Aristotle and Solon on Ethics and Happiness
(originally posted here as a blog entry, i.e. not as a page displayed in the site navigation)The political thought of the ancient Greeks can offer a refreshing alternative to the theories of present day statesmen, in particular the conception of the relationship between individual and state.
I’ve gone a little over-board today and have tried to out-line the way in which the concerns and happiness of the individual are tied to the needs and prosperity of the state in the political philosophy of Aristotle and Solon. If nothing else can be learned from the theories of the ancients, we can see how the individual need not be trampled upon by the state, and that the state need not face dissolution as citizens brake off into various factions. This is not all covered in the post, however I’ve linked to the translation of Aristotle which I use for quotations, and I encourage all interested in further knowledge to check out the book.
Every art and every investigation, and similarly every action and pursuit, is considered to aim at some good. Hence the good has been rightly defined as ‘that at which all things aim’
(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1094a)
Upon reading these opening lines of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, an alert thinker might find them to be problematic. If all actions are aimed at some good, how would one explain the numerous opposing and contradictory acts which comprise the lives of men? In other words, if two actions aim at objects which are direct opposites, how can it be so that they are both directed at some good unless everything is good?
The answer to this question can be found in the nature of these actions. If they are directed to short term goals then they are subordinate to the overall aim of men’s actions, the good of man. Ignorance and a disposition which makes one prone to bad habits can account for the fact that so many people miss the target and settle for that which they believe to be the good, i.e. they mistake a subordinate goal for the highest goal.
The Nicomachean Ethics is an analysis of this object of all of our aims and it is an attempt to show how a properly functioning man can live up to his full potential and direct his action accurately. In other words, how one should live so that his life is as good as possible and he is as happy as possible.
For Aristotle, the way a man lived his life and the way a political entity was governed were both intrinsically connected, since if the goal of ethics is to determine the best possible way to live, and a person lived in a polis or city-state, then the best possible life would necessarily require the best possible city-state in which to live. Because of this, Aristotle’s political theory is dependent on the study of human ethics, morals and behavior, and the aim of this study is determining the best constitution which allows the citizens of the polis to achieve their highest good and thus reach their full potential as men. His method of inquiry for both political science and ethics, is to thoroughly examine the psychology of individuals and the sociological tendencies the community.
This examination, found in both the Ethics and the Politics, can be read as a moral treatise which sets down some general guidelines regarding how one should act in order to live up to his or her full potential. This state of being is denoted by the Greek word “eudaimonia,” which is commonly rendered “happiness” in English, however a more literal translation might be something like “well-spirited” from the Greek eu- meaning “good or well, as in the word euphoric” and daimon or “attendant spirit.”
It is eudaimonia which turns out to be the highest good, the most preferable state of being for a human:
we regard [eudaimonia] as the most desirable of all things, not reckoned as one item among many; if it were so reckoned, happiness would obviously be more desirable by the addition of even the least good, because the addition makes the sum of goods greater, and the greater of two goods is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is found to be something perfect and self-sufficient, being the end to which our actions are directed. (1097b)
We can see that Aristotle is examining the actions of men and more specifically what it is these actions are directed toward. This teleological approach is founded within the Aristotilean framework which holds that four different kinds of ’cause’ (aition in Greek) provide sufficient explanations of all that is. The last and most important cause is called the “end” or “final” cause (from the Greek telos, meaning “end”) and can be understood as ‘that for which’ a given phenomenon exists. In this analysis, Aristotle has determined that the final cause or the telosof human life (which itself is merely a series of observable actions) is happiness, and that happiness (eudaimonia) is something “perfect and self-sufficient.” This gives a hint at what the ‘full potential’ of a human being entails, however this is not our concern here so we will have to fore go any further discussion and make do with the outline of eudaimonia sketched above.
The analysis continues a Aristotle seeks to further clarify that which might leads to the achievement of eudaimonia, therefore it is also necessary to examine the characteristic actions or work of the thing which does the achieving, namely, the human being as such. After noting how the essence of human life varies from that of plants and animals because of the rationality of the human soul, Aristotle can now formulate a preliminary description of life of eudaimonia:
Now, if the function of man is an activity of the soul in accordance with, or implying, a rational principle… and if we assume that the function of man is a kind of life, namely, an activity or series of actions of the soul, implying a rational principle; and if the function of a good man is to perform these well and rightly; and if every function is performed in accordance with its proper excellence: if all this is so, the conclusion is that the good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind. (1098)
“The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind.”
This description has a nice ring to it and would make an excellent slogan for a tee-shirt or bumper-sticker if more people woke up and started studying philosophy. However, amongst other problems with Aristotle’s formulation, we do not know whom we can describe as having a good life. Not only has Aristotle failed to provide any concrete examples, but another age old question needs to be addressed, namely, how can one be described as having a happy life when his life has not yet ended? Don’t seemingly happy men wind up miserable by the time they die? It seems that their lives, taken on the whole, should not be described as happy, but rather it should be said that for a given period of time they were lucky. But as Aristotle points out, this interpretation might have a few problems as well:
Ought we, then, to go further and call no man happy so long as he is alive? Must we, in Solon’s phrase, ‘look to the end’? And if we are bound to lay down this rule, is a man really happy after he is dead? Surely this is an utter paradox, especially for us who define happiness as a kind of activity. (1100a)
Here we see a reference to the famous encounter between Solon (one of the so-called ’seven wise men’ of ancient Greece) and King Croesus, as recorded in Herodotus’ The Histories.
As Herodotus tells this story, after Solon had made new laws in order to boost the well-being of the people of Athens (more on this here), he needed to leave the polis for he wanted the Athenians to give his policies a real chance and with him gone, the laws could not be changed. Therefore he set out on a 10 year trip to see the world.
At this time the king of Lydia, King Croesus, who was still a rich and powerful ruler at the time, entertained Solon in Sardis. One night the king had his servants take Solon on a tour of his most valuable treasures, and when the tour was over, Croesus asked Solon:
“Stranger of Athens, we have heard much of thy wisdom and of thy travels through many lands, from love of knowledge and a wish to see the world. I am curious therefore to inquire of thee, whom, of all the men that thou hast seen, thou deemest the most happy?”
It was quite obvious to Solon that Croesus was seeking to be praised, but there was no chance that he would allow Croesus to get away from the conversation without an intellectual smack down. Solon responded to Croesus’ question with brutal honesty:
“Tellus of Athens, sire… because his country was flourishing in his days, and he himself had sons both beautiful and good, and he lived to see children born to each of them, and these children all grew up; and further because, after a life spent in what our people look upon as comfort, his end was surpassingly glorious. In a battle between the Athenians and their neighbours near Eleusis, he came to the assistance of his countrymen, routed the foe, and died upon the field most gallantly. The Athenians gave him a public funeral on the spot where he fell, and paid him the highest honours.”
The Lydian king was frustrated with Solon’s answer, so he then asked who was the second happiest person Solon had met, and to this Solon replied:
“Cleobis and Bito… they were of Argive race; their fortune was enough for their wants, and they were besides endowed with so much bodily strength that they had both gained prizes at the Games. Also this tale is told of them:- There was a great festival in honour of the goddess Juno at Argos, to which their mother must needs be taken in a car. Now the oxen did not come home from the field in time: so the youths, fearful of being too late, put the yoke on their own necks, and themselves drew the car in which their mother rode. Five and forty furlongs did they draw her, and stopped before the temple. This deed of theirs was witnessed by the whole assembly of worshippers, and then their life closed in the best possible way. Herein, too, God showed forth most evidently, how much better a thing for man death is than life. For the Argive men, who stood around the car, extolled the vast strength of the youths; and the Argive women extolled the mother who was blessed with such a pair of sons; and the mother herself, overjoyed at the deed and at the praises it had won, standing straight before the image, besought the goddess to bestow on Cleobis and Bito, the sons who had so mightily honoured her, the highest blessing to which mortals can attain. Her prayer ended, they offered sacrifice and partook of the holy banquet, after which the two youths fell asleep in the temple. They never woke more, but so passed from the earth. The Argives, looking on them as among the best of men, caused statues of them to be made, which they gave to the shrine at Delphi.”
Now Croesus was infuriated and demanded Solon explain why he, as the wealthy king of Lydia, was not considered more happy than the common-folk whom Solon described. The following is part of Solon’s response:
For thyself, oh! Croesus, I see that thou art wonderfully rich, and art the lord of many nations; but with respect to that whereon thou questionest me, I have no answer to give, until I hear that thou hast closed thy life happily. For assuredly he who possesses great store of riches is no nearer happiness than he who has what suffices for his daily needs, unless it so hap that luck attend upon him, and so he continue in the enjoyment of all his good things to the end of life. For many of the wealthiest men have been unfavoured of fortune, and many whose means were moderate have had excellent luck. Men of the former class excel those of the latter but in two respects; these last excel the former in many. The wealthy man is better able to content his desires, and to bear up against a sudden buffet of calamity. The other has less ability to withstand these evils (from which, however, his good luck keeps him clear), but he enjoys all these following blessings: he is whole of limb, a stranger to disease, free from misfortune, happy in his children, and comely to look upon. If, in addition to all this, he end his life well, he is of a truth the man of whom thou art in search, the man who may rightly be termed happy. Call him, however, until he die, not happy but fortunate. Scarcely, indeed, can any man unite all these advantages: as there is no country which contains within it all that it needs, but each, while it possesses some things, lacks others, and the best country is that which contains the most; so no single human being is complete in every respect- something is always lacking. He who unites the greatest number of advantages, and retaining them to the day of his death, then dies peaceably, that man alone, sire, is, in my judgment, entitled to bear the name of ‘happy.’ But in every matter it behoves us to mark well the end: for oftentimes God gives men a gleam of happiness, and then plunges them into ruin.”
Croesus, who was rather dense and could by no means understand Solon’s meaning, excused Solon without receiving the compliments that he had so suspected. Incidentally, this is the point when Croesus’ world began to collapse.
If Aristotle had not been so well read, he may have left out one of the most poetic lines of the Nicomachean Ethics, the definition of the good for man as:
“an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind. There is a further qualification: in a complete lifetime. One swallow does not make a summer; neither does one day. Similarly neither can one day, or a brief space of time, make a man blessed [makarios] and happy. [1098]
It is now clear how Solon’s encounter with Croesus (as recorded by Herodotus, at least) ties in to Aristotle’s political theory, for Solon explains that:
There is no country which contains within it all that it needs, but each, while it possesses some things, lacks others, and the best country is that which contains the most; so no single human being is complete in every respect- something is always lacking. He who unites the greatest number of advantages, and retaining them to the day of his death, then dies peaceably, that man alone, sire, is, in my judgment, entitled to bear the name of ‘happy.’
New Comments