method of induction1 from and verification by common opinion. Indeed, the turns and windings of his exposition are best understood if we consider his literary manner as a kind of Socratic dialogue formalised and reduced to a monologue transferred, we may say, from the marketplace to the lecture-room. Thus it is by a genuinely Socratic induction that he leads us, in the outset of his treatise on Ethics, to the fundamental notion of ultimate end or good for man. All men, in acting, aim at some result, either for its own sake or as a means to some further end; but obviously everything cannot be sought merely as a means; there must therefore be some ultimate end (or ends), and the science or study that inquires into this must be "architectonic" in relation to all arts that aim at some special end or utility. We find, in fact, that men commonly recognise such an end, and agree to call it wellbeing? (evda povía); but they take very different views of its nature. How, then, shall we find the true view? We observe that men are classified and named according to their functions; all kinds of man, and indeed all organs of man, have their special functions, and are judged as functionaries and organs to be in good or bad condition according as they perform their functions well or ill. May we not then infer that man, as man, has his proper function, and that the wellbeing or

1 I use induction in a broad sense, to denote any process that starts from particular judgments to arrive at more general conclusions.

2 This cardinal term is commonly translated “happiness”; and it must be allowed that this is the most natural term for what we (in English) agree to call "our being's end and aim." But the English word "happiness" so definitely signifies a state of feeling that it will not admit the interpretation that Aristotle (as well as Plato and the Stoics) expressly gives to evdaμovía; hence, to avoid serious confusion, it seems to me necessary to render evdaμovía by the more unfamiliar "wellbeing " or "welfare." See p. 48, note.

"doing well" that all seek, really lies in fulfilling well the proper function of man-that is, in living well, through the normal term of man's existence, that life of the rational soul which we recognise as man's distinctive attribute?

Again, this Socratic deference to common opinion is not merely shown in the way by which Aristotle reaches his fundamental conception; it equally appears in his treatment of the conception itself. In the first place, though in Aristotle's view the most perfect wellbeing consists in the exercise of man's "divinest part," pure speculative_reason, he keeps far from the paradox of putting forward this and nothing else as human good; so far, indeed, that the greater part of his treatise is occupied with an exposition of the inferior good which is realised in practical life when the appetitive or impulsive (semi-rational) element of the soul operates under the due regulation of reason. Even when the notion of "good performance of function" was thus widened, and when it had further taken in the pleasure that is inseparably connected with such functioning, it did not yet correspond to the whole of what a Greek commonly regarded as indispensable to "human wellbeing." We may grant, indeed, that a moderate provision of material wealth is indirectly included, as an indispensable pre-requisite of a due performance of man's function as Aristotle conceives it,—his system admits of no beatitudes for the poor;— still, there remain other goods, such as beauty, good birth, welfare of progeny, etc., the presence or absence of which influenced the common view of a man's wellbeing, though they could hardly be shown to be even indirectly important to his "well acting." These Aristotle neither attempts to exclude from the philosophic conception of wellbeing nor to include in his formal definition of it. The deliberate

looseness which is thus given to his fundamental doctrine characterises more or less his whole discussion of ethics. He plainly says that the subject does not admit of completely scientific treatment; his aim is to give not a perfectly definite theory of human good, but a practically adequate account of its most important constituents.

The most important element, then, of wellbeing or good life for ordinary men Aristotle holds to consist in well[doing, as determined by the notions of the different moral excellences. In expounding these he gives throughout the pure result of analytical observation of the common moral consciousness of his age. Ethical truth, in his view, is to be obtained by a careful comparison of particular moral opinions, as physical truth is to be obtained by induction from particular physical observations. Owing to the diversity and conflict of men's judgments of good and evil we cannot hope to obtain perfect clearness and certainty upon all ethical questions; still reflection will lead us to discard some of the conflicting views and find a reconciliation for others, and will furnish, on the whole, a practically sufficient residuum of moral truth. This adhesion to common sense, though it involves some sacrifice of both depth and completeness in Aristotle's account of the virtues, gives it at the same time a historical interest which renders it deserving of special attention, as an analysis of the current Greek ideal of "fair and good” life.1

1 καλοκαγαθία. I may observe that Aristotle follows Plato and Socrates in identifying the notions of kaλós ("fair," "beautiful ") and ȧyalós ("good") in their application to conduct. We may observe, however, that while the latter term is used to denote the virtuous man, and (in the neuter) as equivalent to End generally, the former is rather chosen to express the quality of virtuous acts which in any particular case is the end of the virtuous agent. Aristotle no doubt faithfully

totle's theory of

Let us begin with the generic definition of Moral Ex- § 10. Ariscellence or Virtue in the narrower sense. The term cannot denote a mere natural feeling or susceptibility to feeling, Virtue. such as anger, fear, pity,—as these, considered merely as such, are not objects of praise or blame: it denotes a settled habit, formed by a course of actions under rule and discipline in which vicious excess and defect have been avoided, of experiencing the natural emotions just mentioned in a duly | limited and regulated manner; so that the virtuous man, without internal conflict, wills actions that hit the happy mean in their effects. So far Virtue is like technical skill, which also is the result of practice, and is manifested in the successful avoidance of the contrasted errors of "too much and "too little"; but Virtue differs from skill in involving a deliberate choice of virtuous acts for the sake of their intrinsic moral beauty, and not for any end external to the act. The "happy mean" or due degree in feeling and outward act in which virtue is realised, is not a mere arithmetical mean between the possible alternative extremes : it is determined in each case relatively to the agent, and to the circumstances of the action; indeed, it is often markedly nearer to one of the two vicious extremes-courage, e.g. is much nearer to rashness than to cowardice. The precise determination, however, of the right mean must be given by the reasoning and judgment of men of practical wisdom.

So much for the general conception, in which Aristotle is mainly formulating the results to which Plato's developments and correction of the Socratic notion of Virtue had represents the common sense of Greece in considering that, in so far as virtue is in itself good to the virtuous agent, it belongs to that species of good which we distinguish as beautiful. In later Greek philosophy the term kaóv seems to have become still more technical in the signification of "morally good."

gradually led. His list of particular virtues is also partly framed on the basis of Plato's; it is Plato's list enlarged by a number of notions introduced from common discourse, and defined with that close adhesion to common sense of which I have before spoken. But the two thinkers differ strikingly in their treatment of the cardinal virtues; for Plato, impressed by the essential unity of virtue and the mutual implication of the virtues commonly recognised, tends in his account of each particular virtue to enlarge the notion until it might fairly stand for Virtue in general, whereas Aristotle's analytical intellect and inductive method leads him rather to define too narrowly the terms that he takes from common discourse. Reserving for separate treatment the conceptions of Wisdom and Justice or Uprightness (Sikaloσúvn), he begins with Courage and Temperance, considering them, after Plato, as excellences of the "irrational element" of the soul. Courage he analyses with special care and subtlety, corresponding to the importance attached to it in the current distribution of praise and blame. In the strict and proper use of the word its sphere is nearly restricted to war. It is manifested in the fearless facing of the chances that bring death, where death is noble, and such occasions are chiefly met in war ;-e.g. in a storm at sea the courageous man will indeed be fearless, but he cannot exhibit courage,1 properly speaking, since there is nothing noble in the threatened death. Further, Courage properin the sense in which it is a virtue and involves a choice of

1 I have not thought it right to deviate in the text from the traditional rendering of ȧvôpeía. But I may observe that “valour" rather than "courage" appears to me the most appropriate equivalent of the term as defined by Aristotle, since we find in its current usage just that degree of restriction to war which Aristotle finds in the current usage of ἀνδρεία.