An Interview with Aristotle

(The first in a series)

Some of us are attracted to the idea of exploring how an ethics styled on Aristotle's theory of human virtue might help us understand the moral dimensions of our behavior as it relates to the broader, natural world that includes us. Aristotle's approach may circumvent some difficulties of other approaches; though it undoubtedly has difficulties of its own.

Helioskiagrablog wishes to make welcome those who are not hard-core philosophers and who may not have had the privilege of meeting at the Environmental Ethics Institute at the University of Montana. So we wish to devote this first in a series of posts on Aristotelian virtue ethics to a quick primer.

Portrait of Aristotle (Anonymous, Cathedral of Transfiguration, Moscow)

To this end, we have spared no effort. Helioskiagrablog is extraordinarily fortunate to have with us today the all-time greatest expert on virtue ethics — Mr. Aristotle himself. That enormously renowned philosopher, we believe, is making his first ever appearance on a blog -- or at least, on a blog devoted to matters environmental and ethical. As you likely know, Mr. Aristotle is famous for his theory of everything. Helioskiagrablog is eager to see how we might apply that theory, and particularly, the ethical part, to "matters environmental and ethical".

So that we all can understand Mr. Aristotle, we have obtained (through dubious channels) a babelfish translator. Although not originally designed for dead languages, we managed some simple modifications that now enable it to work for ancient Greek.

H: Good day, Mr. Aristotle. We are enormously honored to have you here on helioskiagrablog.

A: Oh, you can just call me "Aristotle" for short; most of my friends do. Even Plato -- though I suppose that if he had seen my critique of his Republic, he might have had a few other choice words for me — "the Form of Horses**t", or something.

H: Very well, we'll just call you "Aristotle". That will help cut down on the typing.

A: Yes, well, I had my students do the writing for me. It helped them develop their intellectual virtues — the ones that have to do with theoretical reasoning, which are very important for human flourishing. The intellect is not just about practical thinking, you know. By the way, your blog's name is pretty amusing. Socrates would have liked it; he was always one for juxtaposing opposites. Come to think of it, I guess I like to do that, too — you know, all that stuff about excess, deficiency, and the mean in between. (Does that rhyme in translation, too?) But that's all about virtues of character, and I guess that's what you really want to talk about, right?

H: Right! Helioskiagrablog is pleased that you like its name. We are trying to cast some light into the shadows, you know.

A: (laughs) Very good. I flourished doing that, too.

H: Yes, we know. Ok, for those in our audience not familiar with your work...

A: Not familiar with my work? Can't anyone read ancient Greek anymore?

H: No..., yes..., well, not many of us. But we do have good translations, and here's one — of your best work on ethics: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/artistotle.html. But let's help our audience with a Cliffs Notes version of your ethics...

A: Cliffs? Like the ones on three sides of the Acropolis?

H: Uh, well, no. What we meant was a kind of summary or synopsis that can guide your readers and ours.

A: Ok, that's pretty easy because my basic thinking on ethics is really quite simple. (If you want something hard, just pick up a copy of my "Metaphysics".) I hold that eudaimonia, or as you might say, "flourishing" or "living well" (thank you, babelfish) is the highest of human ends. We flourish by developing arête ("excellence" or "virtue") in our characteristic faculties, capacities, and functions. It's not that we attain a virtuous state and then we're done. Rather, it's a lifelong pursuit. To have a virtuous character is to continuously cultivate attitudes and habitual practices from which flow the excellence of our life's activities.

Humans have many capacities and functions in common with other creatures. But the ones that are uniquely human and most important for our flourishing are tied to our rationality. (Even Manny Kant, may he rest in peace, might agree with that.) So it is that we flourish most (achieve the highest good) when we use reason well to guide our activities in accordance with our continuously developing understanding of our unique capacities and what constitutes excellence in their actuation and exercise.

H: Perhaps an example would help?

A: Of course. I like to give the example of friendship, which is necessary for human flourishing. Here, we must distinguish friendships of virtue — "complete" friendships — from incomplete ones. To be an excellent friend, I must wish her well and do good for her; I must wish that my friend live and exist for her own sake, not mine; I must spend time with her; I must willingly and with unencumbered spirit make many of the same choices as her; I must share her distress as well as her joys. But if my friendship is based only on considerations of what I can get out of my friend and how much I must give for it; or merely on the pleasure of enjoying her wit or company — then it is contingent on feelings and circumstances that are changeable, not likely to endure, and so not complete. A friendship based only on utility and pleasure is not excellent; and I do not live as well if I "practice" my friendship in this way.

H: Gee, even I can understand that. So, can you just give us a hint about how your theory might apply to human behavior as it relates to the environment in which humans live?

A: Sure. It's easy to say in a general sort of way how my theory might apply. We need only look at the flourishing that might accrue to those who embody the virtue of caring for ecological communities. We are members of these natural communities in the sense that we are among their myriad and complexly interdependent parts. Perhaps this is much the same as our membership in human communities that are framed by interdependent social structures and institutions. Insofar as that is true, we flourish only if we are good ecological citizens. A bad citizen simply cannot flourish.

More than that, cultivating our characteristically human rational capacities to study, understand, and appreciate an ecological system as a complexly adaptive system whose flourishing is interdependent with ours, is to fulfill the highest of human functions. This would seem to have significant implications for choosing the attitudes and behaviors towards natural systems that we ought to cultivate. It might imply that we should develop our capacities for feeling, choosing, and acting well as individuals of a species on its one and only home planet. These attitudes and behaviors would be constitutive of an ecological excellence that stands alongside of the other excellences that I describe in my Nichomachean Ethics, such as caring for friends. In an important way, this is no different from cultivating eunoia, or "good will" by which one loves or likes another person for the sake of that other person — not as a source for self-advantage.

H: Wow; that's deep, dude. We hope that gives you some idea of how Aristotle, the man with the theory of everything, might approach environmental ethics.

A: Hey, before we break, what does it mean that "Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle"?

H: Where on earth did you hear that?

A: Hey, if it's about philosophy, I know about it. And a "Flying Circus"? Is that anything like a gryphon?

H: I think that we'll take those questions offline. We'll be back for more of Aristotle on helioskiagrablog shortly.