Summary: Nicomachean Ethics

Book I

Aristotle begins by giving his famous definition of the good, as that to which one tends in all circumstances ¹. Every pursuit and every action, every science and every art tends towards its proper good.

The good is therefore an end, and as there are different actions or researches, there are different ends. For example, health is the end of medicine and victory the end of strategy.

There is a hierarchy of sciences: particular sciences are subordinate to a master (or architectonic) science. For example, the sciences of horses and weapons are subordinate to military science.

Similarly, there is a hierarchy of ends: some aim at other ends, which in turn aim at other ends, and so on. There must be a supreme end because otherwise we would get lost in infinity and our tendencies would become empty of content and without effect ².

Since the good is an end, the supreme end is the supreme good. If we can grasp what it is, we will know what is right to do ³.

Two questions then arise: of what nature is this good? And of what science does it fall?

For Aristotle, it comes under the political science, which is the sovereign science, since it organises all the others, due to the fact that it determines which sciences will be learned in the City. Doesn't politics legislate on the end to be pursued by the State? Yet the good of the State is superior to the individual good of each citizen:

The good is certainly desirable when it concerns an individual taken separately, but its character is more beautiful and more divine when it applies to a people and to entire States.

The science whose object of study is the supreme good is therefore indeed politics. And Aristotle presents The Nicomachean Ethics as a treatise on politics.

This science is not, however, characterised by an absolute degree of certainty. Indeed, we must realise that we do not find the same degree of precision in the various disciplines: The beautiful and the just involve very wide divergences of interpretation and are so liable to error that they appear to have their being only by law and not by an effect of nature ⁵.

Aristotle takes the example of wealth, to show the extent of such divergences: wealth can save one man's life, but can also cause the death of another. This type of situation makes the formulation of absolute truths highly problematic.

We will therefore make do with general truths, valid in most cases: When we are only talking about general facts and consequences, conclusions can only be general ⁶.

Knowing how to identify the degree of precision expected of a science is the sign of a refined man. It would be clumsy to expect probable reasoning from a mathematician and scientific demonstrations from a rhetorician.

After describing the object, and the degree of certainty of this science, Aristotle seeks to identify its audience: these are mature people, for one must have had some experience of life to be interested in this science, which deals with life. On the other hand, its conclusions will have to be put into practice (the aim of politics is not pure knowledge, but practice ⁷, yet the young man is led by his passions, and can only offer a theoretical hearing, which cannot be translated into practical application.

So we come to the essential question: what is this supreme good, which is the object of politics?

In fact, it is known to everyone, and esteemed as such: it is happiness. However, while everyone agrees on its name, many disagree on what it represents: what makes people happy? On the very nature of happiness, we no longer agree ⁸.

¹ Nicomachean Ethics, I, 1
² I, 2
³ ibid.
⁴ ibid.
⁵ I, 3
⁶ ibid.
⁷ ibid.
⁸ I, 4