Thank you for these essays. I love the original and thoughtful analysis. You make it sound easy. You must have chewed these books to a pulp. I have been reading and reading Nicomachean Ethics for the past 15 years...on and off. I struggle a great deal to hold it all together at once in light of the harmony of truth. The nuggets I get, I use to help me resolve difficult problems at work and make life decisions. It contains useful guidance.
"...with what is true all things which are are in harmony but with that which is false the true very soon jars." Book 1 Ch 6.
There are many situations, including most commercial transactions, that can be settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. But you can't negotiate with a party that doesn't act in his self-interest, only take advantage. Self-interest is the invisible hand. Smith didn't think it was virtuous, just necessary
Great article. I am writing about life as an ultimate value at the moment and this is super helpful for my understanding. Aristotle has it right! For the literary epitome of where Thrasymachus’s idea of self leads read Part 3, Chapter IV of Atlas Shrugged.
Selfishness properly understood is conceptual selfishness. What is selfish is not obvious, it has to be discovered. It's like the spiral theory of knowledge applied to morality, what is selfish changes and grows as you learn more and discover more about life, the world you live in and the people around you.
While there's much to respect in those works, I don't think it quite answers the problem. So long as the specific goal measured against is merely some version of personal happiness (a goal which is itself inherently selfish), it's not really a dichotomy between selfishness and selflessness as differing ends, so much as merely selfishness without self-control (immediate gratification) versus selfishness with self-control (long term gratification) as differing means towards the same end of selfish self-interest. This is a Fallacy twice over: It's effectively begging the question; answering HOW to best be selfish, not WHETHER it is MORALLY best to be selfish or selfless, and a Fallacy of Equivocation by conflating selflessness as a pragmatic means versus selflessness as a moral end.
It is trivially easy to make the argument that to have self control is better than to lack self control, regardless of the goal towards which one directs it. That, in itself, reflects nothing about the moral worthiness of the goal.
By the interpretation given here neither book are actually making moral arguments any moreso than a "How to get Rich in 10 Easy Steps" book is. If the only questionb ultimately answered is "What does it profit a man?" they are the same: concerned solely with profit and the means of obtaining more of it. That is not at all the same as addressing the question of whether the pursuit of profit (or happiness) is morally better than any or all other goals.
Better for who? The question begins and ends with you, the person asking. Implicitly self centered. Why is it even an important question to ask? What will happen if you don't answer it? What will happen to YOU if you don't answer it?
Nonsense. That's circular reasoning. The question neither necessarily begins nor ends with you. It is NOT implicitly self-centered. To even ask "Better for who?" rather than simply say "better for me" necessarily implies both that there are multiple possible valid answers regarding "who" and that the implied answer is NOT you.
You have a very odd perspective. If I ask "Which is greater, 1 or 2?" the question most certainly does NOT "begin and end with me, the person asking". The 2 is greater than the 1 no matter who you are, what situation you are in, or what need you have for the information. Likewise, questions about "which option is better morally?" are by default assumed to be asking about absolutes because moral principles themselves are generally absolutes. The "for whom" is by default "for anyone and everyone".
AFTER one has reasoned to the correct answer one may apply that answer to their own self and situation as a specific application of the universal principle, but the reasoning to get to that correct answer does NOT require any self-reference regarding why you want to know and "What would happen if..." outcome hypotheticals are generally only used in consequentialist branches of moral theory, which is only one of several schools of moral reasoning. Consequentialism may be used to make a case that self-control is better than lack of self-control, but it can likewise be argued more strongly from Virtue ethics or Deontology, neither of which treat "what if" hypotheticals as at all relevant to the question.
To conflate "which is better?" (AKA more virtuous?) with "which will make me happier?" is a Fallacy of Equivocation.
God! I love this article so much 🔥
Your interpretation of Plato's Republic is the only such interpretation I've seen, but I find it highly plausible.
Thank you for these essays. I love the original and thoughtful analysis. You make it sound easy. You must have chewed these books to a pulp. I have been reading and reading Nicomachean Ethics for the past 15 years...on and off. I struggle a great deal to hold it all together at once in light of the harmony of truth. The nuggets I get, I use to help me resolve difficult problems at work and make life decisions. It contains useful guidance.
"...with what is true all things which are are in harmony but with that which is false the true very soon jars." Book 1 Ch 6.
There are many situations, including most commercial transactions, that can be settled to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. But you can't negotiate with a party that doesn't act in his self-interest, only take advantage. Self-interest is the invisible hand. Smith didn't think it was virtuous, just necessary
You reminded me to get re-acquainted with The Nicomachean Ethics.
Great article. I am writing about life as an ultimate value at the moment and this is super helpful for my understanding. Aristotle has it right! For the literary epitome of where Thrasymachus’s idea of self leads read Part 3, Chapter IV of Atlas Shrugged.
Selfishness properly understood is conceptual selfishness. What is selfish is not obvious, it has to be discovered. It's like the spiral theory of knowledge applied to morality, what is selfish changes and grows as you learn more and discover more about life, the world you live in and the people around you.
While there's much to respect in those works, I don't think it quite answers the problem. So long as the specific goal measured against is merely some version of personal happiness (a goal which is itself inherently selfish), it's not really a dichotomy between selfishness and selflessness as differing ends, so much as merely selfishness without self-control (immediate gratification) versus selfishness with self-control (long term gratification) as differing means towards the same end of selfish self-interest. This is a Fallacy twice over: It's effectively begging the question; answering HOW to best be selfish, not WHETHER it is MORALLY best to be selfish or selfless, and a Fallacy of Equivocation by conflating selflessness as a pragmatic means versus selflessness as a moral end.
It is trivially easy to make the argument that to have self control is better than to lack self control, regardless of the goal towards which one directs it. That, in itself, reflects nothing about the moral worthiness of the goal.
By the interpretation given here neither book are actually making moral arguments any moreso than a "How to get Rich in 10 Easy Steps" book is. If the only questionb ultimately answered is "What does it profit a man?" they are the same: concerned solely with profit and the means of obtaining more of it. That is not at all the same as addressing the question of whether the pursuit of profit (or happiness) is morally better than any or all other goals.
Better for who? The question begins and ends with you, the person asking. Implicitly self centered. Why is it even an important question to ask? What will happen if you don't answer it? What will happen to YOU if you don't answer it?
Nonsense. That's circular reasoning. The question neither necessarily begins nor ends with you. It is NOT implicitly self-centered. To even ask "Better for who?" rather than simply say "better for me" necessarily implies both that there are multiple possible valid answers regarding "who" and that the implied answer is NOT you.
It's implicit in even asking the question, why do you need to know, what would happen if you didn't get the answer? Why would it matter?
You have a very odd perspective. If I ask "Which is greater, 1 or 2?" the question most certainly does NOT "begin and end with me, the person asking". The 2 is greater than the 1 no matter who you are, what situation you are in, or what need you have for the information. Likewise, questions about "which option is better morally?" are by default assumed to be asking about absolutes because moral principles themselves are generally absolutes. The "for whom" is by default "for anyone and everyone".
AFTER one has reasoned to the correct answer one may apply that answer to their own self and situation as a specific application of the universal principle, but the reasoning to get to that correct answer does NOT require any self-reference regarding why you want to know and "What would happen if..." outcome hypotheticals are generally only used in consequentialist branches of moral theory, which is only one of several schools of moral reasoning. Consequentialism may be used to make a case that self-control is better than lack of self-control, but it can likewise be argued more strongly from Virtue ethics or Deontology, neither of which treat "what if" hypotheticals as at all relevant to the question.
To conflate "which is better?" (AKA more virtuous?) with "which will make me happier?" is a Fallacy of Equivocation.