Aristotle vs. Callicles
I have often wondered how Aristotle would respond to Callicles’s argument in Plato’s Gorgias. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics provides an outline explaining how and why one should lead a virtuous life. In doing so, Nicomachean Ethics brings to light Aristotle’s understanding of morals. Plato’s Gorgias also explores morals in regards to oratory. Callicles, the third person whom Socrates engages in conversation, provides Socrates with a strong counterpoint against his argument that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong. I will first summarize Callicles’ argument, and then provide Aristotle’s counterpoint to Callicles’ argument, based on the Nicomachean Ethics. Lastly I will discus where Aristotle’s argument needed to be strengthened, and where his points fit well with Callicles’ argument.
Callicles defends the argument that suffering wrong is worse than doing wrong by, first, stating what is more base is more evil. Callicles briefly states, “In the natural sense anything that is a greater evil is also baser - in this case suffering wrong; but conventionally doing wrong is the baser of the two.” (Plato v. 483, 78) Here Callicles believes one should look at the words evil and base in a natural sense rather than a conventional sense, as the natural sense takes human nature into consideration, and convention does not. Callicles states why he does not what to speak of evil and base in terms of conventions,
“Conventions, on the other hand, are made, in my opinion, by the weaklings who form the majority of mankind . . . , and in an endeavour to frighten those who are stronger and capable of getting the upper hand they say that ambition is base and wrong, and that wrong-doing consists in trying to gain an advantage over others.” (Plato v.483, 78)
Thus, the conventional usage of evil and base is dependent upon society and does not take human nature into consideration. With the natural sense of the words evil and base in mind, Callicles believes that suffering wrong is base and, therefore, the greater evil. So, suffering the consequences of a “bad” action is worse than participating in the “bad” act.
Callicles further supports the separation of nature and convention by saying that the strong naturally preside over the weak, and since this is natural, it is also right. He states that, “possession of those who are weaker and inferior belong to the man who is better and superior.” (Plato 483, 78) Callicles believes that those who are superior are naturally superior and, therefore, have the right to be superior over others. This means that the superior can take from the weak, yet still justify his actions, as the superior are naturally right in whatever they do, thus doing wrong is right, in the case of the superior. Callicles’ final argument equates good and pleasurable as the same. The purpose of equating good and pleasurable is to show that suffering good is better than doing good, which is the positive side to the argument, suffering wrong is worse than doing wrong. He states that, “Luxury and excess and license, provided that they can obtain sufficient backing, are virtue and happiness.” (Plato 491, 91) To be more specific, Callicles believes that aiming to satisfy all wants and desires is naturally right and good, thus humans desire pleasure. Callicles furthers his point by stating that one cannot be good if one does not have wants or desires. So, it is naturally wrong to suffer, as it is naturally right to partake in pleasurable activities. Doing good would be seen as a selfless act, which disregards one’s desire for pleasure and pleasures another (for good and pleasure are the same). One who does good, in Callicles’ point of view, would be similar to a slave, as the purpose of a slave is to please his or her master. Therefore, suffering good is better than doing good.
Aristotle, from his viewpoint in the Nicomachean Ethics, would not agree with Callicles’ argument for several reasons; the first reason being that evil and base should be viewed from a conventional sense. The Nicomachean Ethics is believed to be written for Aristotle’s son, Nicomachus. If this were the case, then Aristotle would have written in the context of how one should act within society, specifically, how his son should act within society. Therefore, the Nicomachean Ethics would be written in terms of conventional sense. With this said, Aristotle would agree with Callicles that, “ . . . conventionally doing wrong is the baser of the two.” (Plato 483, 78) He would not agree with Callicles’ argument, in the natural sense, that what is more base is more evil. Aristotle would say that one might suffer wrong for reasons beyond one’s control, which is not bad as one can find a way to deal with the suffering appropriately. Aristotle expresses this viewpoint when he says, “And yet, even here what is fine shines through, whenever someone bears many severe misfortunes with good temper, not because he feels no distress, but because he is noble and magnanimous.” (Aristotle 1100b130) Therefore, it is not the suffering that is bad, rather it is how one suffers wrong that makes suffering bad, base, or evil.
Aristotle would also disagree with Callicles’ argument that the superior are naturally right in their actions. Again, this argument brings up what is naturally right, meaning right from the view of natural law. Since Aristotle disagrees with using morality in the context of natural sense, he would disagree on this matter as well. Putting natural and conventional senses behind, Aristotle would say that a superior person who takes, or possesses, an advantage over the weak would be considered ungenerous. He would agree that ungenerosity is not acceptable, as it is the deficiency of generosity, and that virtue is a matter of a balance between two extremes. Aristotle explains virtue in this passage, “Virtue, then, is a mean, insofar as it aims at what is intermediate.” (Aristotle 1106b28) The superior person is superior in that he obtains more than the inferior, thus a superior person who takes from the inferior person is taking more than he needs; therefore, this person is ungenerous. Aristotle explains, “Ungenerosity is always ascribed to those who take wealth more seriously than is right.” (Aristotle 1119b30) Aristotle believes that those who strive for goals beyond what is intermediate are wrong, thus doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong.
Aristotle spends a large majority of time, in his Nicomachean Ethics, explaining what is good or virtuous, and would certainly disagree with Callicles’ statement that good is equivalent to pleasure. Aristotle states that, “Virtue is about pleasures and pains; the actions that are its sources also increase it or, if they are done badly, ruin it; and its activity is about the same actions as those that are its sources.” (Aristotle 1105a15) So, virtue, or what is good, is one’s ability to accept the intermediate between pleasure and pain. Aristotle says that, “In pleasures and pains - though not in all types, and in pains less than in pleasures – the mean is temperance and the excess intemperance.” (Aristotle 1107b5) At one point in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle does seem to equate good with pleasure, “ . . . actions in accord with the virtues are pleasant in their own right. Moreover, these actions are good and fine as well as pleasant . . .” (Aristotle 1099a21) He is saying that virtuous acts can be seen as both good and pleasurable. However, he is not stating that what is pleasurable is good, as previous and later arguments show that what is virtuous is the intermediate between two extremes. Therefore, Aristotle would say that good is not equivalent to pleasure, as good is dependent upon judging the mean that is appropriate to specific situations.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics provides are relatively descent rebuttal against Callicles’ argument; however, one problem with Aristotle’s argument is that it is strictly from a conventional sense rather than a natural sense. Since Callicles bases his argument upon the natural sense that what is more base is more evil, it is hard to compare Aristotle’s argument with Callicles’. The Nicomachean Ethics do not directly address the issue of natural law verses convention, but the fact that Aristotle wrote in the context of convention is a good indicator that he thought morals should be used in the context of convention. What Aristotle needed was a straightforward argument that explained his reasoning for writing from a conventional point of view. Perhaps Aristotle would have argued that morals were created to help a person prosper within a society; therefore, moral ideas would have to be written in the context of convention. Callicles provides a pretty clear reason why he is not speaking in a conventional sense. Aristotle’s argument would have benefited more if he had included in his Nicomachean Ethics why he was writing from a conventional perspective.
Another problem with Aristotle’s argument is he never states why the intermediate is always good. He gives plenty of examples of particular cases where the intermediate is good, but he does not state why the intermediate is always good. If Aristotle is saying that we should always aim for what is intermediate, then there must be an abstract reason, which is separate from the situations he explains. Otherwise, Aristotle’s argument would be based on situations, and one cannot predict all situations. Perhaps the gods deemed the intermediate good. Although this would not be a plausible reason, it does explain why the intermediate is good separately from situations. Callicles’ argument possesses the same fault. In his case, he never states why natural law is good. One possible argument against natural law is this: just because something is done out of instinct does not mean it is right. Morals, and the use of the words right and wrong, were created to help one get along appropriately within a society. Natural law assumes there is no society; therefore, discussion about morals would be irrelevant to natural law. Both Aristotle and Callicles could strengthen their arguments if they defined why what they claim to be good is actually good.
Exploring Aristotle’s argument against Callicles shows the similarities between Plato and Aristotle, and shows where they have gone wrong with their arguments. Socrates states that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong because suffering wrong can relieve one of feelings of guilt; therefore, one would rather suffer wrong that feel the guilt of doing wrong. Aristotle gives a different point of view, although he still agrees with Plato’s position that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.
Plato. Gorgias. England: Penguin Books, 1960.
Callicles defends the argument that suffering wrong is worse than doing wrong by, first, stating what is more base is more evil. Callicles briefly states, “In the natural sense anything that is a greater evil is also baser - in this case suffering wrong; but conventionally doing wrong is the baser of the two.” (Plato v. 483, 78) Here Callicles believes one should look at the words evil and base in a natural sense rather than a conventional sense, as the natural sense takes human nature into consideration, and convention does not. Callicles states why he does not what to speak of evil and base in terms of conventions,
“Conventions, on the other hand, are made, in my opinion, by the weaklings who form the majority of mankind . . . , and in an endeavour to frighten those who are stronger and capable of getting the upper hand they say that ambition is base and wrong, and that wrong-doing consists in trying to gain an advantage over others.” (Plato v.483, 78)
Thus, the conventional usage of evil and base is dependent upon society and does not take human nature into consideration. With the natural sense of the words evil and base in mind, Callicles believes that suffering wrong is base and, therefore, the greater evil. So, suffering the consequences of a “bad” action is worse than participating in the “bad” act.
Callicles further supports the separation of nature and convention by saying that the strong naturally preside over the weak, and since this is natural, it is also right. He states that, “possession of those who are weaker and inferior belong to the man who is better and superior.” (Plato 483, 78) Callicles believes that those who are superior are naturally superior and, therefore, have the right to be superior over others. This means that the superior can take from the weak, yet still justify his actions, as the superior are naturally right in whatever they do, thus doing wrong is right, in the case of the superior. Callicles’ final argument equates good and pleasurable as the same. The purpose of equating good and pleasurable is to show that suffering good is better than doing good, which is the positive side to the argument, suffering wrong is worse than doing wrong. He states that, “Luxury and excess and license, provided that they can obtain sufficient backing, are virtue and happiness.” (Plato 491, 91) To be more specific, Callicles believes that aiming to satisfy all wants and desires is naturally right and good, thus humans desire pleasure. Callicles furthers his point by stating that one cannot be good if one does not have wants or desires. So, it is naturally wrong to suffer, as it is naturally right to partake in pleasurable activities. Doing good would be seen as a selfless act, which disregards one’s desire for pleasure and pleasures another (for good and pleasure are the same). One who does good, in Callicles’ point of view, would be similar to a slave, as the purpose of a slave is to please his or her master. Therefore, suffering good is better than doing good.
Aristotle, from his viewpoint in the Nicomachean Ethics, would not agree with Callicles’ argument for several reasons; the first reason being that evil and base should be viewed from a conventional sense. The Nicomachean Ethics is believed to be written for Aristotle’s son, Nicomachus. If this were the case, then Aristotle would have written in the context of how one should act within society, specifically, how his son should act within society. Therefore, the Nicomachean Ethics would be written in terms of conventional sense. With this said, Aristotle would agree with Callicles that, “ . . . conventionally doing wrong is the baser of the two.” (Plato 483, 78) He would not agree with Callicles’ argument, in the natural sense, that what is more base is more evil. Aristotle would say that one might suffer wrong for reasons beyond one’s control, which is not bad as one can find a way to deal with the suffering appropriately. Aristotle expresses this viewpoint when he says, “And yet, even here what is fine shines through, whenever someone bears many severe misfortunes with good temper, not because he feels no distress, but because he is noble and magnanimous.” (Aristotle 1100b130) Therefore, it is not the suffering that is bad, rather it is how one suffers wrong that makes suffering bad, base, or evil.
Aristotle would also disagree with Callicles’ argument that the superior are naturally right in their actions. Again, this argument brings up what is naturally right, meaning right from the view of natural law. Since Aristotle disagrees with using morality in the context of natural sense, he would disagree on this matter as well. Putting natural and conventional senses behind, Aristotle would say that a superior person who takes, or possesses, an advantage over the weak would be considered ungenerous. He would agree that ungenerosity is not acceptable, as it is the deficiency of generosity, and that virtue is a matter of a balance between two extremes. Aristotle explains virtue in this passage, “Virtue, then, is a mean, insofar as it aims at what is intermediate.” (Aristotle 1106b28) The superior person is superior in that he obtains more than the inferior, thus a superior person who takes from the inferior person is taking more than he needs; therefore, this person is ungenerous. Aristotle explains, “Ungenerosity is always ascribed to those who take wealth more seriously than is right.” (Aristotle 1119b30) Aristotle believes that those who strive for goals beyond what is intermediate are wrong, thus doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong.
Aristotle spends a large majority of time, in his Nicomachean Ethics, explaining what is good or virtuous, and would certainly disagree with Callicles’ statement that good is equivalent to pleasure. Aristotle states that, “Virtue is about pleasures and pains; the actions that are its sources also increase it or, if they are done badly, ruin it; and its activity is about the same actions as those that are its sources.” (Aristotle 1105a15) So, virtue, or what is good, is one’s ability to accept the intermediate between pleasure and pain. Aristotle says that, “In pleasures and pains - though not in all types, and in pains less than in pleasures – the mean is temperance and the excess intemperance.” (Aristotle 1107b5) At one point in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle does seem to equate good with pleasure, “ . . . actions in accord with the virtues are pleasant in their own right. Moreover, these actions are good and fine as well as pleasant . . .” (Aristotle 1099a21) He is saying that virtuous acts can be seen as both good and pleasurable. However, he is not stating that what is pleasurable is good, as previous and later arguments show that what is virtuous is the intermediate between two extremes. Therefore, Aristotle would say that good is not equivalent to pleasure, as good is dependent upon judging the mean that is appropriate to specific situations.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics provides are relatively descent rebuttal against Callicles’ argument; however, one problem with Aristotle’s argument is that it is strictly from a conventional sense rather than a natural sense. Since Callicles bases his argument upon the natural sense that what is more base is more evil, it is hard to compare Aristotle’s argument with Callicles’. The Nicomachean Ethics do not directly address the issue of natural law verses convention, but the fact that Aristotle wrote in the context of convention is a good indicator that he thought morals should be used in the context of convention. What Aristotle needed was a straightforward argument that explained his reasoning for writing from a conventional point of view. Perhaps Aristotle would have argued that morals were created to help a person prosper within a society; therefore, moral ideas would have to be written in the context of convention. Callicles provides a pretty clear reason why he is not speaking in a conventional sense. Aristotle’s argument would have benefited more if he had included in his Nicomachean Ethics why he was writing from a conventional perspective.
Another problem with Aristotle’s argument is he never states why the intermediate is always good. He gives plenty of examples of particular cases where the intermediate is good, but he does not state why the intermediate is always good. If Aristotle is saying that we should always aim for what is intermediate, then there must be an abstract reason, which is separate from the situations he explains. Otherwise, Aristotle’s argument would be based on situations, and one cannot predict all situations. Perhaps the gods deemed the intermediate good. Although this would not be a plausible reason, it does explain why the intermediate is good separately from situations. Callicles’ argument possesses the same fault. In his case, he never states why natural law is good. One possible argument against natural law is this: just because something is done out of instinct does not mean it is right. Morals, and the use of the words right and wrong, were created to help one get along appropriately within a society. Natural law assumes there is no society; therefore, discussion about morals would be irrelevant to natural law. Both Aristotle and Callicles could strengthen their arguments if they defined why what they claim to be good is actually good.
Exploring Aristotle’s argument against Callicles shows the similarities between Plato and Aristotle, and shows where they have gone wrong with their arguments. Socrates states that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong because suffering wrong can relieve one of feelings of guilt; therefore, one would rather suffer wrong that feel the guilt of doing wrong. Aristotle gives a different point of view, although he still agrees with Plato’s position that doing wrong is worse than suffering wrong.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.
Plato. Gorgias. England: Penguin Books, 1960.
posted by Karen Jarboe at
10:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home