I recently came across an interesting excerpt from Aristotle’s Politics that might be a helpful addition to the still-unresolved part one.
A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends.
In discussing virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that virtue of character – the virtue of ēthos – is based upon the performance of activities and actions. Thus, a just and virtuous person would build their virtue of character by performing just and good activities.
If we seek to improve certain aspects of our lives, it follows that the ultimate goal of self-improvement would be to lead a perfect life. According to Aristotle a good life is one lived in accordance with virtue; therefore, the perfect life would be perfectly virtuous.
In order to better understand the requirements of living well (and the possibility of living perfectly), Aristotle first describes the soul and virtue:
The soul is divided into two parts (contrasting with his mentor’s tripartite soul) the rational and irrational. The former encompasses scientific and calculative systems while the later contains the system of nutrition/growth and desires. The irrational part obeys the reason of the rational part and is the area associated with the soul’s moral and ethical virtue.
Each person usually focuses on a particular area of their life. Artists and scientists are often quiet and aloof, and a businessperson may not understand and practice charity. A person recognizes their focus and tends to stick to it without wasting time on other virtues of character and would therefore not be capable of living the perfect life with complete “virtue” in all virtues.
Is the human attention bound to a single focus, or are we simply too frightened to expend energy on other areas lest we discover our true limits?
As I’ve discussed on other occasions, I believe that true morality is selfish in that stimuli with a positive effect on oneself will be considered moral, while negative stimuli will be considered immoral and will be avoided. Thus, morality seems to be little more than an individual’s response system to the forces of natural and sexual selection.
The question here is why murder is considered immoral. I use the somewhat strong term because I am referring to an intentional and premeditated killing, one where the murderer has calculated the procession and product of the act. Returning to the connection between morality and selection/evolution, there are obviously many selective advantages to murder: it is the most effective form of eliminating competition. One would therefore expect that the trait would be encouraged and we would not have the current associations with murder.
The only disadvantage to murder is its high energy cost. Typically, animals utilize threat displays and avoid conflicts because of the potential damage that can occur. However, in many cases, murder is the only option and the typical “kill or be killed” mentality is adopted.
What was the turning point for humans? What aspect of humans caused murder to change from a necessary form of growth or advancement to an entirely immoral act, regardless of the context?
Morality is too enticing of a topic to cover with only one entry, so the following essay will describe the origin and growth of morality to its present state.
I am a seventeen year old freshman at the University at Buffalo majoring in Biomedical Sciences. If you have any questions about this website or would like to work with me on a web design project, feel free to contact me
Read More »