Action, Selfishness, and The Good

Throughout his seminal dialogue Republic, Plato addresses that objects have certain immutable attributes, or Forms. There are two distinctions in his theory: physical forms that are observed through the five senses – shape, color, taste, etc. – and more sweeping ideas concerning Truth, Beauty, and Good. Using his famous allegory of the cave, Plato explains that perception is everything when it comes to Form, and claims that the true essence of the Good is an educated understanding of these other Forms. (Plato 188-212) Once someone can understand what is Good, they can create things that fit with the Platonic ideal of Good. However, in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle critiques this idea because he believes that the Good does not necessarily have to do with one’s reason for acting a certain way or creating something. Rather, Aristotle sees that people can act in the name of the Good when they are really acting out of self-interest, a compelling critique of the philosopher's theories shows Plato’s theory also affects Aristotle’s theory of ethics by separating the Good from the ethical.

Plato and Aristotle share an opinion that the idea of Good is concerned with the relationship of wisdom and action. In Book One of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle asserts that, in general, people do act in the name of the Good. (1) However, there is no single opinion about what is actually Good. People act to achieve a certain end that will make them happy, because happiness is perceived to be the ultimate ideal of Good. Plato’s cave-dweller who is finally drawn out of darkness and sees the light of the sun becomes truly happy because, at last, he is able to have complete perception of the world surrounding him. By having knowledge, he knows what Good is and is able to pursue and spread Good. (Plato 188-212) Aristotle argues that because not everyone cares about knowing the same things, it is nearly impossible for there to be a universal idea of Good. For some, Good is associated with “some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honor,” but for others Good can be achieved by creating something. (Aristotle 3) For medical professionals, Good means healing others, striving to create new cures and techniques to help others deal with pain and disease. For artists, Good means creating compelling works which people appreciate, analyze, and imitate. For military generals, Good means executing strategies that lead to victory. While Plato sees Good as something achieved through education and understanding, Aristotle sees Good as something achieved through action and creation. 

Aristotle furthers his refutation by explaining that it makes little sense to use Good as a catch-all in the way that Plato and his students do, because by doing so it is impossible to determine whether Good is either the cause of action, or the result of it. Aristotle’s view that “the Good is not something common corresponding to a single Idea” illustrates his skeptical attitude towards the claims of the Platonists that something can be pursued because it is inherently Good. (6) Good can certainly be achieved through hard work, but this does not necessarily mean that actively pursuing Good leads to achieving it. The harpist plays, but playing the harp and playing it well are two separate things requiring different amounts of dedication to growth and improvement. (9) One’s pursuit may be virtuous or worthy of Good, but that does not guarantee that Good will come of that pursuit. 

Aristotle then divides Good into three distinct types: external goods, goods of the soul, and goods of the body. (10) These three types of Good intersect at happiness. However, Aristotle again critiques Plato by explaining that although happiness is a generally desired end, there is a distinction between a state of Good and Good achieved through activity. One can be in a state of happiness without acting in a way that would lead to that state, but activity leads to greater success, and thus greater fulfillment. He comes to the conclusion that happiness is something that can be handed to you, but is much more satisfying when that happiness is earned through hard work and virtuous action. When it comes to trying to obtain happiness, one must not leave it up to chance; action is required.

What makes Aristotle’s critique compelling is the simple fact that he addresses subjectivity, an aspect of the Good that Plato did not appear to be concerned with. Plato gives people the benefit of the doubt by making the assertion that knowledge leads to enlightenment, which leads to happiness and an understanding of the Good evident in the world. Aristotle’s interpretation of Good allows for the fact that people tend to act upon their own interests instead of in the interest of the general populace. This can be attributed to various factors. For instance, differences in occupation can cause one person to label things as Good and useful that another person might see as frivolous and unimportant. A farmer in Iowa is, in all likelihood, not going to care about the same basic things that a painter in New York City does. Sure, they may be able to find common ground on some things. Both may appreciate the value of hard work, or the beauty of the sunset on a summer evening. Yet, the differences that divide these two are greater than the potential of their shared ideals. The painter doesn’t cares about how long crops must be allowed to ripen, which mix of soil and fertilizer is most effective, and getting the most product to markets and distributors in order to feed their family. The farmer doesn’t care about the role of the Internet in finding an audience for one’s work, finding the right blend of colors to capture the essence of seawater, or which gallery openings to attend. Even if each person learned about the other’s profession, there is no guarantee that they would agree that they are both achieving Good since they don’t hold the same actions as important. Yet, both of these people use this specific knowledge to achieve happiness, which is inarguably Good.

Differences in values can also lead to different interpretations of what is Good. This is increasingly apparent in the volatile U.S. political climate. The Sandra Fluke incident in early 2012, for instance, showed that there is a fundamental difference in the views of Democrats and Republicans in Congress on how important it is for women to have effective reproductive and sexual health coverage. After a January decision by the Obama administration mandating that all employers provide birth control coverage in company insurance plans, controversy erupted. Democrats and women’s rights advocates championed the decision, while Republicans and religious leaders decried it. Fluke testified before a House Democratic committee regarding the necessity of contraceptive coverage for health purposes. Yet, Rep. Darrell Issa did not invite her to a now-infamous February Congressional hearing on the issue of women’s health, instead electing to use a panel comprised of five clergy members of various faiths. All five were men, prompting complaints and accusations of discrimination from Democrats. This, combined with Rush Limbaugh’s inflammatory comments about Fluke’s initial testimony – including personal attacks on Fluke – spurned a big debate on the merits of providing contraceptive coverage for women, which colored the Republican party as afraid to address issues of women’s health, sex, and pregnancy. (McCarthy) The issue is not as prominent now as it was last spring, but there is still a lack of consensus on what is the greatest Good: providing effective contraceptive coverage to women, or protecting the rights of religious organizations based on purely moral grounds. However, can you have a moral life without religion? A difference in values got in the way of effective decision-making. Aristotle would likely admire the members of both political parties for pursuing Good through action, since neither side took a passive stance in addressing their concerns, but would also probably be concerned by the methods used by both sides in promoting their agenda of Good since they were striving for an unobtainable ideal instead of working toward a real solution.

Subjectivity in what is perceived as Good affects Aristotle’s view of ethics most of all. Because people act to fulfill their own idea of happiness, ethical concerns about what is valid as Good differ between individuals. Aristotle states that “happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue,” but also contends “that one element in the soul is irrational and one has a rational principle.” (16) Our souls, per Aristotle’s view, are in conflict with one another, which leads to differing interpretations of what is virtuous and Good at a given moment. Action is an important part of achieving Good, but action does not automatically lead to Good. One can act in a way that does not promote Good beyond a purely pleasurable level. Non-virtuous acts can still be considered Good on a person-to-person basis, but they are not necessarily Good in the Platonic sense. Aristotle also states that virtues can be subdivided into intellectual ones and moral ones, which further establishes the idea that there are different views of Good based on which virtues one considers to be the most important. (18) 

Aristotle’s view of the Good in Nicomachean Ethics addresses his view of action as a necessary part of achieving happiness, the ultimate Good. While this differs from the view put forth by Plato in Republic, which favors education, Aristotle’s refutations of Plato’s points are valid critiques because they address subjectivity in what kinds of Good are most worthy of achieving. Although Aristotle does endorse educated actions over base ones, such as the pursuit of pure pleasure, he realizes that humans can act selfishly and irrationally in the pursuit of the Good, which may lead to a compromise of ethics. 

Works Cited

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Terence Irwin. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1999. Print.

McCarthy, Meghan. "How Contraception Became A Train Wreck For Republicans." National Journal. 04 Mar 2012. Web. 4 May. 2013. <http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/how-contraception-became-a-train-wreck-for-republicans-20120304>.

Plato. Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1992. Print.