TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Title
Page i
Approval
page ii
Certification page iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgement v
Table
of contents vi
Abstract
ix
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
of the Study 1
1.2 Statement
of the Problem 3
1.3 Purpose
of the Study 4
1.4 Scope
of the Study 4
1.5 Significance
of the Study 5
1.6 Methodology 5
End
Notes 6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE
REVIEW 7
End
Notes 9
CHAPTER THREE: AN EXPOSITION OF
ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF MORALITY
3.1 A Brief Biography of Aristotle 19
3.2 Aristotle’s
Metaphysics 19
3.3 Aristotle’s Concept of Morality 26
3.3.1 Habit as a Pre- Requisite for Morality 26
3.3.2 Virtue as a Pre- Requisite for Morality 28
3.3.3 Moral Virtue as a Pre-Requisite for Morality 30
3.3.4 Morality Vise-a-vise Rationality 33
3.3.5 Morality As Self-Realization 34
3.4 Morality
and Custom 36
3.5 Morality Choice and Reasonability 38
3.6 Aristotle Notion on Happiness as the Highest Good 42
End
Notes 56
CHAPTER FOUR: AN EXPOSITION OF ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPTION OF
POLITICS
4.1 Emergence of the State 60
4.2 Forms
of Government 64
4.3 The
Best State 66
4.4 Aims
of the State 68
4.5
Concept of Slavery 69
4.6 The
Citizen 72
4.7 Constitution
74
4.8 Elements of a Constitution 75
4.9 Freedom
in Aristotle 77
End
Notes 80
CHAPTER FIVE: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF ARISTOTLE’S
CONCEPTION OF MORALITY AND POLITICS
5.1 A Critique of Aristotle’s Source of Morality 82
5.2 A Critique of Aristotle’s Notion of Happiness 82
5.3 A Critique of the Aristocratic State 83
5.4 A Critique of Monarchy (Kingship) 84
5.5 A Critique of Aristotle’s Democracy 84
5.6 A
Critique of Citizenship 84
5.7 Strengths of Aristotle’s Morality 85
5.8 Strengths of Aristotle’s Politics 86
End Note 88
CHAPTER SIX: A CONCLUDING REFLECTION ON ARISTOTLE’S
NOTION ON MORALITY AND POLITICS
6.1 Aristotle’s Notion on Morality and Politics in Relation to Nigerian Society 89
6.2 Recommendation 91
6.3 Conclusion
91
End
Notes 93
Bibliography 94
ABSTRACT
Morality entails everything about man’s action, what he ought to do and what he ought not to do. Like moral standards and moral values, morality forms part and parcel of the life of every social group and civil society. Man as a social and rational being, is naturally moral and political. Politics on the other hand entails everything about the political life in the society. This includes who should, and how the ruler ought to rule. “The Concept of morality and politics in Aristotle” is a fresh and specific approach adapted by the writer to have a philosophical and a critical view of Aristotelian morality and politics. Aristotle argues that there is an end which stands above other ends in relation to human function. He calls it happiness- the highest good. Medieval philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine call it summum Bonum. This is not in contradiction with the Aristotelian notion. Aristotle views the end as generality by postulating that everyone pursues it, both in the political life and in the moral life. For the excellence of the individual equals that of the state. For even the state should aim at providing the ultimate happiness for its citizens. For an individual does not seek morality in a vacuum but in a political society. The state should aim at achieving the ultimate happiness for its citizens. In this regard, this work sets out to discover the relationship of morality to politics and to show the relevance of morality in achieving a sound political system in Aristotle.
NWOLU KELECHI MATHILDA,APRIL, 2016.
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The political
situation in some societies today has grossly degenerated. The democracy which
we practice in our country is not encouraging. We see democracy only in theory but
in practice, we experience tyranny. In January, 2012, the government of Nigeria decided
to impose fuel subsidy on its citizens. This they did, without considering the
public opinion. The citizens of Nigeria
did not think it will lead to a better life for them. Moreover, the people were
not properly consulted. This stirred up a kind of rebellion among the people
against the government. This act opposes the political and moral theory of
Aristotle. Because for him, a state can only be good if its rulers seek the welfare
of the people they govern, by striving to attain the good life for the
individuals. In his moral philosophy,
Aristotle posits that every action should have an ‘end’. And that end Aristotle
calls “happiness”. When a ruler imposes
laws which does not uphold equality and justice, and does not aim at the
highest good of the citizens, that leader cannot be said to be a good leader.
A cursory look at
the concept of morality and politics appears unambiguous. When, however,
critically surveyed, it cannot but reveal its ambiguity. The equivocal nature
of the concept has ardently led great thinkers in the course of centuries to
develop different theories and views about it. Morality is primitively
conceived as consisting in obedience to a tribal custom which is ultimately
regarded as essential for the individual. The atomist such as Democritus
maintains “morality is dominated by the idea of happiness which can only be
achieved through the moderate cultivation of culture as the surest way of
attaining the most desirable goal of life.”1 Socrates posits that no
one is intentionally vicious. This means that whenever we do something wrong —
including something morally wrong. It is out of ignorance rather than evil. In
his ethical perspective, Aristotle holds a crucial idea known as eudemonism
(happiness) according to which the good life is the happy life.
Aristotle
in his ethical theories views morality as teleological. Under this teleological
conception, morality is looked upon as a fundamental conception; morality is
looked upon as a fundamental matter of self- expression or self realization.
Thus,
he primarily asserts in his Nichomachean
Ethics that “every art and every inquiry and similarly every action and pursuit
is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good is rightly been
declared to be that at which all things aim.”2
More
so, having stated that all actions aim at an “end”, Aristotle delves into
distinguishing the two main kinds of ends. These two ends are instrumental end
and intrinsic end. The former implies actions which are carried out as means
for other ends while the latter indicates actions which are done for their own
sake. The goal is action for its own sake for which any other activity is only
a means. For Aristotle, this invariably must be the “good” of man, the supreme
good which is eudemonia (happiness).
On
the other hand, Aristotle in his politics as in ethics stresses the element of
purpose. The state, like man, is endowed by nature with a distinctive function.
Combining these two ideas, Aristotle says that “it is evident that the state is
a creature of nature and that man is by nature a political animal”3.
So closely does he relate man and the state
as to conclude that “he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need
because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god”4. Not only is man by nature destined to live in
a state, but the state, as every other community, is established with the view
to some good exists for some end. But unlike Plato, Aristotle did not create a
blueprint for an ideal state.
The
nature of the ultimate “good” for man in
the community or state are also exposed in this study. Three things which make men
good and excellent in the state include nature, habit, reasons and they must be
in harmony. Just as in a state, the rulers should have no marked superiority
over the ruled, equality should ensure that all citizens alike should take
their turn of governing and being governed. So there should be the same
treatment of similar persons as no government can stand which is not founded
upon justice. And when a government is unjust, everyone in the country unites with the governed in the
desire to have a revolution. And it not possible for the members of the
government to out power all their enemies put together.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.
In Aristotle’s
political theory, he posits that every state is a community established with a
view to some good, for everyone always acts in order to obtain that which they
think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political
community which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at
good in a greater degree than any other, and the highest good.
Pertinent
questions now arises: In his politics, Aristotle Posits that Aristocracy is a
good form of government, but on the other hand, can’t Aristocracy degenerate to
oligarchy which is a perverted form of government? What is the relationship
between politics and morality in Aristotle? And what is the relevance of
morality to politics? For in his morality, Aristotle sees happiness as the
highest good. But what brings this happiness since it varies from individual to
individual? Is the happiness of the individual synonymous with that of the
state, and that of the state synonymous with that of the individual? Also
Aristotle postulates that virtue is
achieved by striving to arrive at the mean between two extremes. How do we
arrive at this mean? And who determines the meaness of this mean? There are
some vices which arriving at their mean will be difficult and impossible. How
do we now determine the morality or otherwise of this vices. Finally, is it
possible to have a sound moral value with an immoral political system?
Therefore, this work has set out to
see the extent to which Aristotle defended his claim. This work explores the
moral and political theories of Aristotle in order to see the relationship
between them and to show the relevance of morality in achieving a sound
political system in our society and in our democracy. This work also tends to
show how the political and moral theory of Aristotle can influence or help us
attain peaceful and harmonious co- existence in our society.
1.3 OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This work sets
out to explore and examine Aristotle’s notion of politics and morality. It aims
at discovering the best quality of a political system to be adopted, as man is
by nature a political animal. And the quality of morality which the human
person should adopt for the good of society and especially for his personal
satisfaction and self- fulfillment for a good life and a happy living.
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of this work is the notion of morality as discussed in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, and his notion of politics as discussed in Aristotle’s politics. Though references will be made to other works of Aristotle and other philosophers that relate to morality and politics.
1.5
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This work will serve as material for
prospective researchers and students on Aristotle’s idea of morality and
politics. It enhances the individual’s desire in the quest for a good moral and
political life and avails him the opportunity to adopt the quality of morality
and which leads to an acceptable and a happy end. The ruler in a state should
avoid tyrannical and despotic acts to achieve a happy end. It is also of great
importance to the society.
1.6
METHODOLOGY
The method
adapted for this research are historical, analytical, expository and critical.
It is historical in the sense that, the views of past philosophers on morality
and politics before Aristotle will be discussed. It is analytical because this
work shall analyse in details, the relationship between politics and morality.
The relevance of morality to politics will be exposed in order to achieve a
sound moral value in the society. In its expository nature, this work exposes
all the tenets of morality and politics as applied by Aristotle, and it will
tend to answer some of the numerous questions concerned with it. A critique of
Aristotle’s view will also be done.
Those critiques
