Aristotle.

There's a great deal for me to say about Aristotle. He is really the founding father of the analysis of objective/subjective morality. His book (or rather, collection of books), Ethics, is well worth a read for anyone. Of course, I realise it's ridiculously hard going for anyone who isn't studying it for some kind of post graduate diploma in Philosophy, but it is readable enough. Anyway, enough boring lit crit, on to the meat of this post. Three parts:

1. A Mini note on the man himself.
2. Aristotle's preliminary definition of 'good'.
3. Aristotle's brief analysis of man's approach to attaining 'good'.

I shall try to make each section interesting to even the lay person, with some light hearted analysis, but feel free to read whichever part interests you most... Or just go ahead and surf on to the next site because you're too lazy to take on some meaningful... Oh, you've gone.

1. The Man Himself.

First: boring facts... Born c.385 BC. His father was physician to the king. Went to Plato's academy at 17 (described Plato as 'a man whom it is not lawful even for the bad to praise'.) Tutored Alexander the Great.

Second: that which makes the Great Philosopher a mortal man... When Plato died his academy was taken over by a man named Speusippus. He and Aristotle went to live under protection of another man named Hermeias. Hermeias was a remarkable character who had risen from the lowest ranks of society to be a true leader of men. Further, he aspired after the Platonian ideals of a 'good' ruler.

That such a man could achieve so much shows that the Ancient World at the time had similar class opinions as, in my opinion, they have today - a man can rise through the classes, but only with the aid of brilliance. That such a man became the closest friend of Aristotle shows the philosopher to be a man of neutral judgment, capable of thinking without prejudice.

The two indeed became the greatest of friends and Hermeias became a great ruler. Unfortunately the Persians then kicked the crap out of everybody and put Hermeias to death, after he had refused to betray his friends even under the worst forms of torture. A truly good man? (Another triumph of power over 'goodness'). The effect on Aristotle was extraordinary. In his passionate grief he wrote a poem for his friend in which he said his friend had proved that "goodness was worth dying for." Noble sentiments indeed, and thoroughly declaratory for a philosopher, which is why I tell this story, and why I like it. It shows Aristotle to be a real man with emotions, able to consider reality in the same way as the rest of us, without rationalising it all away. This makes his rationalisations all the more emphatic, in my submission.

[He then shagged Hermeias' sister (and you thought he was a big homo with only Hermeias in mind didn't you? Yeah... Those Greeks were fond of a bit of Ass-Jockeying.) They got married and in the end were buried together - another nice touch of humanity in the man.]

2. What is 'Good'?

Aristotle attempts to define Good. He begins by saying that since every activity (artistic or scientific, deliberate action or pursuit) has for its object the attainment of some 'good'. We may therefore assent to the view that 'the good' is 'that at which all things aim'. A nice clear start no? Personally I think he's already made a whopping assumption, but who am I to question the guy?

A little later (after an analysis which suggests that by virtue of there being a variety of 'forms' of 'good', that there is no 'absolute good' - Wham, there goes God and objective morality) he concludes that 'Happiness' is 'the good', because all men in the last resort aim at it (following his starting definition. He follows this up with an apparent self-fulfilling-prophecy type statement:

"It is happiness for two reasons: (1) happiness is everything it needs to be, (2) it has everything it needs to have."

Seems a decent answer eh? For me the emphasis is on the indefinite article.

3. Man's approach to 'the Good':

I like this bit because, rarely for a philosopher, Aristotle shows personal character in his writing. He begins with the premise that a man's way of life will betray his genuine views on the nature of happiness [the 'good' - see above]. He then considers various groups of men:

"For persons of low tastes (always in the majority)[! Heh.] it is pleasure."

By pleasure, one can assume he means the experience of having pleasing, but transient external sensations. An example being sex, which is transient and externally sensually pleasing! This as opposed to happiness born of long lasting internal satisfaction; an example being academic success, and not sex (not animal lustful sex with a stranger anyway - loving tender sex with a partner could perhaps be said to yield long-lasting internal satisfaction...) Either way, to me, pleasure sounds a lot like happiness - I suppose that makes me a person of low taste, and therefore one of the majority!

"The utter vulgarity of the herd of men comes in their preference for the sort of existence a cow leads."

I'm sorry, but I just love that. What a legend this Aristotle dude was, and how spot on! He then discusses whether a man seeking honour is any the better. His analysis is interesting:

"Yet honour is surely too superficial a thing to be the good we are seeking. Honour depends more on those who confer than on those he receive, and we cannot but feel that the good is something personal and almost inseparable from the possessor. Again, why do men seek honour? Surely in order to confirm the honourable opinion they have formed of themselves."

Note that he does not end this last sentence with interrogative punctuation, despite beginning it 'Surely...' And how true... As a friend of mine once said:

"Every time a man does something truly great, and does not inform anyone of his achievement, he gains a little in gravitas."