Introduction

People are often most remembered by their most

significant character traits. These traits are the
product of a consistent display of a particular
behavior. Some people are known to be
courageous, some as quick-witted, while others
are remembered for their diligence and work
ethic.
To a certain extent, a person is defined (at least in the
minds of others) by what he/she does and how he/she
lives his/her life.
One who consistently exhibits certain
behavior in various situations gains a
peculiar identity that somehow
determines how others perceive him/her
as a person. For example, people associate the
nickname Bertong Tigasin (Bert “the formidable”)
to a person who has consistently displayed
strength and grit in character.
We build our characters through how we make
choices in different situations we face in our
lives.
In meeting and speaking to different people, facing
various problems, and handling different day-to-day
tasks, we develop a certain way of being, a
unique style of being a person.
Through the constant interaction of thought and
action as prompted by various situations that call
for one’s decision, a person comes to know
himself/herself as a certain type of
character or personality.
Character is not merely a theoretical construct
but a product of action in the world—a constant
doing or way of being that is made apparent by the
possession and actualization of particular
virtues or vices.
In one’s journey towards self-realization and self-
flourishing, there is an implied necessity to
understand what he/she is actually aiming for in
his/her life. In aiming for a goal, the person must
also first understand what he/ she actually is and
is potentially capable of. Self-actualization is not
attained through theory but by practice:
character is a product of practice. But what does it
actually mean for a human person to flourish? What does it
mean for one to achieve his/her goal? What is the goal of
our existence as human beings and what does character
have to do with it?
The Greek philosopher Aristotle [384—322 B.C.]
wrote his Nicomachean Ethics with these questions
in mind. As one of Plato’s most prolific students, he
shares with his teacher the fundamental assumption that
what radically distinguishes the human person
from other forms of being is his/her possession
of reason (logos).
If Plato firmly believes that ignorance is solely
responsible for committing immoral acts,
thinking that once one truly knows the good,
one will inevitably do the good, Aristotle believes
otherwise. Aristotle considers that morality is not
merely a matter of knowing the good but
actually doing or practicing the good
habitually.
According to Aristotle, we can only fully
actualize our potential as human beings once
we understand what being human essentially
aims to and do the necessary things to fulfill
our function (ergon) in the most excellent way
possible.
Aristotle
His ethics is grounded in the formation of
one’s character—a way of being and living
in harmony with the human person’s
proper end. Just as he believes that other things
have a specific function and end, for instance, a
pair of scissors, whose function and end is to cut
things, Aristotle also believes that such a purpose
also exists for human beings. To fulfill this
function in the most excellent way
possible is to live ethically, that is, to achieve
a way of flourishing suited to us.
EUDAIMONIA
Aristotle assumes that any activity, practical
or theoretical, aims towards some end or
good. He gives the following examples to
elucidate this proposition: health for the practice
of medicine, ship for shipbuilding, and victory for
generalship in war, among others. However,
these ends are still provisional goals to
another goal. If, for instance, the practice of
medicine aims to promote and maintain health in
society, can we not ask further why we want to be
healthy?
Does one seek health for its own sake or does one seek it
perhaps because one would like to be able to fulfill one’s
duties as a parent well because one wants to raise good
children? But what is the end goal of having good children?
Why does one want to have good children? Perhaps
because one cares enough for one’s society that one does
not want to contaminate it with useless citizens in the
future. But why does one value society this much? As one
can see, almost all ends are not ends in themselves
but mere conduits for a further or deeper end.
Proximate vs. Ultimate End
Proximate end. It is an end or goal that one
wishes to attain or achieve immediately after an
act is done. It is willed as a means to a further
end.
Ultimate end. It is an end willed as reason for all
ends.
Aristotle is not simply interested in finding out the
different ends or purposes for human life. He wants to
find out what our chief end is. He is interested
in finding out what all our lives essentially and
ultimately aim to.
The chief good for the human person must not be
something one aims at for the sake of something
else. It cannot be wealth, for wealth is merely a
means for possessing things such as houses or cars.
Neither can it be fame nor honor for they are just
instruments for feeding one’s ego, a servant of
pride.
Aristotle names the chief good for the human person as
happiness or eudaimonia. For him, happiness is the
self- sufficient, final, and attainable goal of human life. It
is self- sufficient because to have it makes human life
complete. It is final because it is desired for itself and
not for the sake of something else.
Eudaimonia is sought for its own sake. All other
ends, such as health, wealth, and power, are sought because
they are perceived to be instrumental in one’s flourishing.
Eudaimonia, as the proper end of man, is not some
kind of inactive state but is actually something
that one does. For Aristotle, our chief good is not
something we merely possess but something that we
continually actualize (in practice). According to him,
“Eudamonia is an activity of the soul in
accordance with virtue”.
The chief good is not achieved by one grand act
or one big decision, for it is something one
constantly strives for.
Happiness is a lifelong activity. One cannot be
complacent in times of good fortune because happiness
is more than one’s fate—it is something we
decide to do for ourselves.
Aristotle acknowledges the fact that it would not hurt if one were
born into more favorable circumstances, such as being brought up
in a good family, having access to proper education, having
the company of good friends, and being beautiful in
physical appearance. These external goods contribute to
the attainment of one’s happiness, but they do not
guarantee it. At the end of the day, happiness is still something one
does and not merely who or where someone is. Hence, some people
are rich but seemingly unfulfilled in their lives. Others have good
friends but have not cultivated these friendships enough to have one’s
friends hold a positive impact in one’s life.
Happiness is not mere self-
indulgence or pleasure-
seeking for Aristotle.
It denotes an activity that essentially
corresponds to the proper nature of
the human being.
We must also investigate the meaning or virtue, for it
is contained in the definition of happiness. What is
the human person for Aristotle and what does
his/her happiness entail as such? Secondly,
what is the role of virtue in the achievement
of one’s end?
START HERE…
The Human Soul
Aristotle postulates that happiness is an
activity of the soul. The obvious question is, of
course, what he means by “soul.” For him, the soul
is the part of the human being that animates
the body. Body and soul are inseparable for
Aristotle, but he emphasizes the role of the
soul more than that of the body in
elucidating his ethics. The soul is composed of
both rational and irrational elements.
The rational part of the soul is divided into two
parts— the speculative (responsible for
knowledge) and the practical (responsible
for choice and action). The speculative part
is concerned with pure thought and is
essentially the base of contemplation, while
the practical intellect is in charge of action
and the practical determination of the
proper means to attain a specific end.
The irrational part of the soul also has two
parts—the vegetative and the appetitive. The
vegetative part is in charge of the nutrition
and growth of the human being. This part of
the soul takes care of all the involuntary functions of
the body, from breathing to digestion and the like.
Aristotle says that this part of the soul is not
relevant in discussing happiness or virtue.
The appetitive part, according to him, shares in the
rational element in the soul. It cannot itself reason,
but it does share in the rational element in that it
can be influenced by it. For example, passions, such as
sexual urges and desire for wealth, and recognition are
quite difficult to control. It is the task of the rational part
of the soul to reign in such passionate demands that seek
fulfillment oftentimes without any rational and practical
consideration of all the factors involved in its desire for
satisfaction.
If a person suddenly feels the urge to eat all the food
on the table that is meant for an entire family, it is
possible that he/ she stops himself/herself from
doing so once he/she realizes that such an act is
grossly unfit for a proper human being. Examined
under an Aristotelian lens, this person’s decision to
keep his/her greed in check is influenced by
practical reason which determines the proper thing
to do in a given situation.
There is a part of the soul that calls for
reason’s governance. Giving in to raw and
unchecked appetites is oftentimes the
reason a person commits immoral acts.
A person’s raw biological and psychological
desires blind him/her from the implications of
what he/she does to the fulfillment of his/her
end, which is happiness.
Giving in to passions keeps a person from
flourishing and derails him/her from his/her
true end as a person. Aristotle is not saying that it is
wrong to have such desires. It is only natural to
have such passions for they are a constitutive
part of having a soul.
People who aim to be happy
must be responsible for such
desires and keep them in
check.
For Aristotle, moral virtue is
necessary in making sure that
desires do not control the
behavior.
The Greek word for virtue is arete which means
excellence. By excellence, the Greeks thought of
how a thing fulfills its function (ergon) in
accordance with its nature. For instance, if a
knife cuts excellently, is sharp, durable, and
dependable for different tasks, then it may be said
that it is an excellent knife—it does what it is
supposed to do in the best way possible. It fulfills its
essence as a tool for cutting and slicing. It may then
be called a “virtuous” knife.
To be virtuous is to exhibit one’s
capacity to fulfill one’s essence or
purpose in such a way that one’s
potentiality as a particular being
may be said to be actualized in the
most excellent way.
In the case of human beings, Aristotle says that
there are two kinds of virtues—moral and
intellectual. Briefly, moral virtue has to do
with excellence in the performance of
decisions relating to moral and practical
activity, while intellectual virtues have to
do with one’s capacity to harness reason’s
contemplative capacity for arriving at
knowledge.
Intellectual virtue owes its
existence and development
to teaching, while moral
virtue arises from habitual
practice (ethos)
Virtue, then, is twofold, intellectual, and
moral. Both the coming-into-being and
increase of intellectual virtue result mostly
from teaching—hence, it requires
experience and time—whereas moral virtue
got its name [ethikej by a slight alteration
of the term habit [ethos]. It is also clear, as a
result, that none of the moral virtues are
present in us by nature, since nothing that
exists by nature is habituated to be other
than it is.
Aristotle emphasizes the role of practice
and habit in the formation of moral virtue.
No person is born morally virtuous.
However, all persons have the latent
potentiality to be so, if only they habitually
do excellent deeds. But what are excellent
deeds? What are virtuous actions? How does a
person develop the capacity to bring these virtues
out of the realm of possibility to the realm of
actuality?
Aristotle declares that we
become morally virtuous by
doing morally virtuous acts.
We become just by doing just
acts.
These states of character are
aimed at an intermediary point
between excess and deficiency—
in a mean (mesotes) that can be
considered as the appropriate
response to the demands of
different situations.
A virtuous person is able to arrive at a
decision or perform an action that may
be considered as an intermediate
between deficiency and excess, which
he calls the mean or mesotes.
It is a mean that is relative to the
person facing a moral choice. By
relative, he means that depending
on the particular circumstances of
a person, the mean would
correspond to the most
appropriate response given the
demands of the situation.
Virtue, therefore, is a characteristic
marked by choice, residing in the mean
relative to us, a characteristic defined by
reason and as the prudent person would
define it. Virtue is also a mean with
respect to two vices, the one vice
related to excess, the other to
deficiency.
For Aristotle, virtue is a state of one’s
character that is the result of choice. This
choice is governed by prudence or practical
wisdom (phronesis). Phronêsis is the human
person’s instrument in dealing with moral choices.
It is a kind of knowledge that deals with practical
matters and not just with ideas or concepts.
Practical wisdom participates in the capacity of the
rational part of the soul to reckon situations without
easily giving in to the push and pull of the
various desires which emanate from the appetitive
part of the soul.
Phronêsis is the intellectual virtue
responsible for bringing the human person
closer to his/her chief good in the realm of
morality.
Practical wisdom aids one in being happy. It is
comprised both of knowledge and action. One’s
capacity for choice and action must be guided by
the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom or
phronêsis in pursuit of the mean or the mesotes
for one to be able to call himself/ herself morally
virtuous.
It may be said that prudent actions are actions
that are guided by reason and not just
driven by passion. These actions and decisions
exhibit one’s state of character—whether
one is truly courageous, temperate, friendly, or just.
Practical wisdom guides the human person
in choosing the mean between the extremes
of excess and deficiency.
For Aristotle, there is not one
universally correct response to
this situation that may apply to
everyone in all situations.
Sometimes, it may be more prudent to
retreat than to move forward. Courage
is not always bold and brazen. Courage
is a thinking person’s virtue. There is
not one way of being courageous.
Courage is the mean between
rashness and cowardice.
To choose either an excess or
deficiency constitutes a vice for
Aristotle.
It should be noted that certain actions admit no middle-
point or mesotes. Some actions are simply bad, and so there
is no “virtuous” way of performing them. Acts like adultery,
theft, and murder are bad in themselves and cannot be
deemed virtuous in any situation. There is no right way of
committing adultery, with the right person, at the right time.
Adultery is simply wrong. The mean only applies to actions
and dispositions that are not bad in and of themselves.
Contemplation and
Philosophical
Knowledge
For Aristotle, the main functions of the intellectual
virtues, namely, phronêsis and sophia, are to aid human
persons in matters concerning moral choice and the
attainment of knowledge of first principles or eternal
truths, respectively.
If practical wisdom serves
as a guide for action in
everyday life, the act of
contemplation is a
pursuit of philosophical
wisdom.
Aristotle subordinates practical wisdom to
contemplation because he believes that it is the
kind of activity most proper to human persons
considering the fact that reason is human’s most
defining attribute.
Philosophizing, according to him, is the most pleasant of
virtuous activities because it does not rely on anything else
for its fulfillment other than the desire to do it.
It is the most self-sufficient act. Practical virtues such as
courage and temperance need specific conditions to be
attained, while philosophy is something a person can do by
himself/herself anytime.
For him, contemplation is an act that can be loved for its
own sake because it has no other aim than to reveal the
most fundamental truths of existence.
In other words, no person may be considered
happier than a person who has the time and the
leisurely disposition for contemplation.
Living well means having the complementary
disposition of intelligent conduct and a thirst
for philosophical wisdom.
A person of virtuous character always finds a way to stay
intact even in dire times. That person does not
compromise the dictates of reason in exchange for the
immediate fulfillment of his/her passions.
A person who has cultivated the virtue of honesty
throughout his/her life will not be influenced by a
corrupt system.
Aristotle teaches us that character is the most
essential component of ethics. A virtuous
character is the result of the proper
combination of practical wisdom (phronêsis)
and habituation (ethos) in the pursuit of the
mean (mesotes).
Thank you very much!