ARISTOTLE ON THE BEST GOODIs Nicomachean Ethics 1094a18-22 fallacious?

Peter B. M. Vranas

Iowa State University

Central APA, 25 April 2003

OVERVIEW

Part 1A FALLACIOUS

INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCEPart 2

A LITERALINTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE

Part 3 AN OBJECTION

TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

THE SENTENCE

Suppose, then, that [A] there is some end of the things we pursue in our actions which we wish for be-cause of itself, and because of which we wish for the other things; and [B] we do not choose everything be-cause of something else, since if we do, [C] it will go on without limit, making desire empty and futile; then clearly [D] this end will be the good, i.e. the best good.• Literal interpretation: "If A and B, then D".• Fallacious interpretation: "B; thus A; thus D".• Bizarre interpretation: "B; also, if A, then D".

A FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATION

Pursuit-chain: ordered set of ends each mem-ber of which–except for the last, if a last one exists–is pursued because of the next member.

[B] Every pursuit-chain terminates at some end.E1 E2 E3 E4E5 E6

[A] There is an end (pursued because of itself) at which every pursuit-chain terminates.

The fallacy: E1 E2 E3 E4E5 E6 E7

OVERVIEW

Part 1A FALLACIOUS

INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCEPart 2

A LITERALINTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE

Part 3 AN OBJECTION

TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

A LITERALINTERPRETATION OF [A]

[A] "there is some end of the things we pursue … which we wish for because of itself, and because of which we wish for the other things" Literally: x(Pxx & y(yx Pyx)).

Equivalently: xy Pyx.I.e., there is a universal end: an end because of

which every end is pursued. E1 Eu is a universal end but E2 Eu not every pursuit-chain E3 terminates at Eu

A LITERALINTERPRETATION OF [B]

[B] "we do not choose everything because of something else" Literally: xy(yx & Pxy).

Equivalently: xy(yx Pxy).I.e., there is a non-instrumental end: an end

that is not pursued because of any other end. [A] does not entail [B]: a universal end may be instrumental. [B] does not entail [A]: a non-instrumental end need not be universal.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 …

THE THEOREM

The theorem: If [A] there is a universal end and [B] there is a non-instrumental end, then there is a unique non-instrumental end, which is also the unique universal end.

Some of those who refuse to take the Sentence literally do so because they see no role for [B] other than to prove [A]. The theorem is important because it suggests that [B] plays two roles in the Sentence.

THE IMPORTANCEOF THE THEOREM

[B] ensures that at most one universal end exists. Importance: otherwise it would make little sense for Aristotle to say "this end will be ... the best good".

[B] ensures that any universal end is non-instrumental. Importance: it would be inappropriate to call "the best good" a universal end pursued because of some other end.

THREE VERSIONS OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

Hypothetical version: "If A and B, then D". Non-hypothetical version: "A and B; thus D".

Objection 1: According to Aristotle, "honor, pleasure, understanding, and every virtue we certainly choose because of themselves". Reply: They may still be instrumental. Objection 2: [A] is implausible, so how could Aristotle assert it without supporting it? Reply: Aristotle does support [A].

Intermediate version: “Maybe A and B; then D".

OVERVIEW

Part 1A FALLACIOUS

INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCEPart 2

A LITERALINTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE

Part 3 AN OBJECTION

TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

AN OBJECTION TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

Parenthetical inference: If [not-B] there is no non-instrumental end, then [C] "it will go on without limit". Contrapositively: If it does not go on without limit, then every (maximal) pursuit-chain is finite, and its last member is non-instrumental. E1 E2 E3 E4

The objection: A pursuit-chain with finitely many members may be a pursuit-circle.

E1 E2 E3

REACTIONS TOTHE OBJECTION

Reaction 1: The fallacy is subtle (it was missed by several commentators), so it is not implausible to say Aristotle commits it.

Reaction 2: Understand "it will go on without limit" as including pursuit-circles. Reply: Then [not-C] entails that no end is pursued because of itself (this would be a pursuit-circle with a single member), contrary to what Aristotle asserts.

CONCLUSION

Virtues of the literal interpretation: It is (1) literal, (2) charitable, (3) parsimonious, and (4) flexible.

Vices of the literal interpretation: It is (1) not completely charitable, and (2) not completely literal.

Despite its flaws, the literal interpretation seems to be on balance the best available interpretation of the Sentence.

RICHEIMER'S CHARGEOF TRIVIALIZATION

The objection: It trivializes the debate to understand [A] as the strong claim that there is a universal end.

My reply: The Critic does not contest a strong understanding of [A] (traditionally understood as "there is an end at which every chain terminates") but rather contests the inference from [B] to [A]. A different Critic claims that [A] is implausible, but I have already addressed this.

RICHEIMER'S REDEFINITION OF 'NON-INSTRUMENTAL'

The objection: If a 'non-instrumental' end is redefined as an end pursued because of itself (even if also pursued because of some other end), then the existence of such an end plus [A] does not guarantee uniqueness:

E1 Eu Eu*

My reply: It does not matter how 'non-instrumental' is defined. What matters is that [B] says there is an end not pursued because of any other end.

RICHEIMER'SFURTHER POINTS

Does my focus on the Sentence miss the Critic's larger point? No: the Critic's point is that Aristotle commits a fallacy in the Sentence.

Is my method inappropriate? No: argument-ative rigor is appropriate everywhere, even if numerical precision is not.

Do I assume that "the text is self-sufficient" etc? No: I rather assume that an interpretation on which Aristotle uses good reasoning is preferable to one on which he does not.