Aristotle's Eudaimonist Ethics and Political Philosophy: Key Concepts Explained

The Eudaimonist Ethics of Aristotle

Plato imagined the existence of an ideal, eternal, and immutable Good, illuminating the intelligible world. Aristotle, however, takes a position similar to that of Plato's disciples with respect to the Good. Similarly, the Good is not one thing, but a multitude of goods.

There exists not one good, but a multitude of goods.

So if in any case Aristotle holds that whatever is natural to a thing tends toward its good, it permits that thing to achieve a higher grade of perfection in its being.

The highest good, if it exists, according to Aristotle, must possess certain characteristics that allow us to recognize it:

• It must be valuable in itself, and not only as a means to reach another good.
• It must be sufficient in itself and, consequently, there must be no other good beyond it.
• It must be stable; since it is not, we may imagine a good superior to it, precisely because it possesses greater stability.
• It must allow the human being to develop his or her own mode of life, which any other person would agree is good.

Aristotle identifies eudaimonia as the supreme good. Thus, his moral philosophy, like that of many Greek philosophers, holds that eudaimonia is the ultimate goal of human actions, a position denominated eudaimonism.

Aristotle's Politics

The best way to understand the relation between ethics and politics, in Aristotle's view, is through another very important Greek philosophical term: logos. It means word, reason, speech, and discourse. Human beings, as a rational animal (animal logikon), only develop themselves fully through the word.

Now, the practice of the faculty of the word requires interlocutors. It cannot consist of a mono-logos, an empty monologue, but can only be possible through a dia-logos, a dialogue, which presupposes a community.

That is why Aristotle also defines the human being as the political animal. Human perfection and happiness are only possible to reach within the community of the polis.

Thus, the natural character of the human being leads Aristotle to conclude that the polis is prior to the individual. Unlike Socrates and Plato's ethics, which held that ethics must be subordinate to politics, Aristotle sees the individual good and the common good as inseparable. There is no place here for relativism. Virtuous behavior, although each individual has personal matters, is necessarily beneficial to the entire community.

Limitations of Aristotle's Politics

Aristotle's politics were elitist, so their corresponding classes were degraded:

• Free males: natural, full citizens of the city, divided into three classes: warriors, priests, and magistrates. They governed with virtue, overlooking the common good.
• Women, children, farmers, merchants, metics (the name given to foreigners), and slaves: socially subordinated groups.

In the Greek world, the happiness of free males depended on the exercise of the intellectual virtues, which could only succeed if the existence of subordinate social groups was accepted. These excluded groups were considered inferior, and their subordination was thought to enable the common good, that is, the achievement of excellence in politics.

These key groups in Aristotle's thought were denied the same rational and free nature that he attributed to the privileged class. Aristotle, for example, considered the nature of women and men to be unequal, and he justified slavery as a natural condition for some human beings.