That awkward moment when Aristotle isn't the objectivist that you always thought he was...
The idea that Aristotle may have been willing to accept different culturally normative explanations of virtues as acceptable, introduced two classes ago and further explored last class, raises some unexplored questions in my mind regarding virtue, vice and human flourishing. Currently, the most pressing of these questions is, "What happens when different cultures have irreconcilable conflicts of opinion on what constitutes virtuous living?"
Some of the most apparent conflicts occur in conceptions of justice and courage across cultures. Take feudal Japan and Viking age Scandinavia for instance:
Bushido, the Samurai code of conduct, demands absolute loyalty to superiors and strict adherence to an honor code regardless of the situation. Imagine a scenario in which a samurai's master was murdered by a large group of bandits. The samurai's duty to protect his master at all costs, and to immediately act to avenge his death in the event of failure, would dictate that the single, impossibly outnumbered warrior should attack the bandits responsible for his master's demise, regardless of the dismal likelihood of success or the unlikely chance for survival.
Vikings, on the other hand, value individualism and glory. This means that, faced with a similar situation as above, where a friend, chieftain, or kinsman was killed unjustly, it would be perfectly permissible for the warrior to beat a retreat, and then swear a blood feud against those responsible that could last for years or even generations.
The distinction between the two is significant... right? The first says that courage and justice are entirely dependent on motivation and the process preceding the choice to act, while the second is almost entirely concerned with results, regardless of method. If Aristotle is truly a cultural relativist when it comes to the definitions of the virtues, he would argue that this distinction has no bearing on an understanding of human flourishing. This argument holds logical water when you consider Aristotle's assertion that Eudaimonia is the goal at which virtue aims, and that virtue is not an end to itself. As a result, we can expect the action demanded by virtue to shift relative to the context of the situation. For example, the courageous thing for a person to do if they came across a mugging in progress would be different if that person were Bruce Lee than if that person were a paraplegic. If we expand "context" to include the cultural setting in which the scenario exists, then such conflicts as mentioned above are not necessarily counterexamples to Aristotle's understanding of virtue.
This is just the sort of comparison that will hellp make your paper really excellent.
ReplyDelete