Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:55:39.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aristotle's Elusive Summum Bonum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2009

Sarah Broadie
Sarah Broadie
Affiliation:
Philosophy, Princeton University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The philosophy of Aristotle (384–322, b.c.e.) remains a beacon of our culture. But no part of Aristotle's work is more alive and compelling today than his contribution to ethics and political science — nor more relevant to the subject of the present volume. Political science, in his view, begins with ethics, and the primary task of ethics is to elucidate human flourishing. Aristotle brings to this topic a mind unsurpassed in the depth, keenness, and comprehensiveness of its probing.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Philosophy and Policy , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , Winter 1999, pp. 233 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (hereafter NE), Book I, ch. 4, 1095a15–16.

2 NE I 3, 1095a5–6; II 2, 1103b26–28.Google Scholar

3 NE I 7, 1098a12–20Google Scholar; cf. 10,1101a14–16; Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics (hereafter EE), Book II, ch. 1, 1219a.

4 NE II–VI.Google Scholar

5 NE VIII–IX.Google Scholar

6 NE VII 11–14; X 1–5.Google Scholar

7 NE I 4, 1095a17–20.Google Scholar

8 NE I 4, 1095a20–28.Google Scholar

9 NE X 8, 1178b8–9.Google Scholar

10 NE X 8, 1178b9–22Google Scholar; Aristotle, , Metaphysics, Book XII, chs. 7 and 9.Google Scholar

11 The well-being of nonrational animals is not eudaimonia; see EE I 7, 1217a20–29Google Scholar; NE I 9, 1099b32–1100a1; X 8, 1178b25–28.Google Scholar

12 See previous note; see also NE I 7, 1098a1–3.Google Scholar

13 NE I 7, 1097b6–11; IX 9, 1169b18–19.Google Scholar

14 Thus, Aristotle commonly uses “spoudaios” (literally: “serious”) to mean “morally good.”

15 NE II 1, 1103a18–26.Google Scholar

16 NE III 5, 1114a12–18.Google Scholar

17 See, e.g., Aristotle, , Generation of AnimalsGoogle Scholar, Book V, ch. 8, 788b21.

18 Genesis 8:21.

19 NE X 6–8Google Scholar; Metaphysics I 2Google Scholar; Protrepticus B 23–28 (Düring).Google Scholar

20 NE X 7, 1177b31–34.Google Scholar

21 Mill, J. S., “Utilitarianism,” in Mill's Ethical Writings, ed. Schneewind, J. B. (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 75–76.Google Scholar

22 It is not clear whether Mill in fact takes this to be the formal meaning of “summum bonum,” or whether he even considers the question of the formal meaning.

23 This word and its clumsy adjectives are high-flown and sexist, but less misleading than the alternative, “politician” and its cognates.

24 NE I 2, 1094a18–19.Google Scholar

25 NE I 2, 1094a26–b11; I 13, 1102a5–10.Google Scholar

26 NE I 2, 1094a22–24.Google Scholar

27 Witness the title of Bentham's seminal An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789).Google Scholar Mill, too, addressed policymakers and individuals, without distinction.

28 NE I 2, 1094b7–10.Google Scholar

29 NE I 7, 1098a16–18.Google Scholar

30 For a detailed interpretation, see Broadie, Sarah, Ethics with Aristotle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 198–202.Google Scholar

31 NE II 2, 1104a1–10.Google Scholar

32 NE V 3–5.Google Scholar

33 NE III 7, 1115b11–12; 8, 1116b2–3.Google Scholar

34 NE IV 8.Google Scholar

35 NE VI 13, 1145a4–6Google Scholar; cf. NE VI 12, 1144a6–9, 20–22, 31–36.Google Scholar

36 NE II 4, 1105b9–18; X 9, 1179a36–b34.Google Scholar

37 NE I 2, 1094a22–25.Google Scholar

38 NE I 12, 1102a2–4Google Scholar; cf. NE I 4, 1095a26–28Google Scholar (reporting a position which Aristotle does not reject although he rejects the Platonist interpretation of it; see EE I 8, especially 1218b7–14).

39 Cf. EE VIII 3, 1248b26ff.Google Scholar: “The good person is one for whom the natural goods are good.” For a fuller development of the theme, see Plato, , Euthydemus, 280b–282e.Google Scholar

40 NE III 4, 1113a25–33.Google Scholar

41 It is to be emphasized that this is intended as an analysis of what is implied by judging another to be of a character such that one would not be him no matter what advantages (as usually understood) might be attached. It is a further question whether such an undiluted attitude exists or should exist, even in the “good person.”

42 NE I 6, 1096a23–33.Google Scholar

43 This seems clear notwithstanding Richard Kraut, 's arguments to the contrary in his Aristotle on the Human Good (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

44 NE I 10, 1100b22–1101a11.Google Scholar

45 NE X 8, 1178a28–33.Google Scholar

46 The example is from Lawrence, Gavin, “Nonaggregatability, Inclusiveness, and the Theory of Focal Value: Nicomachean Ethics I.7. 1097b16–20,” Phronesis, vol. 42, no. 1 (1997), pp. 32ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 NE I 6, 1096b17–19Google Scholar; Metaphysics I 1, 980a20–28.Google Scholar

48 NE X 7, 1177b4–12.Google Scholar

49 See the previous note; see also Aristotle, , PoliticsGoogle Scholar, Book VII, ch. 14, 1333a30–b11, and Book VIII, ch. 3, 1337b29–1338a13.

50 NE X 7Google Scholar, 1177b19–34; 8, 1178b21–23.