Nwolu, Kelechi Mathilda

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPT OF MORALITY AND
POLITICS IN ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY.
BY
NWOLU, KELECHI MATHILDA

PG/MA/10/52766
SUPERVISOR: DR. AREJI, ANTHONY C.
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
APRIL, 2016
TITLE PAGE
AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPT OF MORALITY AND POLITICS IN
ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY.
APPROVAL PAGE
This dissertation has been approved for the Department of Philosophy University of
Nigeria, Nsukka for the award of Master of Arts (M.A.) Degree in Philosophy.
By
…………………………….. ………………………...
DR. AREJI, ANTHONY C. REV. FR. DR. F.O.C. NJOKU
SUPERVISOR INTERNAL EXAMINER
……………………….. …………………………….
PROF. EGBEKE AJA PROF. IZU MARCEL
ONYEOCHA
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT EXTERNAL EXAMINER
……………………………….
PROF. I.A. MADU
DEAN FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

CERTIFICATION
Nwolu, kelechi, M., a Master of Arts Degree (MA.) student in the Department
of Philosophy, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, with the
Registration Number PG/MA/10/52766, has satisfactorily completed the requirements
(course work and Dissertation), for the award of Master of Arts Degree (M.A.) in
philosophy. The work in this dissertation is original and has not been submitted in part or in
full for any other degree of this other university.
……………………………… ………………………….
NWOLU KELECHI M. DR. AREJI, ANTHONY C.
(Candidate) (Supervisor)
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my darling husband, Mr. Uchenna Austin Abone, and to my
wonderful kids, Kosi, Kaima and Kamsi Uchenna.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My profound gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr Areji Anthony, for his directions,
motivation, constructive corrections and his fatherly understanding. I appreciate the efforts of
my lecturers in the department of philosophy, Prof. Egbeke Aja, Dr. Eneh, Rev Fr. Dr. F.O.C.
Njoku, and a host of others, who were so great and caring to me.
It is with a deep sense of satisfaction and fraternal solidarity that I wish to thank my
darling husband Mr. Uchenna Abone and my children Kosisochukwu, Sochikaima, and
Kamsiyonna, for their financial and moral support, encouragement and understanding
throughout the period of my studies. Special thanks go to my daddy and mummy, Engr and
Mrs C.M. Nwolu, my brothers and sisters.
Some of my academic colleagues devotedly rendered immense help throughout the
course of this research by helping me to avoid errors of construction, presentation
and omissions. I wish to register my gratitude, especially to Ogaba Solomon, Ajah, Callistus,
and Chidimma.
Let me at the same time express my sincere appreciation to my bosom friends Miss
Mama Ogochukwu, and Miss Valerie Enewally.
Let me thank specially my religious friends and mentors- my Vicar in my church, Rev.
& Mrs. Samuel Esomu and Rev. & Mrs. Francis Umegwuagu.
My ultimate gratitude goes to the Almighty God, the author and finisher of my life.
I thank immensely the Blessed Virgin Mary for her intercessions for me.
Nwolu, Kelechi Mathilda.

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 pointed out by other
philosophers will also be studied in order to proffer some solutions to them.

END NOTES
1. Fredrick Copeleston, A History of Philosophy,1 Greece and Rome,New York :
Image Books, 1960 ,146.
2. Richard Mckeon, The Basic Works of Aristotle New York: Random House,1941,
935
3. Barnes, Jonathan ed , The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford
Translation Vol.1, Princeton: Bollingen Series LXXI.2
4. Barnes, Jonathan, Complete Works of Aristotle.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE – REVIEW
Man, as a rational being, is said to be a social as well as a political animal. He has
the inherent tendency to live together with his fellow human beings in a close, contact
group, known as society. Thus, he also has the urgent necessity to maintain peace, order,
control and stability in the society where he lives with others, in order that he will enjoy
life, liberty and happiness which are the ultimate ends of his brief earthly existence. Man
also believes that he can only live his life fully in a well ordered and peacefully organized
society. The principles for attaining this goal of man is/ are the central theme of Aristotle’s
moral and political thought. Hence, in this chapter, we shall be doing a brief exposition of
Aristotle’s concept of morality and politics, as well as that of other philosophers.
It is pertinent to note here, that there is no way we can talk of a society without
mentioning morality, and vice – versa. Blackstone who corroborates the view has this to
say: “Political Philosophy is an extension or application of moral philosophy to the
problems of political order”1 Even Plato subordinates politics to morality. This idea is
expressed by Dunning in his commentary on the dominant characteristics of Plato’s
political philosophy which are:- “its idealism and its subordination to ethical science”2
Thus, any time you come across morality in this work, bear also in mind that we are
invariably discussing society or politics as well; since both of them go peri-persu (hand-in-
hand). Having established this fact (logic), we’ll now begin with the main man, Aristotle.
In his work, Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle3 makes us to understand that all
human activities are goal-oriented. In other words, all human actions are directed towards
the attainment of certain ends; every human action is a means to an end which is seen as a
good. But some ends, says Aristotle, are sought only as means to further ends and not as
ends in themselves. There is however, one end which is not a means to another end and
which is sought for its own sake. All other ends are sought because they lead to this
ultimate end which does not itself lead to any other end. This, Aristotle says, is happiness.
Happiness, according to him, is the end which is sought for its own sake, and whatever a
person seeks as an end or as a good he seeks it as a means to happiness. This is the goal
towards which all human activities are directed. Speaking further on this, Aristotle posits
that all men seek happiness, but there is only one way to attain it, and that is through
morality. Thus, the purpose of morality is happiness. That is to say, if you want to be
happy, you must live a moral life; those actions that lead to happiness are good actions,
while those that lead to unhappiness are bad actions
In his political philosophy, Aristotle4 also identifies politics as the science that
studies the supreme good for man. According to him, it is political science that prescribes
what subjects are to be taught in states and which of these the different sections of the
community are to learn and up to what point, so as to produce a happy society at the end.
This view which makes happiness the standard of morality is what is known in the ethical
parlance today as Eudemonism. But what precisely is happiness? Aristotle5 defines it as
“activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” In other words, happiness is an activity of
the soul, and is inseparable from virtue. There are however, two types of virtues according
to Aristotle: intellectual virtues, and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues include such
acts/activities as: scientific knowledge, arts, practical wisdom, intuitive reason, theoretical
wisdom, sound deliberation, understanding and judgment; whereas moral virtues include:
justice, temperance, generosity, courage etc.
Like Buddha and Confucius in the East, Aristotle also talked about the doctrine of
the golden mean, that is, the doctrine that virtue lies between two extremes, that virtue is a
mean between excess and defect. For example, generosity is a mean (i.e., in the midway)
between miserliness (an extreme) and extravagance (another extreme) etc. And
commenting further on the subject, Aristotle posits that virtue is the result of a habit, it is
an internal disposition, a permanent state of mind inclined towards good actions which
spring spontaneously from it. That is to say, virtue is the state of mind which
spontaneously gives rise to good actions as a matter of habit. Hence, it is Aristotle’s
contention that virtue can only be acquired by constant and persistent practice through a
long period of time; a person becomes virtuous by practicing virtue just as a person
becomes a swimmer in no other way than by practicing swimming persistently and
constantly until it becomes a habit, or what he calls, a second nature. Aristotle vehemently
believes in the force of habit. In his view, a habit is a second nature which once acquired is
almost impossible to change. A man, who has acquired a habit, he says, will almost
certainly continue for the rest of his life to act in accordance with that habit. For this
reason, Aristotle stressed the importance of acquiring good habits from the beginning. He
does not believe in the possibility of a sudden radical conversion in which a long
established habit is suddenly laid aside and a new beginning made. He does not believe
that man can get rid of his “second nature” at all, much less doing so suddenly and
radically.
Finally on this, it is worthy to note also that Aristotle described justice as the
greatest of all virtues, and defined it as “what is lawful” or “what is fair and equal”. He
distinguished between two kinds of justice, namely: Universal justice, and particular
justice. Universal justice, he practically equates with virtue – “He who possesses it can
exercise virtue towards his neighbor as well as in himself”6.
Having come thus far in the exposition of Aristotle’s concept of morality and
politics, it is also pertinent at this juncture to consider the “take” of other philosophers on
this subject. Hence, we’ll begin with the ethics of the ancient philosophers. And speaking
on justice, one of the sophists, Thrasymachus, who is noted for his ruthless view on
justice, as we are told by Plato 7 in the Republic, says being just is as useless as any other
useless adventure. One gains nothing from being just; justice is not worth practicing.
Injustice, according to him, pays more than justice. Unjust person, in his view, are superior
to, and stronger in character than people who are just, only weaklings practice justice. He
is also noted for the saying that “Might is right”, meaning that the stronger is just, or
unjust is always right; for in a state, the stronger establishes themselves in power and their
interests become, justice, since they usually make laws to protect those interests which in
the long-run appears just to the people.
In his moral philosophy, Socrates, though left no writing of his own, but from what
could be gathered about him from the Dialogues of Plato8 (especially in the Symposium),
Socrates agrees with Aristotle that happiness is the ultimate goal of life, and that the only
path that leads to this goal is to have virtue. However, to have virtue, you must have
knowledge. Thus, knowledge is virtue. Ignorance, he believes, is the cause of vices or evil
in the society; for no man who really knows what is wrong would do it, no one ever does
evil knowingly. In other words, if a man really knows what is right he would do it, and if
he knows what is evil, he would refrain from it. Hence, virtue and good actions follow
from knowledge; whereas wickedness or evil is due to ignorance. Simply put, knowledge
is virtue; while ignorance is vice.
Plato9 (428- 347B.C.), the most intimate friend and disciple of Socrates also tolled
the same line with his master (Socrates) in maintaining that the goals of human life is
happiness, and that the only way that leads to it is through a virtuous life. Only a virtuous
man, he says, can be happy. Plato also equates knowledge with virtue. A virtuous man, he
says, is a wise man; but a wicked man is a foolish and ignorant man. A man who does evil,
he says, does not really know what he is doing; for no man does evil knowingly. Hence,
ignorance is the cause of wrong doing. Wisdom, according to Plato, is the virtue of the
rational part of the soul (reason), while courage is the virtue of the spirited part (the higher
emotions) and temperance is the subordination of both the spirited and the appetitive parts
(i.e both the higher and lower emotions) to the rule of the rational part (reason). Thus,
Plato divided the soul into three parts, the rational part (reason), the spirited part (the
higher emotions), and the appetitive part (the lower emotions). Justice in the soul, Plato
says, is the general harmony that is produced in the soul when each of its parts is
functioning properly, each playing its role. Just as he divided the soul into three parts,
Plato also divided the society into three parts or classes: the guardian (the ruling class), the
auxiliary (the soldiers), and the Artisans (the masses). The duty of the ruling class (the
guardians is to guide and govern the state as a whole and to keep the other two classes
under control. The duty of the auxiliaries is to defend the state; while the artisans (the
masses) is to provide the material and the economic needs of the state. According to him,
there is justice in society when each of these classes does its duty properly. Hence, justice
becomes the harmony that is produced when each class fulfils its function efficiently. This
is Plato’s concept of justice.
Be that as it may, it is pertinent to note here also that, though Plato distinguished
between different virtues, especially the four cardinal virtues (wisdom, courage,
temperance, and justice), all virtues are nevertheless, fundamentally one; for they are
different expressions of (or different ways of looking at) the rule of reason over the rest of
man and all human activities. Hence, it is impossible, in Plato’s view, to have one virtue
and lack another, because to have one virtue is to have all; and to lack one is to lack all.
A critical look at the fore-going Plato’s theory of morality/the state (politics), one
would notice that it is to some extent in congruence with Aristotle’s; and also a total
negation of Thrasymachus’ especially on the concept of justice.

Marcus Tullius Cicero(106-34 B. C.) in On the Commonwealth begins his theory
of the state with a discussion of public duty and examples of such duty. Cicero argues that
defending the commonwealth is the highest obligation individuals have. It is a duty second
only to one’s duty to the gods, which ranks it as even more important than duty to family
or parents. This claim suggests some opposition between private and public lives. In fact,
Laelius, of the characters in the book, indicates earlier in the dialogue that he is concerned
with looking at the relationship between public and private lives, asking if what occurs
beyond the home affects one’s private life. Philus, another character, responds that the
home is not just a structure of four walls but encompasses the entire universe. This point, a
nod to stoic ideas about human membership in a large cosmic community, leads to
consideration of the many different factors relevant to a discussion of public and private
lives as well as the duties in each.
Eventually, Laellius stated that recent events regarding diverse views on public and
private lives in Rome appeared to have created a divide, practically rendering two senates
and two peoples. He asks how one can bring about a union of people and the senate10.
Scipio, a third character, is then asked to explain the best constitution for a state and he
offered a definition of a true commonwealth, “for what is the commonwealth except the
people’s affair? Hence, it is a common affair that is an affair belonging to a state. And
what is a state except a considerable number of men brought together in a certain bond of
harmony”11. The reason why people come together is a social instinct natural in man. The
formation of the commonwealth represents the fifth stage of society or union, evolving
first, the man and wife relationship, then parent and child, the household, the city and
finally, the state. Hence, as with both Plato and Aristotle, Cicero in his political theory
sees the state as growing out of the family with the state and the duties to it being the most
important of these relationships.

First, there is a life cycle to pure states, with all three governments eventually
degenerating into corrupt forms. But adopting a mixed government can perhaps prevent
this corruption from occurring, and thus halts or slows down the life cycle. Second, a
mixed state achieves a balance between the values of monarchy and those of an
aristocracy. Scipio considers the maintenance of equality in a democracy to be impossible
or unjust because all are not equal,12 but a mixed government, according to Cicero,
combines the different virtues of reason, wisdom and freedom; it does not arouse a wild
and untamed spirit in the citizens and achieves the balance of rights among the different
classes of people in society.13
In Cicero’s political and moral thought, despite the mixing of the different types of
governments and their virtues, he prefers that reason and monarchy rule in the state with a
king ruling along with the senate representing the aristocracy.14 Thus, Cicero describes the
perfect institutions for the state. According to Cicero, Rome is the embodiment of the
perfect state. Its government is superior because it is both the product of many generations
of thought,15 and geographically situated in the best place a city can be. It is far enough
away from the corrupting influences of the sea, it has hills for defense, and it is near
enough to a river to have all its disadvantages. Cicero’s description of Rome as the best
political institution suggests that it is written substantially in defense of the political status
quo and simply restating and defending traditional values of Roman political thought.
Cicero also addresses some stoic themes about law and justice. A true
commonwealth, he urges, is a government that produces harmony, but harmony is
obtained only when the state is a true people’s affair, that is, when it binds the people
together according to the law. Good laws protect the equal rights of all, although the
notion of equality must respect the differences among groups and classes in society16.
Moreover, a commonwealth seeks concord or balance, much in the same way music
requires harmony; and the only time concord can be achieved is when justice is the aim of
the laws.17 He argues that the search for justice should pertain only to society and not all of
nature. He asks whether justice and customs are not the same thing to all peoples,
suggesting that perhaps justice and laws are conventional.18 This question is similar to one
posed in the Nicomachean Ethics, when Aristotle asks whether the duties of the good man
and good citizen coincide. Philius says that if justice were natural, then nature would have
laid down our laws; all peoples would be subject to the same laws, and the same people
would not be subject to different times. He asks the question: “if it be the duty of a just
man and a good citizen to obey laws, what laws should he obey?”19 Laelius responds that
law is not conventional. We next consider the moral/political philosophy of some
medieval philosophers.
In the medieval period, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354- 430A.D.), finds
more satisfaction in the Aristotelian happiness in his ethical theory. This could be
probably, as a result of his religious orientation. He reinterprets Aristotelian
happiness. While Aristotle conceives happiness as the “Supreme Good” Saint
Augustine associates and calls God the “Summum Bonum”. In Augustine’s view,
God is the author and foundation of morality. He bases his argument on the belief
that God is “the creator of good thing”20. As a creator of good things, God should
be “the supreme and the best good.21” Thus God is the foundation of every good.
For Augustine, there is no special or isolated subject about moral theory.
The climax or the highest point of everything is in morality. According to him,
morality clarifies the sure road to happiness, which is the supreme aim of human
behaviour. In his moral philosophy, Augustine brings to light his major insight
about the nature of human knowledge, God’s nature and the theory of creation. His
theory provides a novel estimate of what constitutes true happiness and how it can
be achieved. He maintains that true happiness requires going beyond the natural to
the supernatural. Augustine stresses that human nature is made in such a way that
“it can be the good by which it is made happy.” This implies that, to attain
happiness, man has to go beyond the natural to the supernatural, from the material
world to the intelligible world. The understanding of this fact propels Augustine in
his Confessions to make a religious and philosophical assertion; “you arouse him
to take joy in praising you, for you have made us for yourself”.22With human
nature we cannot achieve anything unless with God to whom everything is at his
command, Augustine postulates.
Remarkably, Saint Augustine states that the aim of living a happy life can
only be achieved through the total submission of one’s will to the will of the
supreme being- God. This comes to light when he states that “….our heart is
restless until it rests in you.”23Sequel to this, it becomes obvious that for Saint
Augustine, to be happy implies to be in union with God, and to be in union with
God means living a virtuous and moral life. It is therefore expedient that for
Augustine, our search for happiness which results from virtuous life is not by
accident. It is rather a consequence of our incompleteness and finitude. It is only in
God that we find complete happiness because he is the author and finisher of our
life. He is the creator and the primordial ground for moral life.
Assuredly, Augustine’s notion of morality agrees with Aristotelian view
which asserts that happiness is an activity of the soul which conforms to virtues.
Virtue according to Augustine, through the power of reason enables one to control
one’s aspirations and actions or to determine the golden mean.

St. Augustine in the City of God, also offered a ready access to what a state
ought to be. He made the love of God as the central principle of morality. He stated
that God created all things to be good and man would have remained immortal if
not that the first two human beings fell from grace through disobedience. In the
long run, two cities emerged from two different loves.
According to Augustine, two groups namely, man and other created spirits form
the state. Both strive towards God with their will. They can also live both in conversion
and aversion to God by looking upwards and downwards. All men seek peace either in
good way or bad way. The two nature of man gave rise to the two cities. “The earthly by
love of self, even to the contempt of God, the heavenly by love of God even to the
contempt of self.”24 Augustine’s state may be define as a product of the interplay between
the two competing values of these two loves and the two cities. For him, earthly city is
characterized by injustice while the heavenly city is characterized by peace. The best
conduct is to turn one’s mind towards God, towards the heavenly city. Augustine
contends that a true republic is formed only when it is united by the shared love of
Christ.25 As a Christian philosopher, he claims that no other commonwealth united for any
other type of love is real or true commonwealth.
Augustine’s distinction between the ideal and eternal republic and its faint
representation found in earth as it emerges in his discussion of the city of God versus the
city of man is a distinction that sounds Platonic. In fact, Augustine argues that Platonists
have positions that are ‘closest approximation’ to the Christian position.26 The true
republic is the city or kingdom of God, a commonwealth not found on earth, while the city
of man is what has emerged on earth through history as a result of human sin and the fall
from God’s grace in Eden. The origins of these two cities are critical to understanding
Augustine’s political philosophy and visions of the state as found in the City of God.
Because of the fall of man from grace, humans are not naturally sociable. Rather,
they are self – interested and need the state to compel order, obedience and social co-
operation. Without the state, anarchy would result. In other words, Adam and Eve’s sin
and the fall from grace destroyed the cosmic order of the universe, and the original
harmony in nature and among humanity. From this original sin emerges the distinction of
two cities, each with its own political and moral values and loves that hold them together:
Adam was therefore the father of both lines of descent that is of the lines whose
successive members belong to the earthly city, and of the line who are attached to
the city in heaven. But after the murder of Abel, there were two fathers appointed,
one for each of those lines of descent. Those fathers were Cain and Abel : and their
sons, whose names have to be recorded, indications of these cities began to appear
with increasing clarity in the race of mortals.27
The two cities were created by two kinds of love: the earthly city was created by self- love
reaching the point of contempt for God, the heavenly city by the love of God carried as far
as contempt of self. In fact, the earthly city glories in itself, the heavenly city glories in the
Lord.28 Rome, according to Augustine, was founded on the sin of self- love, the root of
envy, which it considers the worst of all loves. Thus, the quarrel that arose between Remus
and Romulus demonstrated the division of the earthly city against itself, while the conflict
between Cain and Abel displayed the hostility between the two cities themselves, the city
of God and city of men. Thus, wicked fight among themselves and likewise the wicked
fight against the good and the good against the wicked.29
Referring to the story in Genesis, Augustine describes how the two cities emerged
after Adam through the lineages of his two sons, Cain and Abel. Each city has unique
characteristics, the city of God represented by Jerusalem, and the city of man represented
by Babylon and Rome. Thus, one important idea arising from Augustine’s reading of
Genesis is that the state is a product of sin, which produced a disharmony among
individuals and renders political organizations imperative. A second important idea is that
the state’s origin is located at a certain point in God’s plan for the universe. For Augustine,
30
the state emerges in time; that is, time commences with the fall from grace. Both the
Greeks and Romans see time as a cyclical pattern, but Augustine rejects the cyclical idea.
Thus, Augustine’s Christianity affects a major change in political and historical thinking
as he advances the notion that history has a purpose moving humanity in a direction
towards something. The final goal of history is the eventual destruction of the city of man
and the triumph of the city of God, and the end of history when Christ returns for the final
judgment.31
Augustine notes the importance of justice in a true commonwealth and that justice
is found where God, the one supreme God rules an obedient city according to his grace
forbidding sacrifice to any being save himself alone; and where in consequence, the soul
rules the body in all men who belong to this city and obey God, and the reason faithfully
rules the vices in a lawful system of subordination. Remove justice and what are kingdoms
but gangs of criminals on a large scale?32 But true justice is found only in that
commonwealth whose founder and ruler is Christ.
Augustine has a pessimistic theory of the state and its morality as resulting from
sin and its consequent disharmony. He also has a theological and extremely eschatological
conception of the end of the state since it certainly disagrees with the self – sufficiency
and perfection of the earthly state as against Aristotle’s argument.
The ethics of St. Thomas Aquinas(1225- 1274 A.D.) is basically Aristotelian
though with Christian orientation. He was indeed an expert on Aristotle and wrote some
commentaries on Aristotle. In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas33 agrees with
Aristotle that all human activities are directed towards good. He also agrees with Aristotle
that man’s highest good is the intellectual contemplation of the highest object i.e God.
However, while Aristotle was talking of rational contemplation of the Unmoved Mover
(God) by philosophers in this earthly existence, as the highest good for man; St. Thomas
Aquinas is talking of the Beatific Vision of God in heaven, not only by philosophers but
even by simple-minded people who lived good lives during their earthly existence. In
other words, the highest good for man, according to Aristotle, is the philosophical
contemplation of God by philosophers here on earth. But for St. Thomas Aquinas, the
highest good for man is the mystical contemplation (the Beatific vision) of God in heaven
by anybody who has lived a good life here on earth.
St. Thomas Aquinas34 also agrees with Aristotle that virtue is a mean between two
extremes, and that it is a habit formed by repeatedly and persistently performing the same
kind of good actions. Once the virtuous habit is formed, the performance of that kind of
good actions becomes easier. St. Thomas Aquinas also assigns an important role to reason
in morality, for virtue is the rule of reason over the passions. Morality, according to him, is
mainly the function of reason; for it is because man is a rational being that he is a moral
being. Animals for example, are not rational and are consequently amoral. He
distinguishes between two functions of reason, namely: the practical function and the
speculative function hence, St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of practical intellect and
speculative intellect. The function of the speculative intellect is abstract reasoning, as in
metaphysics, mathematics and logic, and the function of practical intellect is to guide and
direct human behaviour towards good and away from evil. Like the stoics, St. Thomas
Aquinas takes “right reason” as the moral standard. This means that those actions that
conform to “right reason” are good, while those that are opposed to “right reason” are evil
actions. This is also similar to Aristotle’s theory of practical wisdom. But the problem is
that, this does not help very much in real life situations, for it is not easy to know what
precisely “right reason” is in any given situation.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469- 1527), an Italian Political thinker, is world-famous for
his “immoral” philosophy now known as “Machiavellianism” in ethical circle. He presents
a dual theory of the state as found in his The Prince and Discourse on the First Decade of
Titus Livinus. This is because he argues that “all states and powers under which men have
been governed are either republics or principalities”35 In his book, The Prince,
Machiavelli36 maintains that the most important thing a ruler ought to do is the
preservation and stability of the state which, of course, means also the preservation of
himself in power. The ruler, in Machiavelli’s view, is above morality; he can do anything
to preserve himself in power and preserve the stability of the state, provided he succeeds –
what matters is to successfully achieve one’s ends. Hence, the end justifies the means.
Virtue, for Machiavelli means something different from what we ordinarily
consider as virtue. He has no use for the Christian virtues of humility, self- denial,
meekness, patience etc. These, for Machiavelli, are not virtues; virtues for him means
vitality, energy, strength of character, ambition, ability to achieve one’s aims, desire for
fame, courage, patriotism, ability to win power and preserve it etc. These are
Machiavellian virtues. These, he said, are the kind of virtues needed in a state; these, and
not the Christian or the Aristotelian kind of virtues are what a ruler should encourage in
his state, for they lead to success. The Prince presents a kind of state called the principality
which is formed where the nobles have the opportunity of one person as prince since the
people are not capable of self- government because they lack freedom. But ‘since the
desire to acquire more is admittedly a very natural and common thing37 , as witnessed in
the nobility to dominate, it follows that in this form of the state, a perpertual subjection
and all forms of cruelty to the people are employed whether morally justified or not to
sustain the state of the prince. The principality is further divided into a hereditary and a
new principality. For the hereditary principality, the princes’ families are long established
as rulers; for the new, they are completely new and are like limbs joined to the hereditary
state of the prince who acquires them. There are also ecclesial principalities of the
religious institutions, so powerfully mature; no matter how the rulers act and live, they
safeguard his government. Ecclesial powers, according to Machiavelli, possess state and
do not defend them; Subjects and do not govern them. And though their states are not
defended, they are not taken away from them, and their subjects being without government
do not worry about it, neither can nor hopes to overthrow it in favour of another. So these
principalities alone are secure and happy.
The Discourse on the First Decade of Titus Livinus, on the other hand, argues for a
republic and explains that republics are free states as different from principalities, which
are not free states. The republics rank higher in their organization and structuring than the
principalities. They bear high advantages also, but only a people with higher degree of
virtue can form a true republic. This is so because it implies a constitution, self-
government unlike a principality where the prince or tyrant must subjugate the people
because they lack virtue and cannot govern themselves. In the republic, the people,
according to Machiavelli, are more stable and prudent than the princes. The people can
judge better and external forces of corrupt judgment influence them less than the princes.
In their election, they make better choices than prices who would be easily lured to choose
dubious characters38. Even on the question of law, although the prince could make better
institutions, statutes, etc, but the people would keep them better. Thus, “the virtue of a
good people is always higher than that of the prince. They are free”39
It is freedom, according to Machiavelli, that makes a state a republic and it is the
virtue of a people that makes them free. Freedom of the state, therefore, means not only
independence from external domination; it involves also the internal freedom of the
people. The ancient Roman republic was earlier a free state but later became unfree when
the emperors and Caesar’s stated to concentrate political powers in their hands and
discarded the people’s constitution.
On the other hand, the freedom of a state is not a mere liberality; it is rather in the
people’s self – government. Self – government is not simply representative democracy but
the people accepting with virtue the challenges of guiding their lives according to legal
and institutional structure of the state. They freely and spontaneously without compulsion
keep order.
It is, therefore this ability or power to control the force that governs the universe
that makes them conform to laws and institutions; it builds up for them a constitutional
system – a republic. This ability once achieved in a people as a free state, aims at two
ends, namely: to expand their state always and to protect their liberties40. Another
characteristic that differentiates the republics from the principalities is that of the common
good. The common good is only respected in the republics and not in the principalities
because the prince is prone to protect the private interest of the few when it conflicts with
that of the generality of the people. Machiavelli wrote only shortly after the invention of
the printing press, and he was one of the very first to write for mass audience. Although
his works are formally addressed to princes, their real audience are the citizens of a
democratic republic, and by implication he invited not only princes but also citizens to
understand that reality was something constructed by free persons, not given by God. The
Machiavellian conception of state and morals is far from what Aristotle think the state to
be. In Aristotelian state, the individual will and welfare were taken into consideration
because the state aims at the highest good of every citizen.

The dawn of the social contract philosophers saw Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679.
A.D.), Bringing into light the anarchical and inimical condition of the state of nature. In
the state of nature, man is psychologically motivated by his desire for pleasure and all his
actions are aimed at self-preservation and self-satisfaction. Hobbes views man’s action in
the state of nature as amoral. Thus he asserts, “the notions of right and wrong,justice and
injustice, have no place there….they are qualities that relate to men in soceity not in
solitude.41”
In other words, man originally lacked morality and justice. To curb this
unwholesome situation and hostile conditions which surround man’s environment and
threaten his self-preservation and self-satisfaction in Hobbes’ state of nature, the need for
a sovereign state arises. The sovereign state is to bring to control man’s lawlessness and in
so doing establish morality among men. The sovereign state therefore becomes the
foundation of morality in Hobbesian thought.
Furthermore, in The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes in his political concept of the
state,begins his discussion with the state of man in the pre- civil community; and he
explains this state in purely mechanistic terms. Because of the equality of ability and the
lack of regulation force in this state of nature, there was total confusion. Thus, life in this
state was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”42 It was a state either of actual war or in
perpertual preparedness for war where there was no sense of right or wrong, justice and
injustices; and the only thing that keeps men in check is fear of death.43.
In the description of the consequences of life in a state of nature, Hobbes shows
his clear hostility to this condition. To enable people to secure their lives and possessions,
they must escape from this uncertain and fearful state. To give up one’s natural right to
self- defense in exchange for peace is a rational exercise in securing power since peace
will assure a future where each will be most able to pursue self- interest in a non- violent
environment. The surest basis for peace, given Hobbes’ view of human nature, is the
greatest of human powers: equal individuals united by a voluntary consent through a
covenant, or political contract must freely consent to surrender their natural right to self
defense. This right is transferred to a common power, to a sovereign authority that is
placed in ‘one man’ or ‘one assembly of men’ empowered to act in those things which
concern the common peace and safety in the name of the whole people.44
The sovereign, according to Hobbes, is at the heart of government and this
sovereign must be able to use force because people do not change their beastic nature
when leaving the state of nature; hence “convenants without the sword are but words, and
of no strength to secure a man at all.”45 The sovereign must also be one since multiple
powers are contrary to the basis of a valid contract, as they cannot provide one clear voice
to settle disputes; and the very consequences the contract were instituted to prevent are
bond to occur. The sovereign authority assumes what was in nature, an individual right,
namely, to determine the circumstances under which force is to be used, and other means
necessary for the pursuit of peace. This then is how a commonwealth is instituted:
A commonwealth is said to be instituted when a multitidue of men do

agree and convenant, everyone with everyone, that to whatsoever man or
assembly of men shall be given by the major part the right to present the
person of them all- that is to say to be their representative- everyone as well
as he that voted for it as he that voted against it. Shall authorize all the
actions
and judgements of that man or assembly of men in the same manner as if
they
were his own, to the end to live peaceably among themselves and be
protected
against other me46.
Once a commonwealth is instituited, the minority is obligated to follow the will of
the majority in submitting to the sovereign whom Hobbes equates with the state. Hobbes
clearly conceives the state as well as government as an artificial creation with a practical
purpose. It is a complex machine made up of similar machines of individuals propelled by
personal motives reacting to each other in a different manner than they would in the state
of nature. It is a means not an end and its good is relative to how well it achieves its
pragmatic purpose of civil peace. Although its source is artificial, its purpose is essential
because the state is a basic necessity and a symbol of our victory over nature.
Hobbes presents a tyrannical structure of the state where all the citizens are at the
whims and caprices of the sovereign as it moves from the fear of anarchy in the state of
nature to a ‘solution’ of tyranny in the commonwealth.
David Hume (1711- 1776 ) differs greatly from Aristotle’s concept of morality. In
his work, “A Treatise of Human Nature”, David Hume, unlike Aristotle and Plato who
advocate that the soul of man (i.e reason) should rule, guide and dominate every man’s
activity, posits that morality is not based on reason. In his words, “reason is not concerned
with morality but with speculative truths such as those of mathematics and physics”.47
Morality, he claims is based on sentiments, natural feelings, natural tendencies and the
passions. These are what move a man into action and they determine his choice of actions.
Reason cannot move a man into action; the role of reason in morality, he claims, is simply
to help the passions; for reason is the slave of the passions.
Speaking on virtue, David Hume also maintains, that the criterion of virtue is
utility. In other words for anything to be considered as a virtue it must be useful and it
must promote man’s well-being, otherwise it does not deserve to be called virtue. Here
again, we see another sharp distinction between Aristotle’s concept of virtue and that of
Hume. While Aristotle equates happiness with virtue; Hume equates utility with virtue.
However, Hume dismisses celibacy, fasting, humility, penance, mortification, silence,
solitude, self-denial, “and the whole train of monkish virtues” as useless. To him, these are
not virtues at all because they serve no useful purpose.
Well, Hume is not the sole object of our consideration (or criticism) in this work,
otherwise I would have said that his dismissal of the “monkish virtues” as useless because
they serve no useful purpose depends on what he considers useful i.e his concept of
usefulness, because I vehemently believe that the monk or the individual who indulges in
such “virtuous” activities, indulges in them for a purpose (which are also useful to him),
since every activity of man is tailored towards some end (happiness) which is good
(useful) in itself. Hume’s position, was no doubt, an attack on the monastic tradition which
still flourished in Europe at his time.
Having done in this chapter, a “survey” of Aristotle’s concept of morality and
politics in line with other philosophers take on the matter; in the chapter that follows next,
we shall do a thorough exposition of this subject matter.

END NOTES
1. W.T. Blackstone, Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Thomas Y.

Cronell Company, 1973, p. 10.
2. W.A. Dunning, A History of Political Theories: Ancient and Medieval. New

York: Macmilliam Company, 1927, p.24.
3. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Book I, 1095a 7-28.
4. Aristotle, Nichomachemean Ethics, Book I, 1094a22-b12.
5. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Book I, 1097b 22-1098a8.
6. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Book V. 1129a 21-b6
7. Plato, The Republic, Book V, p. 413.
8. Plato, Symposium, Pengium Classic, 1951, p. 177-178
9. Plato, The Republic , Book V, p. 427 – 435.
10. Cicero, On the Commonwealth, trans. G.H. Sabine and S.B. Smith, Indianapois:
Bobbs- Mrrill, 1974, p.126.
11. Cicero, On the Commonwealth, p. 129- 130.
12. Cicero, On the Commonwealth, p.139.
13. Cicero, On the Commonwealth, p.185.
14. Cicero, On the Commonwealth, p. 144.
17. Cicero, On the Commonwealth, p.193- 195.
20. Saint Augustine, The City of God, trans. G.D. Walsh et al, New York: Image
Books, 1958, p. 162.

21. Saint Augustine, The City of God, p. 161.
22. St. Augustine, The Confessions Of Saint Augustine, trans. John K. Ryan, New
York: Image Books INC,1960, p. 43.
23. St. Augustine, The Confessions Of Saint Augustine, p. 43.
24. St. Augustine, The City of God, p. 27.
25. St. Augustine, City of God trans. H. Bottenson, New York: Penguin Books, 1977,
p. 75.
26. St. Augustine, City of God, p. 311.
33. T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1a2ae 93,2.
34. T. Aquinas, Summa Theological , 1a 2ae 93, 4.
35. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince trans. George Bull, England: Penguin
Books,1999, Ch.1,5.
36. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Ch. 15.
37. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince,Ch.3,12.
38. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourse trans. Marx Ierner New York: Random
House- The Modern Library, 1940, Bk 1, Ch. 20, 175.
39. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourse, Bk 1, ch. 7, 58.
40. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourse, Bk. 1, Ch. 3, 29.

41. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1968, p. 188.
42. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan ed. By Nelle Fuller, in Great Books of the Western
World. Vol. 21. Part 1, ch. 13, 86.
43. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Part 1, ch.13, 86.
44. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Part 1,Ch. 10, 84.
45. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Part 2, ch. 17, 99.
46. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Part 2, Ch. 18, 101.
47. Hume, D., A Treatise of Human Nature, 415.

CHAPTER THREE
AN EXPOSITION OF ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF MORALITY
3.1 A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF ARISTOTLE
Aristotle was born in 384 B.C in the Macedonian town of Stagira on the Northeast
coast of Thrace. His father, Nicomachus, was the physician to the king of Macedonia -
Amyritus II. It is likely that the scientific, empirical flaw of Aristotle’s philosophy, his
attention to detail and his skills at classifying and analyzing the features of nature were
inspired by his father’s profession. When he was seventeen years old, Aristotle went to
Athens to enroll in Plato’s academy where he spent twenty years as a pupil and as a
member.
In 348/47B.C, Aristotle left the academy and accepted the invitation of Hermeias
to come to Assos, near Troy. While at Hermeias’ court, he married this ruler’s niece
(hermeias) and adopted daughter, Pythias, who bore him a daughter. After his wife’s death
he entered into a relationship with Herpyllis, who bore him a son. He named the son,
Nicomachus, after whom the Nichomachean Ethics, his book was named. Aristotle died in
Chalcis of a digestive disease of long standing in 322BC.
3.2 ARISTOTLE’S METAPHYSICS
The natural law theory originated in Aristotle’s idea that everything has a purpose,
revealed in its design, and that its supreme ‘good’ is to be sought in fulfilling that purpose.
There are two things we need to know about natural law: first, it isn’t natural, and second
it isn’t law. Natural law is not simply what nature does; rather it is based on nature as
interpreted by human reason. It does not necessarily give you straight forward and
dogmatic answers to every situation. It involves a measure of interpretation and can be
applied in a flexible way. It does not simply present a fixed law dedicated by nature.
Aristotle argued that everything had a purpose or goal to which it aimed. Once you know
what something is for, you know how it should behave and what its final ‘good’ is. A
knife is designed for cutting, if it does that well, it is a ‘good’ knife. His idea of purpose
leads into his idea of what is good. The good has been well described as that at which
everything aims. The good for humans is eudaimonia, which is often translated as
happiness, but means rather more than that. It includes the idea of living well and of doing
well. Aristotle was also concerned to show that living the good life was not an individual
thing, but that it involved living at one with others in the society. So a person can enjoy
the good life by fulfilling his or her essential nature, and doing it within the society.
In Aristotle’s philosophy, things have an essence- a real nature which defines what
they are. If you understand what you are, you know what your life is for, how you relate to
the rest of the world, thus he asserts, “for we call nature, the genesis of growing things, the
primary immanent element in a thing, from which its growth proceeds; the source from
which the primary movement in each natural object is present in it in virtue of its own
essence”1. The aim of life is to fulfill your essence. Natural law is therefore based on a
rational interpretation of purposiveness within the world; it is not simply on an objective
account of what is in fact the case. Being subject to divine rule is therefore, for Aquinas
the means of achieving one’s own final purpose or end. For Aquinas natural law is based
on the conviction that God created the world, establishing within it, a sense of order and
purpose that reflects his will. If everything is created for a purpose, human reason, in
examining that purpose, should be able to judge how to act in order to fulfill itself and
therefore find its own goal and ultimate happiness. Since natural law is based on reason, it
is in principles discovered by anyone whether religious or not. For the same reason it is
universal, rather than limited to any one religion or culture.
Furthermore, Aristotle in his metaphysics (a term that indicates his writings
coming after physics) developed what he called the science of first philosophy.
Throughout his metaphysics, he is concerned with a type of knowledge that he thought
could be most rightly called wisdom. But Aristotle went further to stipulate that the
wisdom he meant is more than that kind of knowledge obtained from sensing objects and
their qualities. It is even more than knowledge acquired from repeated experiences of the
same kinds of things. Thus he asserts that, “wisdom is similar to the knowledge possessed
by the scientist who begins by looking at something, then repeats these sense experiences,
and finally goes beyond sense experience by thinking about the causes of the objects of his
experiences”2. Therefore, his first philosophy or what we now call metaphysics, goes
beyond the subject matter of other sciences and is concerned with first principles and
causes. These are the true foundations of wisdom, for they give us knowledge, not of any
particular object or activity, but rather knowledge of true reality. The first principles and
the causes are most knowable and from these, all other things come to be known. The
problem of metaphysics therefore, is the study of Being and its “principles” and “causes”.
To be, then, is to be a particular kind of substance. Also, to be means to be a substance as
the product of a dynamic process. In this way, Aristotle is concerned in his metaphysics
with Being i.e. existing substances and its causes i.e. the processes by which substances
come into being.
Equally, Aristotle says that we know a thing better when we know what it is than
when we know the colour, size or posture it has. The mind separates a thing from all its
qualities and focuses upon what a thing really is, upon its essential nature. The central
concern of metaphysics is the study of substance, the essential nature of a thing. He
admitted the existence of substance; “for if there is no substance, then there is no being at
all”.3 Substance is what we know as basic about something, after which we can say other
things about it. For whenever we define something, we get at its essence before we can say
anything about it. Aristotle went further to consider what makes a substance, is it “matter”
or “form”.
Also, Aristotle distinguished between matter and form. He nevertheless said that
we never find matter without form or form without matter in nature. Everything that exists
is some concrete individual thing, and everything is a unity of matter and form. Substance
therefore, is a composite of form and matter. Aristotle rejected Plato’s explanation of the
universal forms, rejecting specifically the notion that the forms existed separately for
individual things. This is because, when we use the words matter and form to describe any
specific thing, we seem to have in mind the distinction between what something is made
of and what it is made into. So what things are made out of (matter) exists in some primary
and uninformed state until they are made into a thing. To know how one thing becomes
another thing in Aristotle, we have to look at the nature of change.
Consequently, the development of potentiality to actuality is one of the most
important aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy. In the world around us, we see things
constantly changing, and change is one of the basic facts of our experience. Everything in
nature has its end and function, and nothing is without its purpose. The word change for
Aristotle means many things including motion, growth, decay, generation and corruption.
Some of these changes are natural, whereas others are the products of human art. In nature
then, Aristotle sees change as involving causes, thus, “we call a cause, that from which a
thing comes into being, e.g. the bronze of the statue and the silver of the saucer, or the
form or pattern of a thing that from which the change or freedom from change first begins
or the end that is for the sake of which a thing is”4 . The four causes are, the formal cause,
which determines what a thing is, the material cause, or that out of which it is made, the
efficient cause, by what a thing is made, and the final cause, the “end” for which it is
made. Take a bronze statue for instance, its material cause is the bronze itself. Its efficient
cause is the sculptor, insofar as he forces the bronze into shape. The formal cause is the
idea of the completed statue. The final cause is the end for which the statue is made. The
final end (purpose or teleology) of a thing is realized in the full perfection of the object
itself, not in our conception of it. Final cause is thus internal to the nature of the object
itself, and not something we subjectively impose on it. Aristotle was able to elaborate his
notion that form and matter never exist separately. In nature, generation of new life
involves who already possesses the specific form which the offspring will have (the male
parent). There must then be the matter capable of being the vehicle for this form (this
matter being contributed by the female parent), from this comes a new individual with the
same specific form in this example, Aristotle indicates that change does not involve
bringing together formless matter with matterless form. On the contrary, change occurs
always in and to something that is already a combination of form and matter and that is on
its way to becoming something new or different.
Subsequently, everything in nature has its end and function, and nothing is without
its purpose. All things are involved in processes of change. Each thing possesses a power
to become what its form has set as its end. That things have ends led Aristotle to consider
the distinction between potentiality and actuality. This distinction is used by Aristotle to
explain the process of change and development. If the ‘end’ of an ascorn is to be a tree, in
some way, the ascorn is only potentially a tree but not actually so at this time. A
fundamental mode of change then is the change from potentiality to actuality. But the
chief significance of this distinction is that Aristotle argues for the priority of actuality
over the potential. For he stated that, “actuality is prior to potentiality… Clearly it is prior
in formular, for that which is in the primary sense potential, is potential because it is
possible for it to become actual…. far from the potential, the actual is always produced by
an actual thing”5. There is always a first mover which already exists actually. The self-
contained end of anything, Aristotle called its entelechy.
As such, Aristotle started his theory of the soul by saying that, “the knowledge of
the soul admittedly contributes to the advance of truth in general, and above all, to our
understanding of nature, for the soul is in some sense the principle of animal life”. ‘Soul’
is defined by Aristotle “as the substance in the sense which corresponds to the account of a
thing”6. That means that it is what it is to be for a body of the character just assigned.
Suppose that a tool, e.g. an axe were a natural body, then being an axe would have been its
essence, and so its soul; if this disappeared from it, it would have ceased to be an axe
except in name. also suppose the eye were an animal- sight would have been its soul, for
sight is the substance of the eye which corresponds to the account, the eye been merely the
matter of seeing, when seeing is removed, the eye is no longer an eye, except in name, no
more than the eye of a statue or of a painted figure. The soul is therefore an actuality in the
sense corresponding to sight and the power in the tool. The soul and the body, constitutes
the animal.
Therefore, Aristotle sees the soul as the perfect expression or realization of a
natural body. It follows that there is a close connection between psychological states and
physiological processes. Body and soul are unified in the same way that wax and an
impression stamped in it are unified. Aristotle discussed the soul abstractly without any
regard to the bodily environment; this, Aristotle believes, was a mistake. At the same time,
Aristotle regards the soul or mind not as the product of the physiological conditions of the
body, but as the truth of the body- substance in which only the bodily conditions gain their
real meaning. The soul manifests its activities in certain ‘faculties’ or ‘parts’ which
correspond with the stages of biological development, and are the faculties of nutrition
(peculiar to plants), that of movement (peculiar to animals), and that of reason (peculiar to
humans). Sense perception is a faculty of receiving the forms of outward objects
independently of the matter of which they are composed, just as the wax takes on the
figure of the seal without the gold or other metal of which the seal is composed. As the
subject of impression, perception involves a movement and a kind of qualitative change,
but perception is not merely a passive or receptive affection. It in turn acts, and
distinguishes between the qualities of outward things, becomes a movement of the soul
through the medium of the body.
Human Rationality
The human soul combines in itself all the lower forms of soul, the vegetative,
nutritive, and sensitive, having in addition to these the rational soul. The rational soul has
the power of deliberation. Here the mind not only discovers what truth is in the nature of
things, it discovers the guides for human behavior. Without the body, the soul could
neither be, nor exercise its functions. This is in sharp contrast to Plato’s explanation of the
body as the prison house of the soul. By contrast, Aristotle says that the body and soul
together form one substance. The rational soul of man, as the sensitive soul, is
characterized by potentiality. Just as the eye is capable of seeing a red object but will only
see it when it actually confronts a red object, so also, the rational soul is capable of
understanding the true nature of things. But reason has its knowledge only potentially, it
must reason out its conclusions, the human rationality distinguishes man from other lower
animals and plants. For Aristotle, rationality enables man to act morally, to strive to attain
his end as human being, to organize man in a society and to make something out of life.
Animals have souls but man’s soul is higher and can organize political life. Man is a social
being and his existence in the society makes morality necessary. It is morality that
determines how man lives in the society. With these, we shall proceed to look at
Aristotle’s conception of morality.
3.3 ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF MORALITY
3.3.1 Habit As A Pre- Requisite For Morality
In Ome, ethics and morality serve the same purpose. He sees ethics as, a habitual
way of acting (that is, acquired habit). Morality itself has bearing with the Latin word
‘mos’ meaning custom or behaviour. Consequently, from the etymological point of view,
‘ethics’ and ‘morality’ serve the same purpose, and it is for this reason that in their
substantive forms, the words are often interchanged7. Ethics or morality can be generally
seen as a science of human conduct. An action can become a moral issue when it affects
the life of other people positively or negatively. Therefore, morality has to do with the
rightness or wrongness of actions.
Equally, Aristotle’s most complete work on ethics is called the Nicomachean
Ethics (which refers to the name of both his father and son). It stands as one of the greatest
classics of moral philosophy and is still influential. In Aristotle’s view, ethics constitutes a
body of objective knowledge. In this sense it is a science of correct conduct that guides us
towards the goal of achieving human excellence. For this reason, he starts out the
Nichomachean Ethics by explaining:

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much
clearness as the subject matter admits of, for
precision is not to be sought for, alike in all
discussion, many more than in all the products of
the crafts…. For it is the mark of an educated man
to look for precision in each class of things just so
for as the nature of the subjects admits.8
Aristotle’s theory of morality centers around his belief that man as everything else in
nature, has a distinctive ‘end’ to achieve or a function to fulfill. For this reason, his theory
is rigidly called teleological. He begins his Nichomachean Ethics by saying that “every act
and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some
good…”9. If this is so, the question for ethics is, what is the good at which human nature
aim? With this in mind, Aristotle set out to discover the basis of morality in the structure
of human nature.
Morality in Aristotle’s view has to do with developing habit. The types of habit
here include: the habit of right choice, the habit of right thinking and the habit of right
behavior. Habit as the name implies comes from the Latin word “habes” meaning “to
have” or “to posses”. By implication, whatever one has or possesses is a habit. Aristotle
observes that “neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do virtue arise in us, rather
we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit. Habit is an
emanation of an action which is frequently repeated. Aristotle contends that it is a lasting
disposition by which one is induced to act in certain ways. Though Aristotle in his
Nichomachean Ethics holds that “it is easier to change a habit than to change one’s
nature”10, he however, admits that “even habit (itself) is hard to change just because it is
like nature”11. As a quality which is difficult to change, habit is positional in the general
category of quality. For the sake of clarity, habit has been classified into two major
types “entitative” which is the habit of having. This includes habits which modify a
person, like beauty, health and strength. The second is operative habits which is habit of
acting. The operation of power in man is influenced by this kind of habit. Essentially
morality involves action, for nothing should be regarded as ‘good’ except it functions
properly. Aristotle through his analogy of the Olympic game infers that “the good person
is not the one who does a good deed here or there, now and then, but the one whose life is
good”12. Inferring from the foregoing, it becomes imperatively clear that in Aristotelian
morality, one must form a good habit and be persistent in it in order to actualize it into
action by so doing brings into reality the general law of morality which enhances one to
act virtuously and accordingly with right reason.
3.3.2 Virtue As A Pre- Requisite For Morality
Aristotle begins the description of virtue or excellence by considering the three
things that are found in the soul. They are: passions, faculties and state of character.
According to him, virtue must be one of these and must be a state of character. He
illustrates that virtue or excellence is that which: Brings into good condition the things of
which it is the excellence and makes the work of that thing be done well; e.g. the
excellence of eye make both the eye and its work good; for it is by the excellence of the
eye that we see well.13
This implies that the outcome of virtue is good work. Virtue makes its possessor
good. Hence, Aristotle posits that one’s virtue also will be the state of character which
makes one good and equally enhances one to doing one’s work very well. By implication
being virtuous consists in performing good actions consistently through a habitual attitude
which cannot produce a vicious action. Aristotle’s notion of virtue generally portrays
virtue as excellence-“arête” in Greek. The Greek “arete” has a wider connotation based on
the fact that it is applied to different things in reference to all kinds of excellence. This is
obvious in Macintyre’s assertion:

The word arête, which later comes to be, translated
as ‘virtue’ in the Homeric poems used for
excellence of any kind; a fast runner, displays the
arête of his feet…and a son excels his father in
every kind of arête-- as athlete. This concept of
virtue as ‘excellence’ is more alien to us than we
are apt at first to recognize. It is not difficult for us
to recognize the central place that strength will have
in such a conception of human excellence or the
way in which courage is of the central virtues,
perhaps the central virtue.14
Similarly, in Aristotelian view, ‘virtue’ concerns the functional excellence of any person,
animal or thing.”15 For instance, the virtue of a flute player is the quality to excel and
display very well; the virtue of a horse is the quality of it to run victoriously in a horse
race; in the production of sound, the virtue of musical instrument is the quality to produce
a desired sound. Aristotle contends that the possession of virtues goes hand in hand with
virtuous activity. For him, virtuous activities are indications of a virtuous man. The
inactiveness of a virtuous man silences his virtue “for the state of mind (virtue) may exist
without producing any good result, as in a man who is asleep or in some other way, quite
inactive.”16 To be a virtuous person therefore, the need to activate and functionalize one’s
duty is indispensable. Aristotle observes that virtue is of two kinds namely; moral and
intellectual virtues. The former is the result of habit from which the name is derived. It is a
slight modification of the term ethos which means ‘custom’. The development and growth
of the latter are mainly traceable to instruction which requires time and experience. The
fact that moral virtue is the resultant effect of habit and a modification of ethos prompted
Aristotle to remark:
This fact makes it obvious that none of the
moral virtue is engendered in us by nature,
since nothing that is worth what it is by
nature can be made to behave differently by
habituation. For instance, a stone which has a
natural tendency downwards, cannot be
habituated to rise, however, often you try to
train it by throwing it into the air; nor can you
try to train fire to burn downwards; nor can
anything else that has any other natural
tendency be trained to depart from it17.
Aristotle’s illustration implies that one can only become virtuous by willingly
doing virtuous act. Virtue is therefore, a mean between opposite vices, and there are no
simple rules to decide what is appropriate.
For him, intellectual virtue pre-supposes moral virtue, which is divided into
practical and theoretical wisdom. While the practical concerns the question of proper
conduct, the theoretical wisdom is concerned with intuitive knowledge of concept
including the truth and what emanate from them. Theoretical wisdom according to
Aristotle is the highest virtue one can acquire. No wonder it is said that the life of a
theoretical philosopher is the best life one can lead. Since it is expedient that acquisition
and development of moral virtue is by practice, it becomes important that Aristotelian
morality cannot be justifiably discussed without making a due reference to moral virtue.
3.3.3 Moral Virtue As A Pre-Requisite For Morality.
Moral virtue is not a passion or a faculty. It is rather a state of character. It is a
disposition to choose the mean. For Aristotle, moral virtue comes from habit. He opines
that “the moral virtues, then, are engendered in us neither by nor contrary to nature; we are
constituted by nature to receive them, but their full development in us is due to habit.”17
From the Aristotelian view, it becomes obvious that the acquisition and development of
moral virtue is by practice, that is, by habit which reflects constancy. Moral virtue is made
up of three main virtues namely, the virtues of fortitude, temperance and justice. Fortitude
is a moral virtue which enables us to perform our actions in the right way. It facilitates our
actions with ease in the domain of irascible appetite. Temperance is the virtue of the
irrational parts. It concerns itself with both pleasure of the mind and that of the body. It is
in fact, a means with regard to pleasure. It guides and controls our passions and emotions.
The virtue of justice enables one to give and get what one rightly deserves. As a matter of
fact, justice is a virtue which perfects the will and enables it to order our acts in relation to
our fellow men. In general, the moral virtues of fortitude, temperance and justice concern
good living directly because they operate together in concomitance with prudence in order
to establish the possibility of the knowledge of our actions and how to effectively carry
them out.
From the foregoing, it is apparent that Aristotle’s morality is in consonance with
the moral virtue which emanates from repeated good acts that reside in the appetitive part
of the soul. Buttressing this point, Kadankavil stresses that these good habits “direct the
activities of the will and govern the passions of the sense-appetite.”18 Moreover, the
Aristotelian notion of morality is clearly expressed in his stand that virtue lies in the
middle. This is to posit that in quest of a moral life, one must strike the balance by
avoiding the extremes of deficiency and excess, the deficiency begin avarice and the
excess being prodigality. This is the interpretation of the Aristotel doctrine of the mean
which says that in “medio stat vurtus”- that is, virtue stands in the middle. By implication,
for one to be moral, one must apply moderation in one’s actions.
In Aristotles’ view, virtue is a state of character which is concerned with choice. It
is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on
defect. Moreover, while virtue is a mean, vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is
right in both passions. Virtue finds and chooses that which is intermediate. In support of
Aristotelian position, Aquinas affirms that virtue is a habit of choosing the mean appointed
by reason as by a prudent man. Moreover, building on the Aristotelian doctrine of the
mean, Fagothey expresses that:
Moral virtue is a habit of choosing the mean

between the extremes of excess and defect in
action, and this mean is determined by right
reason, that is, reason under the impulse of
desire for the end and guided by the
intellectual virtue of prudence.20
Consequently, moral life, according to Aristotle, is the life which has the ability to
aim at the intermediate. It is worthy to note that the mean is not absolute. It is always
relative or proportionate. It differs for different people. One might, therefore, ask; can
there be a common mean for every human act? In response to this, Aristotle categorically
posits that it is not possible. This is because there are some human acts which have no
mean at all. For instance, murder, theft, adultery, and malevolence. According to
deontological moral theories these acts are bad by their very nature. Aristotle affirms:
But not every action nor every passion admits

of a mean; for some have names that already
imply bad names, e.g. , spite shamelessness,
envy, and in the case of actions-adultery,
theft, murder; for all of these and suchlike
things by their names that they are
themselves bad and not the excesses or
deficiencies of them. It is impossible then,
ever to be right with regard to them; one must
always be wrong.21
Aristotle’s affirmation that the deficiency of some actions does not lie in their
excesses implies that whoever indulges in them is vicious irrespective of his or her
intention and the circumstances at the material time. For Aristotle, therefore, moral virtue
is morality. It is the virtue at the middle which varies from one person to the other. Moral
virtues are developed when a person possessing rational control of his behavior introduces
measure, harmony and order into his social mutual dealings.
3.3.4 Morality vise-a-vise Rationality
Man has a unique and distinctive mode of activity. In order to discover this
uniqueness in man’s activity, Aristotle delves into the analysis of human nature. He
confirms that man is the master of his own passions. His ‘end’ does not imply mere life or
life of sensation alone. This is because vegetables, plants and even animals possess such
characters. Far from this, man is exceptionally characterized by an active life of the
element which has a rational principle. Unlike irrational animal, man makes a sensible
deliberation about his choice and action. Thus:
The object of choice being one of the things

in our own power which is desired after
deliberation, choice will be deliberation,
choice will be deliberate desire of things in
our own power; for when we have decided as
a result of deliberation, we desire in
accordance with our deliberation.22
Furthermore, man’s ability to deliberate and make choice is made possible by his
rational power. When man’s function and activity are rationally oriented, the good
becomes the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Stating that practical reasoning
is paramount to planning well about what is good and useful for living well or being
happy. Aristotle avers that it is the function of (practical) reason to plan well concerning
goods attainable by man. He admits that practical rationality makes our means right, in
contrast to excellence of character or moral virtue which make the end right. Affirming
Aristotle’s opinion, Aquinas recognizes the evidence of the strong prima facie which
practical rationality is confined in order to identify the meaning to ends.

Admittedly, it is not the will that plans but reason. Aristotle views reason as the
ruling part of the human faculties while a moral agent is the originating cause of his
actions. This implies that the power to do right or wrong lies in the hands of a moral agent
who determines himself. “Now if it is our power to do noble or base acts, and likewise in
our power not to do them, and this was what being good or bad meant, then it is in our
power to be virtuous or vicious.”23
Moreover, describing the nature of the soul, Aristotle categorizes it into two parts,
namely; the rational and the irrational parts. The two are in opposition of each other. The
irrational part is further subdivided into the vegetative and the appetitive parts which are
resisting and opposing to the rational part. Hence, “the conflict between the rational and
irrational element in man is what raises the problem and subject matter of morality.”24
Aristotle maintains that there is only one supreme end which perfects the human
agent. It is happiness. Owing to this, the human good, human happiness can neither consist
in the activity of the vegetative power nor in that of the sensitive powers but in rational
activity, in the excellence of that activity. Aristotle notes that the human good must consist
of excellence or virtuous rational activity. The virtuous rational activity is the activity of
reason itself and acts of other faculties that are under the control of reason. Through this
rational activity, the human agent reaches the highest good (happiness).
3.3.5 Morality As Self-Realization
Also, Aristotle’s conception of morality can be teleological considered as a
fundamental matter of self-realization. It focuses on the proper goals or ends of human
activity. Man realizes himself when he achieves the ultimate aim. This ultimate aim is
what Aristotle calls ‘the supreme good’. Hence he opines that ‘….for this reason the good
has rightly been declared to be that act which all things (men) aim’25 One may ask, what
really is the nature of this ‘good’ which human act aims? In answering this question,
Aristotle states:
If, then there is some end of the things we do,

which we desire for its own sake (everything
else being desired for the sake of this), and if
we do not choose everything for the sake of
something else (for at that rate the process
would go on to infinite, so that our desire
would be empty and vain) . Clearly this must
be the good and chief good.26
By implication, in order not to have a fruitless end, Aristotle advocates that our
actions should aim at some good. We must strive to determine that which is desired for its
own sake. For Aristotle, every individual has in him the principle of good or right. This
principle according to him, can only be realized and brought to manifestation through the
study of human nature. The principle also can be attained through man’s actual (moral)
behavior in day-to-day life activities. Aristotle maintains that the ‘good’ is the cultivation
of the fulfillment of the faculty of man especially reason. Aristotle describes a good person
and what people take to be the ultimate good for human beings by empirical investigation
and observation of human behavior. Man’s behavior habit has standard precept by which it
can be evaluated or judged as either good or bad, right or wrong. His ultimate good is
usually furnished by such a standard. This ultimate good of man consists in a manner of
harmonious act of man with his nature, that is, living a virtuous life under the guidance of
right reason. Aristotle goes further to identify the ultimate good as happiness. For him,
happiness is that good which man seeks by nature. It is self-sufficient and the end of man’s
action. In fact, it is the final. Happiness is “some kind of activity of the soul in conformity
with virtue”27 Where virtue consists “in doing the right thing in the right way, to the right
person, to the right degree that is, it involves the ability to determine the golden mean,
which lies between the extreme of deficiency and extreme as excess.”28
The happy life for a man therefore is life of discipline and conscious following of a
rule. This is a virtuous art. According to Aristotle, virtue is required for the realization of
happiness. Virtue is a whole, while happiness requires completeness of virtue as well as
complete life time. Aristotle evidently conceives happiness as the foundation of morality.
He calls it the end and the highest good. Little wonder, he considers the happy person as
the only virtuous person.
3.4 MORALITY AND CUSTOM
Morality is primitively conceived as consisting in obedience to a tribal
custom which is ultimately regarded as essential for the individual. It forms the basis
for mutual understanding and co-existence. Its defined quality controls, moderates
and directs people towards a harmonious co-existence in the society. As such, any
society which is devoid of morality and moral value is prone to devastation and lose of
human dignity. It is therefore not bizarre that in Hobbes' state of nature, anarchy, chaos,
violence and survival of the strongest triumphed
Aristotle maintains that moral dispositions and principles are gradually formed
and changed through historical experience and routine of customary conduct. Customary
morality is one origin of moral consciousness in the case of human beings. According to
Chukwujekwu, it "simply refers to the sense of right and wrong that people gradually
developed with time as they live in groups and communities.29 " In other words,
customary morality is traceable to the early practice of gregarious community of people.
People lived in groups in order to meet up with their daily needs through the performance
of certain acts. This uninformative system of people's acts toward meeting their common
need constitute people's custom and morality. By precept and by imitation, this
customary system is being transmitted to succeeding generations. To this effect,
Kadankavil notes, that "almost all groups have accepted values .such as parental
care, respect for the life of one's group, loyalty to one's group and some curbing of the
sexual impulse and such other virtues as moral values."30
Customary morality is therefore commendable in the area of stabilizing the
character of the community members. This is what Aristotle meant when he postulates that
moral dispositions and principles are formed and changed by customary conduct. The
more people practice their custom, the more they are adapted to it for good living and the
good of the community. The community directs and shapes people's lives through
approval and encouragement of right thing, disapproval and punishment for the wrong.
Arguing against Socrates who posited that no person does evil willingly, Aristotle
points out that the fact that wrong doers are punished by the law (unless when their action
is under compulsion or when it is the state of ignorance for which they are not themselves
responsible), implies that they are not unaware of the action. Again he adduces the
logical argument the if no one can be said to be willingly evil or voluntarily acting
wrongly, it follows also that no one can be eulogized or commended for acting virtuously
either. If virtue is voluntarily practiced, vice is so too. If one can be commended or
praised, one can also be culpable. Based on his psychological-epistemological
convictions, Aristotle argues that the cause of free acts is man in the fullness of his
function. For the fact that the cause has no antecedents which determines it, it becomes
unconditional. Sequel to this, Mbukanma remarks, "A free cause, in its positive
character is an active rather than a passive power. This means that this power acts without
being acted on, or that it has initiative instead of being wholly reactive."31
Aristotle’s argument is that in so far as the creative is extended to alternative
possibilities, its action becomes selective. It is not necessitated as it would be if
it were determined by its own nature or when' it is a cause by other causes to produce
an effect only Invariably, Aristotle's presumption here is that rational creatures, in their
bid to making free decisions are not subject to compulsive urges. By implication,
man's ethical conduct under normal circumstances is out of volition rather that
compulsion.
Going further, Aristotle maintains that the future of any community depends on
the ethical conduct of its members solidified by its custom. He developed the idea of self-
realization which is based on the view that good life or happiness is the outcome of
fulfilling one's character, personality or potentialities by responding positively towards
their custom. According to him, the human person pursues a great variety of goals but
seeks happiness- the supreme end. The activation of individual powers and talent is
essentially indispensable for the pursuit of man's end. This end therefore, becomes the
determinant of what constitutes happiness.
3.5 MORAL CHOICE AND REASONABILITY
Fundamentally, the notion of moral responsibility appeals to every system of
ethics. This is because to claim that people ought to take certain actions presupposes a
choice which determines the action taken and for which the individual is responsible.
Despite variegated views among philosophers over theories of moral responsibility, the
fundamental answer to how such responsibility arises is freedom of the will. Aristotle
contends that some voluntary actions are not really borne out of instinct or external forces.
For him such actions are not done out of ignorance of the circumstances or the particular,
situation, "for the principle that moves the instrumental parts of the body in such action
is in him, and the things of which the moving principle is in a man himself are in his
power to do or not to do."32 The philosophical divergences concerning the circumstances
under which moral responsibility result from divergences in the particular accounts of
that which is directly under volitional control, of the acquisition of knowledge of good
and evil, and of the connection between knowledge and action.
Aristotle's notion of moral responsibility centers on the role of knowledge in taking
the proper course of action. He maintains that a person is culpable, praiseworthy or
responsible for an action when it is done voluntarily. He does not concur that ignorance is the
cause of vicious act. In his view, he holds that the cause of wrong-doing in most cases is the
desire for something which seems good, since a morally weak person has accumulated
himself with thinking of the things that give immediate pleasure, he goes on to carry them
out. For him, it makes no sense to suppose that the man who does unjust actions voluntarily
does not want to be incontinent?
As for the suggestion that it is true opinion and not knowledge against which we act
incontinently, that makes no difference to the argument; for some people when in a state of
opinion do not hesitate, but think they know exactly. If, then, the notion is that owing to
their weak conviction those who have opinion are more likely to act against their judgment
than those who know, we answer that there need be difference between knowledge and
opinion in this respect; for some men are no less convinced of what they think than
others of what they know....it will make a difference whether, when a man does what he
should not, he has the knowledge but not exercising it, or is exercising it; for the latter
seems strange, but not the former.33
The consideration given to judgment, knowledge and opinion is not quite seperative.
They are the same; it is the apprehension of the right difference in the subject's mode of
apprehension. However, Aristotle assumes that knowledge is stronger in conviction when
compared with opinion which is weaker.
Moral responsibility according to Aristotle involves choice which has to do with
human voluntary action. It equally involves the distinctive human ability to deliberate.
Deliberation in this sense has to do with things that take place in a certain way for the most
part, but in which the event is obscure, and with things in which it is indeterminate. In others
words, when the habits and principles that we have formed do not adequately or clearly
apply, deliberation becomes essential. Aristotle maintains that, in deliberation, we always
assume the end and put into consideration how and by what means it is to be achieved.
This is precisely because our deliberation revolves around things which are within our
control and power. As such, determining the object of choice is not far- fetched because it is
within our domain. The action involved in choice is thus "deliberate desire," for in order to
have chosen a course of action we must desire it. Aristotle admits that we are responsible for
the deliberation which leads to choice we make and consequently forms our actions because it
is borne out of freedom of the will.
In any case, the ethical issue remains how we determine our moral choice. From
Aristotle's position of voluntary and involuntary actions, it is comprehensible that some of our
human acts are performed by choice while some are not by choice. Our "choiced" actions
are borne out of deliberation while "unchoiced"- actions ate "deliberation-free". Hence
Aristotle postulates: When (1) the injury takes place contrary to reasonable expectation, it
is a misadventure. When (2) it is not contrary to reasonable expectation, but does not
imply vice, it is a mistake. .when (3) he acts with knowledge but not after delilberation, it
is an act of injustice..., but this does not imply that the doers are unjust or wicked; for the
injury is not due to vice. But when (4) a man acts from choice, he is an unjust man and a
vicious man.34
It is important to note here that human actions are not actually necessitated to a
great extent. Notwithstanding, there are certain cases which can be exempted, "hence acts
proceeding from anger are rightly judged not to be done of malice aforethought; for it is
not the man who acts in anger but he who enraged him that starts the mischief.
Interpretatively, the occurrence of misadventure (accident) or mistake or act of
injustice does not necessarily imply that the moral agent is dubiously and unjustly bad-
mannered. To this effect, Aristotle advocates that we should be tolerant when one is
overpowered by excessive pleasures or pains.
Moreover, Aristotle affirms that there are some morally bad acts which can be
excusable. For instance, in the case of weakness due to disease or ill-health, "involuntary acts
are excusable, others not. For the mistakes which man makes not only in ignorance but also
from ignorance are excusable35". In making moral choice, however, one has to be careful
so that one's choice will not negatively affect or injure the other for: If a man harms another
by choice, he acts unjustly; and these are the acts of injustice which imply that the doer is
an unjust man, provided that the act violates proportion or equality. Similarly, a man is
just when he acts justly by choice; but he acts justly if he merely acts voluntarily.36
Moral choice is therefore, more rewarding and justified when he bears no violation of
equality or proportion.It is best when it is a deliberate appetition of things that lie in our power,
this will go a long way to enhancing and directing our aims in accordance with the right
deliberation. By so doing, one will be fully responsible for one's action.
3.6 ARISTOTLE NOTION ON HAPPINESS AS THE HIGHEST GOOD
In the Nicomachean ethics, written in 550 BCE, Aristotle stated; that,
"happiness ( being well and doing well) is the only thing humans desire for its own sake,
unlike riches, honor, health or friends"37. He observed that men sought riches, or honor,
or health not only for their own sake but also in order to be happy. Note that eudemonia
the term we translated as "happiness", is for Aristotle an activity rather than an emotion or
a state. Happiness is the characteristic of a good life, that is, a life in which a person
fulfills human nature in an excellent way. The happy person is virtuous, meaning that they
have outstanding abilities and emotional tendencies which allow him or her to fulfill their
common human ends. For Aristotle, happiness is the virtuous activity of the soul in
accordance with reason. Happiness is therefore the practice of virtue.
Common Understanding
Eudaemonology is the study of happiness. It is an area of study that has always
been useful in attempt to understand the ultimate end of man and which has been
variously conceived thus. "When we call someone happy, we mean by the word the sum
total of all goods together with the exclusion of all evil".38 Happiness for St. Augustine is
the plenitude of all things to be desired. After due deliberations, and ethical discourse, Plato
synthesize happiness with Justice, For him by implication; "the virtue of the soul is justice and
injustice its defect". By implication, the just soul live well while the unjust man will not. For
him, living well involves being happy. For Plato, only the just man is happy; in other words
happiness for Plato is defined or translates into life in accordance with justice. `
'Happiness can also be defined as desire satisfied by the conscious possession of the
good' .39 The root meaning of happiness can be seen from the view of a person favored by
fortune, one to whom good things happen. Hence one may wonder, as Aristotle does,
whether a man should be called happy until he is dead, since misfortune may befall him in
his old age. The man who is excelling in business can said to be lucky, successful cheerful,
and fortunate. To be "happy" is to be satisfied or contented with having a good measure of
what one regards as important in life. Happiness typically has to do, with both situation
and a state of mind. For example, at an extreme; a martyr can go happy to the stake,
merely secure in the conviction of right. The new catholic encyclopedia defines happiness
thus: happiness is the personal possession of a desirable good, ultimately the perfect good
of an intellectual nature. The term happiness has been used often times in the literature of
moral philosophy. Utilitarians have opined that the measure of right action is whether it
makes for the greater number of happiness for the greater number of people. This
however is the moral principles of judgment for the utilitarian while the hedonists and
eudaemonists are of the opinion that happiness is the only thing that is worthwhile in
itself. Akam J.B in his Oracle of Wisdom defined happiness as:
As special goal Admirable by all rational beings

(men) and as such lacks philosophical exactitude;
there is agreement neither on its substance nor its
source. All we know is that it is a profound
instinctive union with the stream of life, but we do
not know what is united.40
From the foregoing definitions, it therefore means that only a rational
intellectual being can attain happiness. They alone can reflect on their satisfaction they
enjoy. Animals cannot attain happiness. They move towards ends and have appetites that
can only be satisfied by things good for them instinctively. "Happiness is not a passing
feeling or emotion, such as joy or gladness, but is a lasting state or condition".41 One may
be generally happy though suffering a temporary grief, just as another's chronic
unhappiness may be punctuated by moments of joy. Happiness therefore is a
subjective condition entailing the existence of desire in oneself, the consciousness of the
existence of the desire, the actual satisfaction of the desire and the consciousness that this
desire is being satisfied such state can exist only in a being capable of reflection and self-
consciousness, an intellectual being.
Types of happiness
By and large, happiness could be faultless or flawed. Faultless or perfect happiness
comes from the complete ownership of, or participation in and communion with, the
perfect or faultless good, that which fully gratify our desires. Boethius defines it as the
state made perfect by the aggregate of all good things; good which once obtained
makes the desire of anything else impossible. "For Cicero, happiness is that state in
which all troubles have finally disappeared and a person enjoys the harmonious
abundance of all that is good".42
Perfect happiness could be absolute or relative.
Absolute happiness is happiness to an infinite degree and this pertains to God
alone. Relative perfect happiness is the happiness that a finite being can posses,
according to its finite capacity. In order words, according to Fagothey, perfect happiness
supposes a perfect correspondence between potency and act, potency for happiness and
actual possession of it. God, who is pure act, is necessarily happy by his own very being
and to an infinite degree. A creature composed, as it is of potency and act, is rendered
happy when its limited potency for happiness is actualized so far as its limitations allow.
Furthermore, happiness could also be assumed in two justifications namely; the
abstract and concrete justification. The abstract justification of happiness is understood
thus, that people seek or desire happiness without specifying the object supposed to produce
it. The fact remains that, we can not desire anything without at the same time wanting our
desires to be satisfied; otherwise, we both do not desire it. Happiness is only a name for our
self-conscious realization that our desires have been or are been satisfied. Therefore we can
desire anything without desiring happiness. The concrete justification of happiness stands to
put this questions, What precisely will bring perfect fulfillment to a being whose nature is
rational? What is the good which he needs to possess in order that this fulfillment may be
his? With regards to the first justification of happiness, is human not free because man is
made to seek happiness? Thus, of necessity every person desires happiness. However, one is
free in the choice of concrete object, by whose possession one hopes to obtain happiness. All
want to be happy but not all know how to find it.
Imperfect happiness
"Imperfect happiness on the other hand, falls off from the perfect by leaving some
of our desires entirely or relatively unsatisfied".43 One who is imperfectly happy is happy in so
far as his desires are fulfilled, and unhappy in so far as they are not. It is also the actual
perfection experienced by the person through a realization of his potentialities; the
possession of the desirable object. When this actualization is ultimate, the person
possesses perfect subjective happiness; until then, it can only be imperfect. Ultimately,
man has but one goal: perfect happiness, which is the full realization of his
potentialities through intimate personal union with God in the beatific vision.
Other interconnected concepts of happiness.
There are many interconnected concepts of happiness, but for the sake of clarity
we shall be focusing our attention in these concepts. Namely: virtue, joy, felicity and
pleasure.
Virtue: For Aristotle, happiness is an activity of the soul in accord with
perfect virtue. What then is virtue as a related concept of happiness? To juxtapose this
question, let us start by understanding the term virtue. Virtue is a word formed from the
Latin virtue which means power or strength or valor or manliness. In man, virtue is a
habit that accord with human nature, lending power smoothness, promptitude to the
operation of that nature. Virtue is a good habit either in the intellectual or in the moral
order.
Virtue is an operative habit; it is operative in the sense that it has to do with
doing, not being. According to Aristotle, virtue is a good habit. Virtue makes its subject
good, and makes the subject's work good. For virtue implies perfection of power. "Virtue
may be called a good habit of reason by which we live rightly, and which cannot be put to
bad use".44 Virtue however have many subjects namely; virtue belong to the soul; it is a
perfection of a power of the soul, whether intellect or will. Virtue is a true habit, and we
have already seen that the proper subject of a living being is the life of principle. Virtue is
called a habit of reason.45 Reason is, primarily, the thinking mind; though it includes the
will when there is question of practical reasoning. Therefore it is habit that belongs to a
power of the soul. Virtues are either intellectual ie understanding, or moral order of will.
Finally a life well lived with the coherence of virtue will certainly, according to Aristotle
tend to reach to the Golden mean which is happiness.

Joy:-
Joy is a Great happiness, feeling of pleasure, especially of an elevated or
spiritual kind. Further more, Joy can be said to be the possum or emotion exhibited by the
acquaintance or expectation of good, pleasurable feelings or emotions caused by success,
good fortune, and the like or by a rational prospect of possessing what we have or desire,
gladness; exhilaration of the spirits; delight. Joy biblically is more than sentiments; it
involves a sense of happiness with a state of blessedness. But in the New Testament, it is
pointed by public excitement at times of festival (Deut 12:6) and by relief when an
individual had a grievance which he could bring to the temple of settlement (Ps 43:4).
The notion of joy in New Testament is prominent in Luke's gospel (Iuke2:10, 19:37)
and in the Acts (13:53) where it is a characteristic gift of the spirit.
Felicity:-
This is more closely interconnected to happiness, but its main implication is
contentment. It could be regarded as happiness expressed, be it through contentment,
manner of speaking or writing.46 However, one can see that felicity is not happiness qua
tale, in the sense that it implies contentment, and knowing fully that contentment is a
partial happiness with some unhappiness. And there is a little difference between a part
of and the whole of that thing. There is no way part can be commensurate to the whole.
As a way of explication a person can be contented with one particular thing, but that does
not, in any way, mean that he is no more in want of that same thing again rather it
means that he just decided to' do with what he has. On the divergent, happiness is
satisfaction per excellence. The level which one may say I don't want any more, I am
satisfied.
Pleasure:-
This is one of the most misused words in the world today. Both in the past and
present, many people use this term interchangeably with happiness as if there is no
difference between the two. The Epicenes which is the Hedonist ethics for instance say that
pleasure is: "The sole good (salus v'itae Salamen) and that all human actions are channeled
toward it, and the search for pleasure should be the raison d'etre for life."47 Further more;
the Epicureans sees pleasure as the standard for judging the rightness or the wrongness of
an action, what should be done or what should be avoided are based on pleasure. Aristotle
described pleasure as; "an accomplishment of an activity”48. The advocates of pleasure as
the summum bonum ultimate good for man would rightly say, let us make merry today
because tomorrow we are all gone. They are pointing to the worldly pleasure only to be
gotten from external objects within the ambient of our existence. If we consider pleasure
to be a generator of happiness, then we should take cognizant of the fact that some
activities can make available pleasure but at the same time keep us unhappy. Again since
pleasure is the completion of an activity, as Aristotle had mentioned, then the criticism
for evaluating any particular pleasure in terms of being good or bad now depends or
varies from the activity it accompanies.
It will be more pleasant for us to be precise by saying that, if pleasure is a means,
it should be a means to an end (Imperfect happiness) not an end in itself.49
Pleasure and Happiness
It is no extraordinary news this day that people misrepresent or misquote
happiness for pleasure or equate with pleasure. This is a clear fact coming from
people's belief and actions. In our society today, people have in mind to attain real
happiness but they end up grabbing on things that are pleasurable. Against this back
drop, let us vividly distinguish the difference between happiness and pleasure. This
explication is necessary due to the fact as we have mentioned earlier about the
misappropriation of the two concepts. The early utilitarians and Epicurians were guilty of
this particular confusion. Epicurians and utilitarians often spoke of both pleasure and
happiness interchangeably as if they were two but the same thing. They maintain in their
ethical theory that the pleasure of right action is whether it makes for the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.50 Therefore, for the utilitarian, an action is classified as
right or wrong depending on amount of happiness generated by that very act and the
number of people involved. James Stuart Mill, a known protagonist of this theory in his
first ethical principle states that, the measure of goodness or badness of an action
depends on whether it contributes to the promotion of happiness or the opposite of that
respectively. Joseph Omoregbe in his transparency gives James Stuart Mill ethical
cruel thus:-
The creed which accepts as the foundation of

morals, utility or the greatest happiness principle,
holds that... actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness are
intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by
unhappiness pain 51.
A .C. Ewing, in his ethical theory looks at happiness from its utilitarian point of
view. He said that actions are good or bad depending on the amount of pleasure or pain
they produce respectively. Epicurus often spoke of pleasure, when in actual fact he meant
happiness as: when we say that pleasure is a chief good, we are not speaking of
the pleasure of debauched man or those which lie in sensual enjoyment as some think
who are ignorant, and do not entertain our opinions or else interpret them perversely; but
we mean the freedom of the body from pain and of the soul from confusion. J. Hospers
in his Philosophical Analysis describes pleasure as: "A certain kind of state or
consciousness (not verbally definable) but a psychological state with which we are all
acquainted in our experience"52. Thus we speak of the pleasure of eating and drinking,
sexual experience and so on. Hospers maintain that both, that is happiness and pleasure,
are not synonymous and identical and he went further to narrate the difference between
the two concepts. He writes: We do not use the word, happiness synonymously with
pleasure. We speak of intense pleasure lasting for a few seconds and then ceasing but it
would be strange to speak of being happy for a few seconds and the becoming unhappy
and then ceasing but it would be strange to speak of being happy for a few seconds and
then becoming happy again a few seconds later. And a person may experience such
pleasure without being happy.53
Aristotle in his ethical discourse also recognizes this fact that happiness is not the
same with pleasure. As for this all men think that happy life is pleasant and weave
pleasure into their idea of happiness. Conforming to the ideas of Aristotle that
pleasure is not happiness, Jude Mbakanma says: Pleasure is not happiness, it is an element
of happiness; the blessing of an unimpeded exercise of our faculty. It is a process that
accompanies human activity of a kind, and so, it can not be equated with happiness which
is the greatest goal of man. Happiness for Aristotle is lasting not temporal or momentary,
not merely a feeling but also an enduring and fixed state, that is the reason why we can
not equate pleasure and happiness. That was why he said that a happy man will be
happy throughout his life. Pleasure for Aristotle is transitory and Temporal.
The resume of pleasure and happiness in Omoregbe's work on ethics stated thus:
· Pleasure can be derived from one single activity, while happiness is derived not in
one single activity but from a series of activities.

· Some activities can give us pleasure but at the same time make us very unhappy.
· Pleasure is transitory, that is, it is of short duration, but happiness is of a much longer
duration and a more permanent state of mind.
· Pleasure can be sought and obtained directly or indirectly by performing certain
activities that gives pleasure, such, as eating, drinking, or sexual activities but the
performance of such activities and actions does not necessarily make one happy.
· Moral rectitude and peace of mind are necessary conditions for happiness whereas a
person who has no peace of mind and moral rectitude cannot be happy even if he
indulges in many pleasures 54.
All these, finally discussed, one can succinctly say that pleasure is not happiness.
Aristotle presented happiness as consisting in action or activity (energeia) and not in
mere passive enjoyment or inactive quiescence (nirvana). This action is proper to man in
contrast to other animals. Explaining further the nature of this action, Aristotle calls it a
virtuous and contemplative activity.
For Aristotle;
Ultimate happiness consists in the highest activity

of man, which for him, is contemplation or philosophic
life of speculation. No wonder, he considers the
philosopher the happiest man, and one who is
dearest to the gods. 55
Aristotle nevertheless did not approve of material needs such as wealth, honor and
fame, power, merriment, and pleasure as capable of providing man with perfect happiness.
However, he acknowledged that man necessarily needs them in this life; hence they can only
offer temporal kind of happiness.56

Attainability of happiness
From the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul, taken as
philosophically proved presuppositions to ethics, it follows conclusively that happiness is
man's natural destiny and that it is possible for him to attain it.57 Aristotle’s concept of
happiness does not go beyond this world. Consequently, he holds that ultimate happiness can
be attained by man in this life though rigorously and by a few who according to him are
philosophers. Aristotle; however seemed to have limited the attainment of ultimate happiness
to philosophers and also considered them nearest to the gods. Of course he made it clear that
ultimate happiness consists in the activities of the highest virtue, which he says philosophers
possess. In line with the above, he denied the capacity of the young and slaves to attain
happiness. “Aristotle was also of the view that animals are not capable of attaining
happiness. This is because animals are irrational and virtue is a prerogative of rational
beings”.58 The basic and indispensable essential for happiness in Aristotle's concept of
happiness is virtue. 59 This goes from the point of view of happiness consisting in virtuous
activities of man according to reason. It means by implication that happiness is found in
human action (actus humanus) and not in the act of man (actus Horn mem). Therefore
happiness does not come by chance or without a person's knowledge and volition. To
consolidate this Aristotle says that, to entrust to chance what is greatest and most noble
would be a very defective arrangement. Also Aristotle suggests that even though happiness
does not consist in acquisition of external goods, these goods are undeniably necessary.
Such things as good birth, good children, beauty, friends, wealth, etc. are not unnecessary
for him. Aristotle asserts thus:

The man who is very ugly in appearance or ill
born or solitary and childless is not likely to be
happy and perhaps a man would still be less
likely if he had thoroughly bad children or
friends or had lost good children or friends by
death. However, he maintains that the
acquisition of these external goods, especially
wealth, should be moderate, since virtue, he
says lies in the mean.60
Happiness; the End of Human Action
Aristotle started his theory of morality with the following assertion.
"Every art and every investigation, and similarly

every action and pursuit is considered to aim at
some good".61
His theory centers, on the belief that everything in nature and even people have
a particular end to achieve or a particular function to fulfill. This being the case, his
moral theory can be called teleological. Unlike his predecessors, as time went on,
Aristotle moved his attention from the details of science to conduct and character.
If human activities are done for an end, such questions as what is the good or
end at which human actions aim will necessarily arise. Some philosophers have tried to
give answers to this ethical question. However, let us see briefly what Plato says. Plato
had tried to answer this question by saying that people aim at knowledge of the idea of the
Good. The Good was separated from the world and from individuals and was to be
arrived at by the mind's ascent from the visible world to the intelligible world.
Aristotle on the other hand holds that the principle of good lies within the individual. This
good can be attained through actual behavior in daily life. Our actions aim at different ends
thus, Aristotle differentiates the kinds of ends we aim at. These are the instrumental ends
(acts done as means for other ends) and intrinsic ends (acts done for their own sake).62
Subsequently, the instrumental ends refer to acts that are done not for their own
sake but as a means to the achievement of other ends. Aristotle gives an example with
the art of making bridle. When the bridle is complete, its maker has achieved his end as a
bridle maker. But the bridle is a means for the horseman to guide his horse in battle. Also,
a carpenter builds a barrack, and when it is completed, he has fulfilled his function as a
carpenter. The barracks also fulfill their function when they provide safe shelter for the
soldiers. But the ends here achieved by the carpenter and the building are not ends in
themselves but are instrumental in housing soldiers until they move on to their next
stage of action. Similarly, the function of the builder of ships is fulfilled when the ship is
successfully launched, but again this end is in turn a means for transporting the soldiers
to the field of battle. The doctor fulfills his function to the extent that he keeps the soldiers
in good health. But the end of health in this case becomes a means for effective fighting.
The officer aims at victory in battle, but victory is the means to peace. Peace itself,
though sometimes taken mistakenly as the final end of war, is the means for creating the
conditions under which humans can fulfill their function as humans. When we discover
what humans aim at, not as carpenters, doctors, or generals, but as humans, we will
then arrive at action for its own sake, and for which all other activity is only a means, and
this, says Aristotle, must be the Good of Man. The above examples mean that there are
some skills that are subordinate to others. These ends that serves as a means to achieving
other ends was not what Aristotle upholds rather he talks of ends sought for their own sake
(intrinsic ends).
Also, the intrinsic ends are ends in themselves and not means to another end. To
arrive at this end sought by humans for its own sake, which Aristotle calls the "Good" of
man, he deviated from Plato's attachment of the good to the function of a thing. He
distinguishes between being a good doctor and a good person. One can be a good doctor
without being a good person and -vice versa. Thus, the good person is one that fulfils his or
her functions as a person. Aristotle concludes that the end of all human action is happiness.
Happiness is the end, which is sought for its own sake. Aristotle says that this is the
general agreement but the problem lies in saying what happiness consists in: Well, so far as
the name goes, there is a pretty general agreement ...but when it comes to saying what
happiness consists, opinions differ…,63 In defining happiness, Aristotle says it is: An activity
of the soul in accordance with virtue.64 Aristotle rejects the view that happiness lies in
pleasure, wealth and honor because they are not ends in them. They cannot occupy the place
of the chief good for which people should aim. Happiness is the only end that meets all the
requirements for the ultimate end of human actions such as being self-sufficient (sought
for its own sake) and attainable by people. To support his view, Aristotle says that we
choose pleasure, wealth and honor only because we think that, through their
instrumentality, we shall be happy. Happiness, it turns out, is another word or name for
good, for like good, happiness is the fulfillment of our distinctive function… 65
As earlier stated, following the definition of happiness given by Aristotle, it is
pertinent to note that, happiness is an activity of the soul and is not separable from virtue.
However, these virtues have to be formed: None of the moral virtues arises in us by
nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature.
END NOTES
1. Jonathan Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 1, Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1991, 104bl6-1015al2.
2. Jonathan Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 1001b27 - 1002b11.
3. Jonathan Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 1013024-1013b3.
4. Jonathan Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 1049bl2-1049bl2a.
5. Jonathan Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 402al-402a9.
6. Jonathan Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 412b10-412b24.
7. Emmanuel Ome, Ethics and Morality: Basic Concepts, Some Contemporary

Issues and Responses, Ed. Enugu: Folmech pub,2009, p.l.
8. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. W.D.Ross, New York: Oxford University

Press, 1941, 1.3
9. Jonathan Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 1094al- 1094al7.
10. Jonathan Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 1094al8- 1094b11&2.
11. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1103a25
12. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1152a30.
13. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1152a30
14. Stumpf Samuel Enoch, Philosophy: History and Problems,(New York: McGraw-
Hill Inc.1994),100
15. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 11069,15-19
16. Macintyre, A Short History of Ethics, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1996, p. 122.
17. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Martin Ostwald, U.S.A.: Macmilan

Publishing company, 1962, p. 303
18. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1099al
19. Aristotle, The Ethics of Aristotle, trans. J.A.K.Thomson, New York: Penguin
Books INC, 1976, p.91.
20. Aristotle, The Ethics of Aristotle, p.91.
21. J. Kandankavil, Ethical World, Bangalore : Dharmara Publications, 1995, p.160.
22. A. Fagothey, Right and Reason,Ethics in Theory and Practice, edited by Miton A.
Gonzalves, ninth edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1989,p. 199
23. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1107al0-14
24. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1113al0-12
25. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1113b 11-13
26. Srumpf Samuel Enoch, Philosophy: History and Problems, p. 100
27. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1098a 15
28. Richard Mekon, The Basic Works of Aristotle, P. 1145.
29. Sir David Ross: Aristotle, P. 197.
30. Stephen Chukwujekwu, A Basic Course in Ethics- A Study of Ethical Values,

Nimo: Rex and Patric Ltd, 2007, p. 27.
31. T. Kadankavil, Ethical World, Banglore: Dharmara Publications, 1995, p. 130.
32. Jude Mbukanma, Moral Failure, Ibadan: Newborne Enterprise, 1994, p. 5. 13.
33. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 110al 5.
34. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1146b25- 30.
35. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1135bl6- 25.
36. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1135b25.

37. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1136a 5.
38. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1136a 1-4.
39. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, J. Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works, Vol. 2
(USA: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 937.
40. Emmanuel Ome; Ethics and Morality, Basic Concepts, Some Continuous Issues and
responses, Folemch Publisher, 2009, p-g. 72 – 73.
41. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, bk 1, ch. 10, 1100a to 1100b 10. As quoted by Fr.
Austin Fagothey, S.J; Right and Reason: Ethics in theory and practice. Tan
books charlotte, North Carolina, 2000, p. 44.
42. John Bosco Akam, oracle of wisdom: Towards a philosophical equipoise, Enugu:
snap press limited, 1995, pg. 32.
43. Kainze CF. H.P., Ethics in context, London: the Macmillan Press, 1988, p.5.
44. Consolation philosophy Bk iii, prose 2. And Summa Theological 1 – 11 quoted by

Fr. Austine Fagothey, S.J. Right and Reason, Ethics in theory and practice,
second edition copyright, 1959, by the Mosby Company St. Loui, p. 46.
45. St. Thomas Aquinas: A tour of Summa, Ed. Paul J. Glenn, Theological Publication
in India Bangalore, 2007. P. 140.
46. St. Thomas Aquinas: A tour of Summa, p. 141.
47. Johnbosco Akam, oracle of wisdom, p.35
48. St. Thomas Aquinas: A tour of Summa, Vol. 2, part 1 – 11, q5 al. 36.
49. Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A systematic and historical study. P. 82.
50. Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A systematic and historical study. P. 174

53. John Hospers. An introduction to philosophical analysis, London Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1981, p. 584 – 585.
54. John Hospers. An introduction to philosophical analysis, p. 54.
55. John Hospers. Ethics, p. 83 – 84.
56. Fr. Austin Fagothey; Right and Reason, Ethics and practice, p. 54
57. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, p. 1105 – 1108.
58. Fagothey, Ethics; Right and Reason, p. 54.
59. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, p. 1105 – 1108
60. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, p. 948
61. Thomson J.A.K. The Ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics, London Penguin
Books Ltd., 1953. P. 63.
62. Thomson J.A.K. The Ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics, P. 69.
63. Thomson J.A.K. The Ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics, P. 66
64. Thomson J.A.K. The Ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics, P. 76
65. Samuel, E. Stumpf, Philosophy, history and problems, USA: McGraw – Hill, 1994,
p. 100.
CHAPTER FOUR
AN EXPOSITION OF ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPTION OF POLITICS
4.1 EMERGENCE OF THE STATE
Aristotle in his politics as in his ethics stresses the element of purpose. Although Aristotle
did not create a blue print for an ideal state like Plato, he viewed the state as the agency for
enabling men to achieve their ultimate goals as human beings. Aristotle stipulated that
any practical theory of the state must take note of what kind of government that should be
adapted to particular states, and the legislature must be acquainted with “which is best
relatively to circumstances …..how a state may be constituted under any given condition
… how it may be longest preserved”1. Aristotle’s conception and political theory
goes on to show how man by nature is a political animal and who is a citizen of a state. He
also goes on to show the different types of states and the best form of Governments are
also outlined in order that the good or best form of life can be achieved. For Aristotle, the
good rulers seek to achieve the good of all, whereas the perverted rulers seek their own
private gain and the bad rulership brings about revolution
For Aristotle, “Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is
established with a view to some good, for mankind 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 the good
in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.”2 One may infer from the
foregoing that the state is primarily a political community because it is made up of persons
who are by nature social and political. Aristotle used the two terms social and political in
his politics to make a point in the origin of a state. There is a social instinct in man and by
that fact “man is by nature a political animal”3 and lives in the state. “He who by nature
and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity,”4 from
Aristotle’s claim we distill the fact that the political nature of man is a function of the
social instinct implanted in man by nature.
It follows that the state is superior to other forms of the communities such as
family, village associations, political parties and others. On account of the supremacy of
the state, it aims at the highest good. Aristotle supported the above statement by asserting
that “out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and slave, the first
thing to arise is the family. But when several families are united, and the association aims
at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the
village. The most natural form of the village appears to be that of the colony from the
family, composed of the children and the grand children, who are said to be sucked with
the same milk… then several villages are united in a single complete community, large
enough to be nearly or quite sufficing, the state comes into existence.5 However, we must
not think that there are clear-cut boundaries between the interest of the state as a whole
and that of its constitutive institution. There is interdependence between the whole and the
part, which means that we cannot talk of universal without the particular. To portray this
reality, Aristotle asserted that
“in the first place there must be a union of

those who cannot exist without each other
namely; male and female, that the race may
continue (and this is a union which is formed,
not of deliberate purpose, but because, in
common with other animas and with plants,
Mankind have a natural desire to leave
behind them an image of themselves), and of
natural ruler and subject, that both may be
preserved”6.
Following the above citation one may understand that no one can do without the
other person which means that one needs that other person to fulfill his or herself in the
state. The state has the privilege of independence and self-sufficiency. Aristotle asserted
that state can only be realized when there is association of families and households living
with a view to complete an independent existence. This made Aristotle say, “he who by
nature and not by mere accident is without a state is heartless one”7. Consequently, upon
the state one can measure or grade oneself both quantitatively and qualitatively but the
latter has more force that the former. By qualitatively he means such qualities as freedom,
education, wealth, good birth, food, health and religion. If any of these qualities are
lacking, that state is not to be regarded as a state be reckoned among the best. By
quantitatively he was more or less referring to population density and territorial size.
On the contrary, for Aristotle the best form of governance is formed in a kind of
state whose composition is natural. This shows that it is necessary to find master and
slave, ruler and the ruled in the governed state. This issue of nature has made Aristotle
defend the position that nature has made some to be masters and others to be slaves. He
went further to support this argument that by nature every human being is born into a
family and a family is by its very existence natural in its composition. This follows that
when several families live together a village naturally establishes itself, when several
villages are united in a single but complete community large enough to be nearly self-
sufficient the state naturally comes into existence.
The moving fact that brings about the formation of the state stems from the basic
need of life such as defence, exchange and cordial relations. But one thing is certain, what
sustains the life span of state is the spontaneous desire or lust for the attainment of a good
life for all its citizens, which is happiness. Therefore,

“the state is a perfectly natural form of
association as the earlier associations from
which it sprang were natural. This association
is the end of those others and its nature itself
is an end, for whatever is the end product of
the perfecting process of any object, that we
call its nature… Moreover the aim and the
end can only be that, which is best,
perfection; and self sufficiency is both end
and perfection”8
In his Ethics, Aristotle made mention of ‘living together’. He made us understand
that living together is not living like cattle and other animals that graze without knowing
what they are doing. He made us know it involves positively living in consciousness of
each other’s interest. Moreover, Aristotle did good service to political thought by insisting
that the state does not exist merely by convention but is rooted in human nature. The state
is not an artificial restriction of liberty but a means of gaining it. A. E. Taylor supports
Aristotle as follows: Hence Aristotle definitely rejects the view that the state or society is a
mere creature of convention or agreement, an institution made by compact between
individuals for certain special end, not growing naturally out of the universal demands and
aspirations of humanity.9
In addition to that, the state has the function, which aims at the good, and the
function of all the means of the state or the individual members of the state. Finally, the
end for which the state exists is not merely its own self-perfection. Aristotle assigns a
higher value to the life of the student than to the life of practical affairs, since it is only in
the civilized state that the student can pursue his vocation. The ultimate reason for which
the state exists is to educate its citizens in a way that it can be filled with the noble use of
leisure.
4.2 FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
In this sub section, we are going to look into the various forms of government
according to Aristotle, which implies we need to consider how many forms they are, what
they are and what are the true forms of government and what are the differences between
them. These governments may be in the hand of the one or few or many. The true forms
according to Aristotle therefore, are “those in which the one, or the few, or the many,
govern with a view to the common interest”10. However, “the corrupt forms of government
are the governments which rule with a view to the private interest of the ruler, whether of
the one, or of the few or of the many are perversion”11.
These forms of government can be divided into three good states, which include
the following kingship, aristocracy and polity, which can degenerate into tyranny,
oligarchy and democracy. When one ruler rules with the view to the common interest we
regard this form of government as kingship or monarchy. When more than one but not
many rule with the view to the common interest we call it aristocracy and it is so because
the have the interest of the state and citizen at heart.
More so, when one particular outstanding leader rules and he is not interested in
nation’s welfare that form of government ceases to be kingship but tyranny. When few
leaders rule not with the interest of the nation’s welfare it ceases to be aristocracy but
oligarchy. In a polity, there is a constitutional government run by a considerable number
of qualified people who rule with the interest of the nation’s welfare, it can degenerate into
democracy only if the multitude of the ruling personnel ignore the good of the state and its
citizens and exploit power for their own advantage. In democracy, the corrupt form of the
polity makes policy for the state for personal gains rather that the good of the state.
However, having explained what they are, it will be better to look critically at the nature of
the different forms of government;
(Kingship or monarchy) according to Aristotle, is defined “as rule by a virtuous
man”12 which implies that one particular outstanding leader rules with the interest of the
nation at heart.
Aristocracy: This form of government is usually regarded as the rule of the best, few
virtuous individuals. In practice, this usually means rule of the well born, those of the
noble family. This form of government is called so either because the rulers are best men
or because they have at heart, the best interest of the state and of the citizen. It is also
where the rich rule over the poor.
Polity: In modern English, polity is not a common word but when it is used as a form of
government, thus one might or may speak of it as government of the considerable,
qualified middle class. Polity is a dual mixture of the rich and poor, the majority and the
minority sections of the state body. It is a government, which is a well-made combination
of oligarchy and, democracy, but it is neither of the two. If we take virtue as the mean
between extremes (in this case between poverty and riches) we can rightly say that polity,
which is the midway between democracy and oligarchy, is the best for general use. Polity
is fitting for general use because it satisfies both the rich and the poor by being neither of
these even though it bears some aspects of both.
If this be the case then polity which is a mixture of the rich and the poor is the best
for general use. Apart from this it is not easy for one man (king) who excels above all
others or the few virtuous ones (aristocrats) who are the constituent of the polis in all
places. So polity, which combines the rich and the poor, has a general possibility to exist
or be established than kingship and aristocracy.
The peculiar characteristic of polity then is that in distributing office duties, it takes
cognizance of both wealth and free status and therefore has a strong middle class to whom
it entrusts its power. Having seen the different forms of the good government, it will be
good to list and discuss the different forms of corrupt governments. These corrupt forms of
government are as follows: Tyranny, Oligarchy and Democracy.
Tyranny: This is the corrupt form of kingship, which is the kind of government in which
the ruler has only the interest of the monarch or himself in mind rather than that of the
citizens. It is the government of one corrupt rule in a state.
Following the above definition of various forms of corrupt government, one may
understand that whether in oligarchy or in democracy the number of the governing body is
accidental due to the fact that the rich everywhere are few and the poor numerous. The real
difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth.
4.3 THE BEST STATE
The best states according to Aristotle are those states, which should be ruled by the
best men. The best state for Aristotle is relative. It is the best all around for general use
because it extends citizenship to include a fairly large number rather than limiting itself to
men of virtues, intelligence and property. If polity consists of a strong middle class it
follows that in all activities and structures or institutions of the state, the mean or
moderations will act as a check and balance preventing any of the extremes from being
dominant. For this reason Aristotle writes:

Great then is the good fortune of a state in
which the citizens have a moderate and
sufficient property… The mean condition of
state is clearly best for no other is free from
factions and dissentions. For a similar reason
large states are less liable to faction than
small ones because in them the middle class
is large whereas, in small states it is easy to
divide all the citizen into two classes who are
either rich or poor and leaving nothing in the
middle.13
There are some factors that constitute the best state and they are as follows:
i. The rule of law – Law is good because it has a stabilizing function, it guides
against the whims and caprices of the rulers
ii. Large middle class – The state should be composed of neither too rich nor too
poor. The above will make it possible for the state to get out of the problems of
tyranny or mob rule. This should be the foundation of the best state
iii. The best state is the middle course between oligarchy and democracy. The golden
mean is the average of the both. The aim is to get stability.
Of course where there is no stability, the poor and the rich quarrel with each other
whichever side gets the better, regards political supremacy as the price of victory. If any
state should concentrate on either oligarchy or democracy, the state will eventually lead to
stable equilibrium. The position led Aristotle to opine that it has become a habit among
the citizens of the state even to care for equality. Instead, all men are seeking domination
but if conquered, submit willingly. Polity unlike other constitutions that are tarnished with
master-slave characteristics has its aim, the provision of life worth living and not merely a
life based on investment.

Moreover, citizenship in the best state is not merely a share in ruling and being
ruled but one who is able and chooses to rule and be ruled with a view to a life that is in
accordance with goodness. Polity is therefore, the best constitution to be used in the best
state. Aristotle made the assertion that polity is the best constitution, to be used in the best
state because polity is the fusion or mixture of oligarchy and democracy. For stable
equilibrium can only be reached through a sort of reconciliation between oligarchy and
democracy. In the best state there should be no cause for revolution since there is no
nobler state beyond and above the best state. So the issue of revolution in the best state is
unthinkable. However, having seen that the best state lies in the middle class Aristotle
applied the principle of moderation in all things to the problem of evaluating any state. He
concluded that the good state is one in which the middle class constitute a majority. For a
nation with an excess of lower class poverty-stricken individuals will tax the state unduly,
becoming a serous handicap, while an excess of the upper classes will have more interest
in personal wealth and this will also create national imbalance. A middle-class majority
together with middle class rule is the healthiest condition for a nation.
4.4 AIMS OF THE STATE:
It is only in the state that every individual finds his self-fulfillment and develops a
wholesome life. This wholesome life can only be attained when there is common interest
of all the individual members of the state, which Aristotle supported by asserting that:
Men even when they do not require one another’s help, desire to live together, not but that
they are also brought together by their common interest insofar as they each attain to any
measure of well being14.
Following the above statement, one may say since the state deals with common
interest, it is a moral idea, in which its aim is ethical and it builds character. More so, this
ethics which builds up character can be an end in itself only if man can achieve his moral
goals. This moral goal is the life of leisure in which man’s highest good can be realized in
a life, which can be devoted to cultural pursuits, religious art, political or best of all
philosophy. In addition to that, in Aristotelian theory of state, upper class was only made
for the citizens while the slave and peasants, being poor, would be compelled to work and
it is only this upper class that can devote themselves to leisure, activities of politics,
science and philosophy. They alone would have an opportunity to achieve the good life,
happiness, the by-product of moral excellence.
Finally, following the above argument, one may understand that the aim of the
state is the good life of all the citizens, which may lead to happiness, which has moral
excellence as its background.
4.5 CONCEPT OF SLAVERY
Aristotle started his discussion on slavery by defining slave as “an instrument not of
production but of action not for making some particular article but to aid in the general
conduct of life”15. From the above definition one may ask whether slave is natural or
conventional. But Aristotle asserted that the former is more of the case. So Aristotle’s
concept of slavery holds that some people are natural slaves and others natural masters.
Analogically, Aristotle asserted that:
There is such a difference as that between

soul and body or between man and animal (as
in the case of those whose business is to use
their body and who can do nothing better),
the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is
better for them as for all inferiors that they
should under the rule of a master.16
From the above view, it is seen that both slaves and master are natural to society
just as body and soul, or animal and man relationship, which are all natural. Another
question is whether there are any persons who intent to play this part of slave by nature?
Aristotle answered the question by pointing out that the antithesis of the superior and
inferior is found everywhere in nature between soul and body between intellect and
appetite, between man and animal. Male and female and that where such a difference
between the two exists, it is to the advantage of both that one should rule the other. More
so, Aristotle went further to justify slavery on the part of its account of the origin and
development of association of household. Slavery forms one part of the household that is,
the first stage in the progress of forming association. But, is slavery “just”? with regard to
this he finds himself faced by two views, one which holds that the rule over slaves are
identical in kind with political rule, being an instance of the normal rule of superiors over
inferiors, and another view, which holds that nature recognizes no distinction between
master and slaves, that slavery rests on an unnatural convention and is therefore just.
Moreover, during Aristotle’s time virtually every ancient culture has some forms
of the institution of slavery. Their slaves were usually of two kinds, either they had at one
point been defeated in war (and the fact that they had been defeated meant that they were
inferior and meant to serve) or they were the children of slaves in which case inferiority
was clear form their inferior parentage. Aristotle himself said something of the sort of war
that involves hunting, by remarking thus:
And so, in one point of view, the art is natural

art of acquisition, for the act of acquisition
includes hunting, an art which we ought to
practice against wild beast, and against men
who, though intended by nature to be governed,
will not submit, for war of such a kind is
naturally just. 17
Following the above quotation we can understand that even war is natural and that
nature had made some to be slaves through war. However, the question is who should be
slave by nature? Aristotle did not take upon himself the responsibility of stating that
people are determined by their race, colour or their own making to become slaves. It does
not mean that nature has set out one particular group of people from the rest to be slave or
master. So there is a possibility of having slaves in every particular group of people we
might come across.
He asserted that those who are slaves by nature do not have the full ability to
reason (obviously they are not completely helpless or unable to reason, in the case of slave
captured in war). He supported it by stating that, “the slave is not a mere body but he has
that subordinate kind of reason which enables him not merely to obey a command but to
follow an argument.”18
In addition to that, this is no intention on Aristotle’s part to bring men who are
different in their qualities of reason and emotion under a form of domination. The
description of the slave in terms of the soul-body paradigm places a slave more in the
vicinity of lower animals and illustrates the way he is being used, the relationship of
reason to emotion is the basis for placing the slave in his relation to fellow human being,
showing how a master can deal with him. Furthermore, the economy of the Greek City
state rested on slavery to carry out the productive labour, without slaves, there could be no
leisure for men to engage in intellectual activities. The greatness of Athenian states,
architecture, sculpture and philosophy could not have been achieved without the
institution of slavery.
Finally, one of the themes running through Aristotle’s thought that most people
would reject today is the idea that a life of labour is demeaning and degrading, so that
those who must work for a living are also able to be as virtuous as those who do not have
to do such work. Indeed Aristotle says that when master can do so he avoids labour even
to the extent of avoiding the oversight of those who must engage in it.
4.6 THE CITIZEN
From the time of Plato to our modern time different political philosophers have
different notions about the concept ‘citizen’. Aristotle’s conception of a citizen is widely
different from the modern concept because for him there are some qualities, which a
citizen must possess before acquiring citizenship. We may say that a citizen is not a citizen
because he lives in a certain place, which makes Aristotle remark, that:
He who is a citizen in a democracy will often

not be a citizen in an oligarchy. Leaving out of
consideration those who have been made
citizen, or who have obtained the name of
citizen in any other accidental manner, we may
say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because
he lives in a certain place, for resident alien and
slaves share in the place, nor is he a citizen who
has no legal right except that of suing and being
sued, for this right may enjoyed under the
provisions of a treaty. 19
From the above quotation, one may understand that being in residence in a
particular place for Aristotle does not merit an individual to be a citizen. Example; for
Americans today, citizenship is a legal question, and anyone born in the United State or
born to American citizen abroad is automatically a citizen. For Aristotle, there is more to
citizenship that living in a particular place or sharing in economic activity or being ruled
under the same law. Instead, citizenship for Aristotle is a kind of activity, which implies
that the citizen, involves in judicial functions and political offices.

More so, Aristotle defined citizenship as follows: “He who has the power to take
part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of
that state, and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizen sufficing for the purpose of
life.”20 Following the above quotation by Aristotle, a citizen can be said to be a person
who participates in judicial functions and political office. The affairs of the state are run
directly by its citizens. Each citizen will be a member of the assembly or deliberative body
of the nation; he will be eligible for the various offices of the state.
More so, one of the highest privileges a citizen has is the ability to hold offices and
administrative positions. Every citizen should actually take turns of ruling and being ruled,
and not merely being a member of the executive, but of making law for the state.
Furthermore, Aristotle excluded the working class and children from citizenship because
life of a mechanic is incompatible with the practice of virtue. The mechanic might not
have time to sit in the sovereign assembly. He supported this assertion with the following:
And we do not for as moment accept the

notion that we must give the name citizen to
all persons whose presence is necessary for
the existence of the state. Children are as
necessary as grown men but as we have
already remarked, they can be called citizen
only in a qualified senese.21
Notwithstanding, from the above qualification of a citizen we saw that for someone
to be a citizen he must have some legal status including a right to sue and be sued. When
one is sued, Aristotle is of the view that the culprit should be given a legal trial. From the
above statement one may infer the reason for Aristotle not to include children and workers
in the numbers of citizens. It is because children are not of age to sue and be sued. He
went further to upgrade the citizen as one who rules and is ruled in turn, he said that this is
precisely what justice is, that one does not usurp what is beyond ones’ due.
4.7 CONSTITUTION
The word constitution has been viewed by different political philosophers and
scholars from their different perspectives. Generally speaking constitution means a
decision concerning the organization or government and citizen in terms, which implies
how a state should be governed and how the citizens should conduct themselves, their
obligation, right and liberty. K. pretvitt and S. Verba in the book The substance of Citizen
State defined the constitution as:
The fundamental law written or unwritten that

set up the government of a nation, state or any
other organized group of people specified the
duty and powers of the various government
agencies and describes in data the relationship
between the citizen and their government.22
From the above quotation one may understand that the constitution is the middle
term between the citizen and the government. However, in the same book as above Austin
Ranney defined constitution as “the whole body of fundamental values, written or
unwritten legal and extra-legal according to which a particular government operates,”23
which means that constitution is not only a written document or article but it can be oral
because there are some rules of a state that are not written in the document.
More so, following the above quotation one may see constitution as an
autobiography of a nation, and it is the basic law of a given community that incorporates
the basic legal rules and conception of the community, any member of the community who
refuses to follow the constitution will experience the wrath of the law.
Following the above contention on the definition of constitution Aristotle defined
constitution “as the arrangement of magistracies in a state and especially of the highest
offices.”24 He went further to define it as the arrangement of the inhabitants of a state it

follows that the nature of constitution depends on the seat of authority. He sees the rules as
the efficient cause and asserted that the existence of a city-state requires an efficient cause.
It implies that this ruling principle is defined by constitution, which set criteria for political
offices, particularly the sovereign offices. He opines that once the constitution is in place
the politician needs to take the appropriate measure to maintain it, to introduce reforms
when he finds them necessary and to prevent the form of development, which might
subvert the existing political system. Aristotle, having classified the constitution into the
three good ones and three corrupt ones. The good constitutions are those which aim at the
common advantage of the state, whereas, those constitutions which aim only at the interest
of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve despotic rule which is
inappropriate for a community of free persons.
Finally, following the above expressions on the good constitution and deviant
constitution Aristotle opines that the purpose of every constitution is to help its citizen live
the “good life” which requires the ruler and the ruled in turn. However, Aristotle makes it
clear that the “good life” cannot be enjoyed by all the inhabitants of a political state
4.8 ELEMENTS OF A CONSTITTION
According to Aristotle a constitution have three elements which are the pre
requisites, which a good leader has to regard as what is expedient for each constitution.
When these elements are well ordered they enhance immensely the orderliness of the
constitution. These elements are the deliberative arm of the government, which is the
supreme element in the state. This arm deals with public affairs matters concerning war
and peace. It is rested with the power of electing the magistrates and to audit their account.
Apart from that, there are the magistracies that deal with jobs allocated to them by
deliberative arm. They deal strictly with what is assigned to them. The third arm is
judiciary, which is solely concerned with judicial issues. In essence, this arm is vested
with judicial powers to enforce the laws of the state. Aristotle X-rayed the various ways
the deliberative aspects can operate. Despite the above, people with moderate qualification
can do the deliberation and they in effect observe the stipulations of the constitution
without altering the constitution.
If people with the required qualifications, share in the government this type of
oligarchy is inclined toward polity. Nevertheless when the whole people deliberate on
issues concerning peace and war, but the magistrates regulate everything and they are
elected by vote, this type of government is Aristocracy. All the aforementioned are the
various forms of the deliberative arm of government, which Aristotle talked about so
elaborately.
Following the above argument, Aristotle seeks to balance the tension embedded in
the various forms of government. With this in mind he admonishes the people to be
deliberating issue in tremendous unison. He contends that the pattern of the oligarchies
and democracy be emulated to aid them strike the balance. Both parties should harmonize
their differences to aid their progress.
In addition to that, Aristotle’s description of constitution on the bad is what is
obtainable in our country Nigeria. There is always tension between the three arms of
government. In recent times there was a case in our country where the petroleum minister
was accused of embezzling 20 billion naira and she was called by the legislative house, to
answer for it, but she never showed up. Instead, she got a court order that restrained her
from the summon. One may wonder if she is above the law, or whether the rule of law is
no longer prevalent. It is until all these elements of constitution are harmonized well each
state will continue to drift apart.
4.9 FREEDOM IN ARISTOTLE
The word freedom has obviously been thought-provoking in philosophy. It has
received a range of discussion cutting across all the epochs in the history of philosophy,
the ancient, medieval, modern and even contemporary eras. This word “freedom” has
various meanings among philosophers; its various meanings are centered on three themes
which are as follows:
Firstly, “The possibility of the subject to act as he will to satisfy his tendencies,
aspiration (freedom of action) as opposed to constraint servitude.”25 One may infer that
this meaning of freedom is applicable to Aristotle’s concept of freedom as applied to the
relation of master and slave, in which the slave is not free to act, as he wants.
Secondly, it “is the power of self-determination without any necessitation in
willing, it is only from pressure of a nature slightly distinct from the ego.”26
Thirdly, it “is the fulfillment of reasoning subject by the internal determination of
reason, of superior motivation over feeling and over inferior motivation.”27
Having seen the three main themes which freedom centered on, one may
understand that the first and third themes are more applicable to Aristotle’s assertion that
slaves are slaves because of superiority of reason of the master over the inferiority of
reason of the slave which he supported by stating that “the slave is not a mere body but
has that subordinate kind of reason which enables him not merely to obey a command but
to follow in argument.”28 It is because of the above position that Aristotle links freedom to
virtue. Aristotle’s notion of freedom in a way deals with the issue of virtue because if
somebody has no virtue that particular person is not free. The rulers rule over the subject
because they have moral virtue than that of the subject, moral virtue belongs to everybody
and virtue consists in the good disposition of the soul. If the citizen has no good
disposition, that particular citizen is not free.
He went further to tell us that the virtue of a child and slaves are not perfect and
that is the reason why they are not free. He supported the above statement with the
following quotation: “The child is imperfect, and therefore obviously his virtue is not
relative to himself alone, but to the perfect man and to his teacher, and in like manner the
virtue of the slave is relative to a master.”29
Following the above position one can understand why Aristotle likened the term
“freedom to virtue”. It is because if one’s virtue is imperfect or not complete how can such
an individual be allowed to be free in the state?
Moreover, Aristotle went further to divide choice into voluntary and involuntary
choice. Voluntary choices are those choices, which one is responsible for one’s free action
or can be held accountable for an act. While actions which the agents are not praised or
blamed are called involuntary actions and of these actions Aristotle comments, “those
things are thought involuntary which take place under compulsion of which the moving
principle is outside being a principle which nothing is contributed by the person who acts
or rather is acted upon.”30
In other words, Aristotle’s concept of freedom can be deduced from the different
forms of governments. According to Aristotle, we have three good forms of government
and three corrupt forms of governments. The good ones are as follows: Kingship,
Aristocracy, and Polity and the corrupt forms of government are as follows: Tyranny,
Oligarchy, and Democracy. Kinship government: Is the kind of government in which
only one virtuous ruler rules over the whole members of the state with the view to the
common interest of all the citizens. One may see that it is only the king that is free to do
whatever he wishes. Freedom is restricted. It is not for every citizen.
Aristocracy: This is the kind of government in which a few virtuous men rule. It is only
the virtuous men that are free. Those who are not virtuous are not free in this kind of
government. It follows also that freedom is the few virtuous men.
Tyranny: Is the government of one vicious ruler who rules not for the interest of the state
but for himself. He rules by force. It implies that he is the only person that has freedom to
do whatever he wants.
Democratic Government: This is the government of the majority its characteristic is
freedom of the majority of the poor citizen. Freedom in the democratic government
implies that every body is free to act the way he likes which made Aristotle to opine that
freedom is the end of every democracy, one principle of freedom is for all to rule and be
ruled in turn in the society. Which implies that every citizen is free to rule and be ruled in
turn in the state. It follows that the majority of the poor citizens are free more than the few
rich citizens in the state.
More so, having x-rayed the various forms of government, one may understand
that freedom for Aristotle has degrees depending on the form of government that is
applicable for the individual.

END NOTES
1. Aristotle, Politics, trans. H. Rackham, M.A., Cambridge: University of

Cambridge Press, 1951, p.69.
2. Mekon Richard (Ed), The Basic Works of Aristotle, New York: Random House
Press, 1941, p. 1127.
3. Mekon Richard, The Basic Works of Aristotle, p. 1129
4. Jonathan Barnes: The Complete Works of Aristotle, Review Oxford Translation,

Vol. 2, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984, pp. 1987-1988.
5. Mekon Richard, The Basic Works of Aristotle, p. 1128-1129.
6. Mekon Richard, The Basic Works of Aristotle, 1127-1128
7. Mekon Richard, The Basic Works of Aristotle, p. 1129
8. T.A. Sinclair, trans. Aristotle the Politics, New York: Chaucer Press, 1961 1967, p.
27-28.
9. A.E. A.E. Taylor: Aristotle, U.S.A.: Doyer Publication, 1955, p. 100
10. Mekon Richard, The Basic Works of Aristotle, (ed), p. 1185.
11. Mekon Richard (Ed), The Basic Works of Aristotle, (ed), p. 11185.
12. Mekon Richard (Ed), The Basic Works of Aristotle,(ed), P. 1198.
13. Benjamin Jowett, trans. Political, Vol. London: OUP, 1967, 129app. 5-15.
14. Jonathan Barnes: The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1984, p. 2029.
15. Sir David Ross, Aristotle, London: Methuen Press, 1974, P. 240.
16. Richard Mekon, The Basic Works of Aristotle, p. 1132 - 1133.
17. Richard Mekon, The Basic Works of Aristotle, P. 1137

19. Mekon Richard: The Basic Works of Aristotle, P. 1176.
20. Richard Mekon, The Basic Works of Aristotle, p.l 17
21. T.A. Sinclair, trans. Aristotle: The Politics, New York: The Chaucer Press, 1967,
P. 111
22. S. Obaba and P. Achugbe, The Substance of Citizens and the State, Lagos:
Promocoms Pub, 2004, P. 122.
23. S. Obaba and P. Achugbe, The Substance of Citizens and the State, p. 123
24. Richard Mekon, The Basic Work of Aristotle, New York: Random
House, 1941, P. 1184.
25. JDE Finance, New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. V, Washington: The

Catholic University of America, 1967, P. 96.
26. JDE Finance, New Catholic Encyclopedia, P.97.
27. JDE Finance, New Catholic Encyclopedia,?.96.
28. Sir David Ross, Aristotle,, London: Methuen Press, 1974, P. 242.
29. Richard Mekon, The Basic Work of Aristotle, P. 1145

CHAPTER FIVE
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPTION OF
MORALITY AND POLITICS
5.1 A CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTLE’S SOURCE OF MORALITY
In Aristotle’s view, man is by nature amoral1. This implies that morality is
acquired and not inherent as postulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that man is born moral
and Thomas Hobbes averred that man is born immoral. So, if morality is not inherent in
man but acquired via habit in the society then it implies that morality is subjectively-
relative to a given society which undermines the universal dimension of morality. The idea
of good and bad as regulated by man’s inherent conscience is not given a place in
Aristotle’s conception of morality since man is born amoral. Also, Aristotle’s conception
of morality is granting the source of morality to the society which rises from family units,
this implies that, deciding what action(s) are good or bad could pose some problems and if
that is the case, then this tendency could lead to disorderliness in the society that has a
mixture of diverse family units.
5.2 A CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTLE’S NOTION OF HAPPINESS
According to Aristotle, happiness is the highest good which both the state and man
are naturally inclined to achieve. However, he averred that it is only philosophers that can
attain it, as such, limiting the state of happiness to the aristocratic philosophers. My
contention here is that, is happiness truly the highest good? Its’ on record that Jesus Christ
and some Christian martyrs deprived themselves of the Aristotle’s highest end (happiness)
and strived for a higher end which is heavenly inclined (winning souls to God).
Also, happiness is the result of the achievement of what one desires (a good). The
good, as a matter of fact is desired because of the happiness which it gives to the subject.
Therefore there is a distinction between this good and the happiness that its possession
gives. Aristotle did not go beyond the earthly happiness. Rather, his idea of happiness
incorporates only the aspects of human dimensions, which is only rational and reasonable.
J. Maritain did not lose sight of this incompleteness in Aristotle's treatise on happiness,
as a result of this he writes; True as they are (but incomplete) the true principle of
Aristotle's moral philosophy do not penetrate the concrete existential reality of the human
hopes, which go beyond rational and reasonable happiness, incapable of probing the
recesses of his ego and the world of the irrational With its impulses towards dead and
void 2. Maritain even noticed traces of this weakness all through Aristotle's moral
philosophy, hence he remarks; that his moral philosophy lacks effectiveness and
existential bearing because it is a system of means suspended from an end which does
not possess the value of an end practically absolute, or the value of an end practically
constraining3. It should however be noted that these traces of incompleteness are found
in Aristotle's moral philosophy because his conception of man does not admit of
immortality of the soul.
5.3 A CRITIQUE OF THE ARISTOCRATIC STATE
Having seen the differences in the various forms of the state, one may wonder whether or
not some of them have merit or demerit respectively, one may think that the good state is
all about good deeds which deal with the interest of the state. On the contrary, there are
corrupt states in which the rulers are interested in their selfish ends. Aristocratic state: is
the government of the best only, which implies that the citizens are best in virtue
absolutely and not relatively. Following what Aristotle gives as Aristocracy, one may see
that this type of state is not attainable because there is no way everybody in the state can
be virtuous persons or wealthy persons too. If it is the government of the virtuous, there is
tendency that the poor among them may be marginalized and the poor and those that are
not virtuous will not have anything to say in the affairs of the state and this may lead to
revolution.
5.4 A CRITIQUE OF MONARCHY (KINGSHIP)
Monarchy or Kingship: This is a kind of state in which one leader rule in the interest of
the members of the state. In this kind of state the ruler may be a good man or a good
citizen of whom some theocratic state regard as having a divine power or in communion
with the gods. Since the king communes with gods, the state may be moving fine.
However, since the king is one person and the people believe that he has a divine power,
he may try to exercise those powers to the detriment of the subjects, which in turn leads to
tyranny. This was a case that was witnessed in Libya few years ago.
5.5 A CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTLE’S DEMOCRACY
Following Aristotle’s definition of Democracy, one may understand that there is no
law guiding everybody, that is, everybody does whatever he likes in the state because the
poor are more and that the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, just as
experienced in the Nigerian state today. This situation could result in a revolution as
witnessed in Russia same years back.
5.6 A CRITIQUE OF CITIZENSHIP
In Aristotle view, a citizen is one who can rule and be ruled, sue and be used. As
such, he decided to exclude both workers (artisans) and children a citizen of the State. This
development is unhealthy for the socio-political and economic in development of the
State. It’s so because some artisans in the state with wealth of economic experiences
(technocrats) bring their experiences to bear when given political offices to manage, which
help in enhancing the growth and development in the State. Also, for a State to be well
managed, there should be proper record of her citizenry which must include all and
sundry. So, if a head-count (census) of the citizenry of the State is to be conducted and
children are excluded then, there will certainly be a lacuna which will basically distort the
manageability of the State.
5.7 STRENGTHS OF ARISTOTLE’S MORALITY
An area of note in Aristotle’s morality is where he sated that morality or rather our
moral conduct and decision should be guided by reason in relation to a given situation.
This implies that telling a lie to save the lives of people will not be considered to be a bad
thing to do. However, Christians will not buy the fact that telling a lie in any given
situation is morally justified which tend to be a more rigid way of looking at morality. The
truth is that, we are mere mortals as such, limited beings yet we long for a perfect
existence which seems contradictory to me. So Aristotle, been aware of the actual
existential situations of humans tried to objectify morality in a more flexible form. This
could be said to be, the beginning of what is today referred to as situation ethics.
Another area of concern in morality is committing of murder. That is to say, is it
morally right or wrong to commit murder in any given situation? For the Christians the
answer will be that “thou shall not kill” while for Aristotle, killing in self defence will be a
welcome development because, it is only an irrational person that will stand and wait to be
killed by an opponent in a fight.

Equally, it will be correct to say that Aristotle does not uphold the universal
application of morality like his teacher Plato did. That is to say, every country should
adopt their own moral standard in harmony with the prevailing situation. If for example
one tries to impose a particular moral standard that is foreign, on a given country, it could
bring about disorderliness in that country. An example is the issue of gay marriage
prevalent in America and the subsequent attempt to impose it on African nations which
resulted to a state of upheavals.
5.8 STRENGTHS OF ARISTOTLE’S POLITICS
Aristotle in his political theory was able to identify the trait of gregariousness in
humans which naturally influence humans to form society. Also according to Aristotle, the
State aims at the highest good for all and that no one can do without the other person
because of our natural limitations as humans. As such, we need each other to fulfill
ourselves in the State. In trying to establish the significance of the existence of a State,
Aristotle averred that, he who by nature and not mere accident is without a state is
heartless one4. For him, it is in the state one can measure or grade oneself both
quantitatively and qualitatively. He also observed that no man is an island, as such, we all
need each other to survive in a sate. For he who cannot live and associate with his fellow
men is either a beast or a god. Hence, the need for the emergence of the state cannot be
overemphasized.
Equally, as regard the best state, Aristotle upholds aristocracy which comprises of
few virtuous elites in governance of the state. The reality of the world today is that it is
fast growing population, economic and other wise. As such, the practice of popular
democracy as witnessed in ancient Greece becomes obsolete. Also, it should be noted that
not everyone is born to lead. A leader therefore, should be one who is highly experienced
and educated and has a strong rational capacity to decipher morality inherent in the nature
of phenomena to attain the state of eudemonia (happiness) for all in the society. Plato
referred to these class of people as ‘philosopher kings’. Though, today what we have are
‘educatedly-uneducated’ leaders who passed through school but didn’t allow school to
pass through them. Hence, the problem of leadership in the world in general and in Nigeria
in particular. Yes, we need few representatives to lead us but these must be the true
aristocrats that Aristotle upheld.

END NOTE
1. Solomon, Ogaba, (A Lecture note on Philosophical Anthropology Presented to 200
Level Students Bigard memorial Seminary, Enugu, 2012).
2. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, (Trans) W. D. Ross, (New Jessy: Princeton
University Press, 1985). P. 1103.
3. Jacques, Martitain, Moral Philosophy: A Historical and Critical Survey of the
Great system. (New York: Scribner’s Son, 1964), p. 50.
4. Mekon Richard, the Basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House Press.
1941. P. 1429.
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
Like you have already known, happiness has been described by so many
philosophers and scholars as the desirable end of every man’s action. Aristotle would
say that it is the ultimate end of man. It is no doubt that, from the discussion of
happiness so far, it is evidently clear that happiness is the fulfillment or crown of all
human desires. All ethical theories accord some importance to this happiness. I
presume that we have already known what happiness is, so may I quickly contextualize
this concept of happiness to Nigeria situation that is our general view of it. A modern day
Nigerian sees happiness as more or less, a product of material well being. This notion
of happiness is generally contradictory to Aristotelian concept of eudaimonism which he
conceives as the active exercise of the power of the (virtuous) soul in conformity to
reason. It is complete and self-sufficient to be retained. So against this back ground
that he saw it as the mist noblest and most pleasant thing in the world. Further more in the
Book X of his Nicomachean Ethics; Aristotle extols the life of eudaimonia.
Furthermore, politics, culture and religious experience and so on have negatively
influenced our idea of seeking happiness through wealth creation. Happiness for
Aristotle is the activity of the soul in conformity with perfect virtue. Virtue in this context
x-rays a life of simplicity, moderation, justice, a life where human right is respected,
and a life people up holds the truth. Aristotle, in his doctrine of the mean, chooses the
philosophy of moderations. His view is that, happiness will result from moderation in
doing things. He made effort to prove that happiness springs from moderate behavior,
choosing the middle cause between two extreme actions, which are vices for
example; courage between cowardice and rashness. Drawing a leave from Aristotle and
relating it to the present society, before some majority in Nigerian society, happiness is
measured or quantified with the number of cars, money, wealth, and possessions
inclusive, is actually the existential happiness been practiced in our country Nigeria. In the
political realm, ever since the independence of Nigeria from the colonial rule some dacades
ago, our government in this era of democracy is good only to be described as similar to the
dictatorship of the military. There was never a time good democracy was practiced in our
country Nigeria; instead the only system that is applicable in our country is the
Machiavellian pattern of leadership, which stated, that the end justifies the means. The
systems of government were the people in government see others as slaves as a result of
quest for power. How can such a society of anarchy experience happiness in both
individual and collective level?
Equally, anthropologically speaking, man is a dual being. Dual being in the
sense, that he is both a social and a political being. Man is a social being because he is
meant to inhabit with others. Communitariansm, libertarianism, egalitarianism are the
factors governing man as a social being. No man can find happiness in leaving alone in
the society. As a social animal, we find happiness when we relate and integrate with
one another. Living in isolation is thus going contrary to the law of nature. From the
Genesis account of creation, God made them two; man and woman. In our society
today, there are many negative perception of happiness, and because we have
erroneously sought it, (happiness) its true form, will remain a mirage to us.
6.2 RECOMMENDATION
Having closely analyzed Aristotle’s conception of morality and politics, it became
glaring that for there to be a well ordered political society (State) then morality must be in
place. In short, no morality no State. Since humans naturally live together in association
with each other, then there must be a State, and when there is a State the next issue is what
is going to be the best of system of governance for the State? It is in this regard I wish to
make a recommendation, and what I recommend as the best form of system of governance
is what I refer to as “altruistic-monarchy”. Altruistic-monarchy could be defined as a
system of governance that encourages the leadership of one person called the sovereign,
who must be morally upright and selfless in the discharge of duties”. An epitome of such
leadership is Joshua of Israel and Julius Nyerere of Tanzania who never had a house of his
own as a president of his country and Lycurgus of Spartan. Until such leaders come to
power nothing works.
6.3 CONCLUSION
From the foregoing, it is clear that the theory of state of Aristotle has had
significant influence. He was able to propound law, constitutions and rules, which some
modern states still adopt today. In conclusion, this research has attempted to highlight the
meaning, and relevance of Aristotelian concept of morality in the state. According to
Aristotle, for a social organization to be formed it has three stages which included the
family, the village community and the state 1. The state is to provide for its own internal
resource, for all the spiritual as well as material needs of her members in order to attain the
ultimate good. The end for which the state exists is not merely for her own self-
perpetration but for the self-fulfillment of her members, which leads to happiness 2. State
exists to educate her citizens in such a way as shall fit them to make the noble use of
leisure.
Aristotle gave much consideration to the classification of the different types of
constitution possible for the city-state. It is only in an ideal constitution that the education,
which makes its subject a good man in the philosophical sense of the word, will also make
him a good citizen.
Finally, Aristotle believed his political thought and constitution is a necessary tool
for the formation of a state since the state and government is set up by the constitution.
More so, credit must be given to Aristotle because his theory of state had influence on
many of the modern states today because there is no country in the world that is not using
his classification of constitution either the good ones or the corrupt ones. For example,
Nigeria had adopted the democratic system of government, which was organized by
Aristotle as a corrupt form of government.

ENDNOTES
1. Mekon Richard, the Basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House Press.
1941. P. 1184
2. Mekon Richard, the Basic works of Aristotle. P. 1133.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Martin Ostwald, U.S.A.: Macmillan

Publishing company, 19 62.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. W.D.Ross, New York: Oxford University Press,
1941.
Aristotle, The Ethics of Aristotle, trans: J. A.K.Thomson New York: Penguin Books INC,
1976.
Aristotle, The Politics trans. Ernest Baker, London: Oxford University Press.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Ackril J. L. Aristotle's Ethics, London: Faber and Faber, 1973.
Barnes, Jonathan, The Complete Works ofAristotle(ed), Vol.1, Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1991.
Barnes Jonathan, Aristotle, London: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Barnes Jonathan, The Complete Works of Aristotle review Oxford Translation, Vol. 2,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Benjamin Jowett, Politica, trans, vol. X, London: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Lloya G. E., Aristotle:The Growth and Structure of His Thought, London:

Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Sir Ross David, Aristotle, London: Methuen Press, 1974.
Richard Mckeon , The Basic Works of Aristotle, fed., New York: Random House, 1941.
OTHER SOURCES
Achugbe P. and Obaba S., The Substance of Citizens and the State, Lagos : Promocomms,
2004. Aquinas Thomas, St. Thomas Aquinas' Philosophical Texts, London:
Oxford University Press, 1951.
Bentham, J. A, Fragment of Government in An Introduction to the Principles of

Moral and Legalisation. Oxford: Black Well Pub, 1948.
Blackstone, W.T., Political Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Thomas Y.

Cronell Company, 1973.
Brugger et al, Philosophical Dictionary, U.S.A.: University Press, 1972.
Burke E: Speech of the Representation of Common in Parliament, 1732, in Selected

Writing and Speeches, P. J. Stanlised, New York: Anchor Books, 1963.
Cicero, On The Commonwealth, Trans. G.H. Sabine and S.B. Smith, Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1974.
Chukwujekwu, Stephen, A Basic Course On Ethics-A Study Of Ethical Values

,Nimo: Rex Charles and Patrick Ltd, 2007.
Dunning W.A., A History of Political Theories: Ancient and Medieval, New York:
Macmilliam Company, 1927.
Edwards, P., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3 & 4. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., 1962.
Emmanuel Ome and William Amam, Philosophy and Logic for Everybody, Enugu:
University of Nigeria Enugu Campus, 2004.
Fagothey, A. Right and Reason, Ethics in Theory and Practice., Miton A. Gonzalves(ed),
ninth edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Fredrick Copeleston, A History of Philosophy,vol.1, New York : Image Books, 1960.
Gatti,T., Temi di morale fondamentale.Leumann, Elle Di Ci, 1988.

Hobbes T., Leviathan, Nelle (ed), Fuller, in Great Books of the Western World, vol.21.
IDE Finance, New Catholic Encylopedia Vol. V., The Catholic University of America,
Washington, 1967.
Kandankavil, Ethical World, Bangalore : Dharmara Publications, 1995.
Laski Harold J., Grammer of Politics, Delhi-India: Surjeet Publications, 2008.
Lawhead William F., The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to

Philosophy, Missisippi: University of Missisippi, 2003.
Machiavelli N., The Prince Trans. George Bull, England: Penguine Books, 1999.
Machiavelli N., The Discourses, trans. Marx lerner, New York: Random House, 1940.
Madu Chinonso, FASHOLA: The True Meaning of Good Governance, Italy: Scribbles Books,
2011.
Mbukanma Jude, Moral Failure ,Ibadan: Newborne Enterprise, 1994.
Macintyre, A Short History of Ethics, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996.
Mill J.S., Utilitarianism Liberty and Representation Government, New York: Every
Man's Library, Dutton, 1950.
Neil T.P, Makers of the Modern Mind, 'Milwaukee: The Bruce Publication Company,
1949.
Njoku Francis O.C., Philosophy in Politics , Law & Democracy, Owerri: Claretain
Communications, 2002.
Oguejiofor J. Obi,ed Philosophy Democracy and Responsible Governance in Africa,

Enugu: Delta Publications, 2004.
Okere Theophilus, Philosophy Culture & Society in Africa, Nsukka : Afro-Orbis Pub Ltd,
2005.
Omoregbe, Joseph, Ethics-A Systematic and Historical Study, Lagos: Jojo Educational
Research and Publishers Ltd, 1993.
Onwubiko O.A, Facing the Osu Issue in the Africa Synod, Enugu: Snap Press Ltd, 1993.
Plato, The Republic, Trans. A. D. Lindsay, London: J.M.Dent and Sons Limited, 1950.
Rawls John, A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rackham H., Aristotle in Twenty-three Volumes XXI Politics Trans, London: Oxford
University Press, 1977.
Sahakiam, W.S., Ideas of the Great Philosophers, New York: Haper & Row Publishers,
1976.
Sibine G.H, A History of Political Theory, 3rd ed. London: G. Harrap and Co. Ltd, 1937.
Sinclair T.A., Aristotle, the Politics, trans. New York: Chaucer Press, 1967.
St. Augustine, City of God, Trans. H. Bottenson, New York: Penguin Books, 1977.
Stumpf,Samuel Enoch, Philosophy:History and Problems,New York:Mc Graw-Hill
Inc.1994.
Taylor, A.Y., Aristotle, New York: Dover Publication, 1955.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, M. Oakeshott ed, Oxford: Black Well, 1946.
Thomas, J.A.K. The Ethics of Aristotle Trans, London: Hazel Watson Awviney Ltd, 1974.
Department Of Philosophy,
Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
21/04/ 2015.
The Head
Department of Philosophy
Through
My Supervisor
Dr Anthony Areji
Dear Sir,
Application for External Reading.
I, NWOLU KELECHI MATHILDA of PG/MA 10/52766, do humbly seek your permission, to present
my project work to the department for external reading. I do humbly hope that my request will
be granted as this is one of the requirements for the award of a Master of Art. Thanks in
anticipation for your co-operation.
Thanks
Yours Faithfully
Nwolu Kelechi M.

Nwolu, Kelechi Mathilda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nwolu, Kelechi Mathilda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nwolu, Kelechi Mathilda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPT OF MORALITY AND

POLITICS IN ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY.

NWOLU, KELECHI MATHILDA

SUPERVISOR: DR. AREJI, ANTHONY C.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPT OF MORALITY AND POLITICS IN

SUPERVISOR INTERNAL EXAMINER

PROF. I.A. MADU

DEAN FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

of Philosophy, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, with the

Registration Number PG/MA/10/52766, has satisfactorily completed the requirements

full for any other degree of this other university.

NWOLU KELECHI M. DR. AREJI, ANTHONY C.

wonderful kids, Kosi, Kaima and Kamsi Uchenna.

My profound gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr Areji Anthony, for his directions,

Mrs C.M. Nwolu, my brothers and sisters.

Some of my academic colleagues devotedly rendered immense help throughout the

course of this research by helping me to avoid errors of construction, presentation

Mama Ogochukwu, and Miss Valerie Enewally.

Nwolu, Kelechi Mathilda.

Certification page iii

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

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

CHAPTER THREE: AN EXPOSITION OF ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF

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

3.3.4 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

CHAPTER FOUR: AN EXPOSITION OF ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPTION

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

4.8 Elements of a Constitution 75

4.9 Freedom in Aristotle 77

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

5.6 A Critique of Citizenship 84

5.7 Strengths of Aristotle’s Morality 85

5.8 Strengths of Aristotle’s Politics 86

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