The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. You may have heard of it. My Pingouin edition calls it just "The Ethics of Aristotle". The word "Nicomachus" is merely the name of his father; or perhaps his son; either way it is just a label. To put my prejudices up front: I didn't like it. Unlike
Aristotle's physics it isn't total junk; but it also isn't good, and shares much of the discursive unedited nature of the Physics and I presume all his writings. He is also incorrigibly inclined to divide things up into types and make lists of them, and unable to restrain his pedantry in pursuing the most unimportant and uninteresting quibbles. More than anything else the book needs to be boiled down, perhaps to as little as one fifth of its present word-count.
Leaving all that aside, I shall try to make some sense of it. My main complaint is that it is very "flat" and hard to summarise; try reading
wiki's article, for example. My own reference is
The Foundations of Morality, which provides a correct theory of morality. Big A, I think, doesn't have a correct theory. One problem he has is that the only morality he knows of, or can conceive of as being right, is the Greek one he knows. He does know that the fundamentals underdetermine any given moral code - he is aware of the difference between areas where there are fundamental rules, like though shalt not kill, and mere conventional morality. But he makes little of that.
Quite often, he takes "the good" as semi-assumed, and so his account becomes circular. Towards the end - but alas I cannot be bothered to look up exactly where - he does say that the good is what a good man would want and do. FFS. There is some discussion of, well, effectively whether a "good man" is a thing, or whether a good man is merely a bundle of choices-of-doing-good-things, if you see what I mean. Big A doesn't state it any more clearly, if I recall correctly, though I think is very much on the side of there being "good men". Some of the value is in the discussion around this; effectively,
excellence is a habit, not a virtue. By repeatedly doing good deeds, we form ourselves into the sort of people that do good deeds, for the right reasons, because we want to.
From nowhere, he derives an ultimate good, and this must be what moral actions are aiming for. Since this is wrong, it gets in the way, but I don't think he uses it much, except to muddy his thinking.
There's a long discussion of continence and incontience - the moral sort, obvs, not the affair of bladders - and the old Socratic puzzle of how people can intentionally do what is wrong. Totally missing from this is the economic insight of time-preference: incontinent folk have a strong preference for immeadiate gratification and strongly discount the future.
Big A is keen on moderation. I think at one point he discovers that virtue is a mean: you must neither want too much, or too little. Whilst this is an excellent principle for life, I don't think it fits ethics well.
In the end, he drifts from morality to politics. This could be interesting, but in his hands it isn't. To what extent is the law intended to provide merely a framework for free citizens to live their lives in peace and security - without the state forcing them to also be "good" in the ways that morality extends beyond the law - and to what extend should the state try to enforce what-it-considers-moral on its citizens? Big A touches on these questions, but he doesn't really formulate them clearly or have any answers, other than education.
Russell
Uneasily sensing that I haven't been entirely fair to Big A, I bolster my case with some quotes from
Russell:
The views of Aristotle on ethics represents, in the main, the prevailing opinions of educated and experienced men of his day. They are not, like Plato's, impregnated with mystical religion; nor do they countenance such unorthodox theories as are to be found in the Republic concerning property and the family. Those who neither fall below nor rise above the level of decent, well-behaved citizens will find in the Ethics a systematic account of the principles by which they hold that their conduct should be regulated. Those who demand anything more will be disappointed. The book appeals to the respectable middle-aged, and has been used by them, especially since the seventeenth century, to repress the ardours and enthusiasms of the young. But to a man with any depth of feeling it is likely to be repulsive.
and
There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends. More generally, there is an emotional poverty in the Ethics, which is not found in the earlier philosophers. There is something unduly smug and comfortable about Aristotle's speculations on human affairs; everything that makes men feel a passionate interest in each other seems to be forgotten. Even his account of friendship is tepid. He shows no sign of having had any of those experiences which make it difficult to preserve sanity; all the more profound aspects of the moral life are apparently unknown to him. He leaves out, one may say, the whole sphere of human experience with which religion is concerned. What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgment, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance.
Grok
I asked the well-known philosopher
Grok to "tell me the value of aristotle's nichomachean ethics"; the Answer was:
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics holds immense value both historically and philosophically, impacting ethics, politics, and the study of human behavior across centuries. Here are several key aspects of its value:
Foundation of Virtue Ethics:
Nicomachean Ethics is central to the development of virtue ethics, where morality is not just about rules or outcomes but about developing good character traits or virtues [WMC: notice how muddy this is, when considered carefully. Does this mean that a person of "good character" can do bad things, and yet remain good? If so, that doesn't inspire confidence in "good character". If not, what's the meaning of "good character"?]
Aristotle's discussion on virtues like courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom provides a framework for personal and moral development that remains influential today.
Concept of Eudaimonia (Happiness or Flourishing):
Aristotle introduces the idea of eudaimonia as the highest human good, not merely pleasure or wealth but the full realization of human potential. This has shaped Western thoughts on what constitutes a good life, happiness, and human flourishing.
Doctrine of the Mean:
One of Aristotle's most enduring contributions is the doctrine of the mean, suggesting that virtue lies in finding the right balance between excess and deficiency. This nuanced approach to ethics encourages moderation and context-sensitive decision-making in moral judgments.
Ethical Rationality:
Aristotle emphasizes practical wisdom or phronesis, which integrates moral virtues with intellectual virtues. This approach to ethics as a rational, deliberative process has influenced both ancient and modern ethical theory, promoting the idea that ethical living involves thoughtful decision-making.
Impact on Political Philosophy:
The Nicomachean Ethics sets the stage for Aristotle's Politics, where he discusses how individual ethics translate into good governance and the ideal state. The ethical principles here influence his views on citizenship, justice in society, and the role of law.
Educational Value:
The text is a cornerstone in philosophy education, teaching critical thinking, the examination of life's purpose, and the application of philosophy to daily life. It's often part of curricula in philosophy, classics, and ethics courses.
Historical Influence:
From medieval scholasticism (where Thomas Aquinas, for instance, integrated Aristotelian ethics with Christian theology) to contemporary philosophy, the Nicomachean Ethics has shaped ethical discourse. It has been a point of reference for philosophers like Kant, who, despite his criticisms, engaged deeply with Aristotle's ethical thought.
Cultural and Literary Impact:
Beyond philosophy, Aristotle's ethical considerations have influenced literature, art, and popular culture by providing archetypes of character and explorations of what it means to live a good life.
In summary, the Nicomachean Ethics is invaluable for its foundational role in understanding human virtue, the pursuit of happiness, and ethical living. It remains a living document in philosophy, continuously interpreted and debated, offering insights into how we should live, think, and govern ourselves and our societies.
I consider this a good answer; in that it is a useful summary of conventional wisdom, of approximately the correct length.
Refs
