Aristotle's Ethics (Term Paper Sample)

Student Name
Professor #
Philosophy #
5th March, 2014.
Aristotle’s Ethics
In book seven of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the relationship between incontinence and intemperance. In this book, Aristotle also shows the differences between incontinence and incompetence. Although the object of both the incontinence and intemperance is the same, Aristotle argued that the two are, however, fundamentally different. The main difference between incontinence and intemperance lies in the fact that, while the incontinent person is controlled by his bad desires and therefore acts contrary to his reason, the intemperate person has both bad desires and flawed reason, the intemperate person therefore acts without compunction because his bad desires and flawed reason are in agreement. For this reason, Aristotle concludes that an incontinent person is better than an intemperate person. This paper looks at Aristotle’s arguments on the similarities and the differences between incontinence and intemperance. The paper also looks critically at Aristotle’s claim that incontinence is better than intemperance. The paper concludes with a discussion on this claim that incontinence is better than intemperance.
On incontinence, Aristotle argues that an incontinent person is drawn to do what he knows to be bad by his desires and passions. An incontinent person is disposed by his passions to act contrary to what his reason tells him is the right thing to do; the incontinent person, in other words, has his reason subordinated to his desires. For this reason, Aristotle argued that incontinence is not a vice because an incontinent person does not freely choose his actions. For an action to be either a virtue or a vice, the action must be deliberately chosen. But an incontinent person is compelled, as it were, by his desires and he is therefore unable to make a deliberate choice. An incontinent person therefore has bad desires and right reason, but the person acts according to his desires although he knows what is right.
An intemperate person on the other hand is not compelled by his desires; he has both bad desires and flawed reason. An intemperate person is disposed to view all pursuits of pleasure, irrespective of the means used, as a morally right thing. An intemperate person’s reasoning therefore is so disordered that he sees nothing wrong with pursuing bad desires. For this reason, an intemperate person’s desires and reason are in agreement and he therefore acts freely, out of his own choice.
From the above explanations of Aristotle’s understanding of incontinence and intemperance, it is clear that the main similarity between incontinence and intemperance lies in the fact that, the object of incontinence and intemperance is the same: indulging in bad desires/passions. Both an incontinent person and an intemperance person indulge in bad passions although their motivations differ; the incontinent person is motivated by his desires, while an intemperate person is motivated by both his desires and his reason.
Having looked at the Aristotle’s understanding of the relationship between incontinence and intemperance, let us now look at the Aristotle’s claim that an incontinent person is better than an intemperate person
In supporting his claim that incontinence is better than intemperance, Aristotle advanced three arguments to support his claim. To begin with, Aristotle argued that an incontinent person does not indulge in bad desires as the result of a deliberate choice, but rather as the result of his passions controlling him and forcing him, as it were, to act against what he knows to be right. The incontinent person therefore feels bad, regrets, for acting contrary to his reason. An intemperate person on the other hand acts deliberately; he freely chooses to indulge in bad desires because his bad desires and his reason are in agreement. The intemperate person therefore has no regrets for his actions because he is convinced that what he is doing is right and justifiable.
In the second argument, Aristotle contends that incontinence is not a habitual state, but rather a sporadic act. Aristotle actually compares incontinence with the sickness of the soul, or epilepsy. The point here is that incontinence is not a habit that one has developed over time through constant practice. In contrast, Aristotle argued that intemperance is actually a habit that one develops over long period of time. Aristotle therefore saw intemperance as a disposition that is deeply rooted in a person’s character and therefore hard to break, while incontinence is a sporadic act that easy to overcome.
In the third argument, Aristotle argued that intemperance is actually the result of the self-deception of the good. This is because an intemperate person has a flawed reasoning and he judges bad desires subjectively to be morally right and acceptable as long as they lead to some pleasure. The criterion of moral judgment among intemperate people is pleasure; intemperate people therefore have hedonistic view of life. On the contrary, incontinence is not the result of self-deception. This is because an incontinent person has a clear knowledge of what is right, although he acts cont...