The Good before making a political action--an action that oversees a sector society--is key to avoiding vulgarity beyond an individual's misinformed interpretation of The Supreme Good. Thus political action should act as a buffer between man and carnage--giving society the greatest chance for The Good regardless of what a few wicked people may refuse to see.
"Inasmuch then as the rest of the sciences are employed by this one, and as it moreover lays down laws as to what people shall do and what things they shall refrain from doing, the end of this science must include the ends of all the others. Therefore, the Good of man must be the end of the science of Politics"(7).
An opposing view to the above statement could be; Well, What About The Holocaust--though that would dive deep into the power of rhetoric and what exactly is the core of virtuous action.