ARISTOTLE ON THE BEST GOOD Is Nicomachean Ethics 1094a18-22 fallacious? Peter B. M. Vranas Iowa State University Central APA, 25 April 2003

OVERVIEW Part 1 A FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE Part 2 A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE Part 3 AN OBJECTION TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

THE SENTENCE Suppose, then, that [ A ] there is some end of the things we pursue in our actions which we wish for be- cause of itself, and because of which we wish for the other things; and [ B ] we do not choose everything be- cause of something else, since if we do, [ C ] it will go on without limit, making desire empty and futile; then clearly [ D ] this end will be the good, i.e. the best good. Literal interpretation: "If A and B, then D". Fallacious interpretation: "B; thus A; thus D". Bizarre interpretation: "B; also, if A, then D".

A FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATION l Pursuit-chain: ordered set of ends each mem- ber of which–except for the last, if a last one exists–is pursued because of the next member. l [B] Every pursuit-chain terminates at some end. E1  E2  E3  E4 E5  E6  l [A] There is an end (pursued because of itself) at which every pursuit-chain terminates. l The fallacy: E1  E2  E3  E4 E5  E6  E7

OVERVIEW Part 1 A FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE Part 2 A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE Part 3 AN OBJECTION TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF [A] l [A] " there is some end of the things we pursue … which we wish for because of itself, and because of which we wish for the other things " l Literally:  x(Pxx &  y(y  x  Pyx)). Equivalently:  x  y Pyx. I.e., there is a universal end: an end because of which every end is pursued. E1  Eu is a universal end but E2  Eu  not every pursuit-chain E3  terminates at Eu

A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF [B] l [B] " we do not choose everything because of something else " l Literally:  x  y(y  x & Pxy). Equivalently:  x  y(y  x   Pxy). I.e., there is a non-instrumental end: an end that is not pursued because of any other end. l [A] does not entail [B]: a universal end may be instrumental. [B] does not entail [A]: a non-instrumental end need not be universal. E1  E2 E3  E4  E5  E6  …

THE THEOREM l The theorem: If [A] there is a universal end and [B] there is a non-instrumental end, then there is a unique non-instrumental end, which is also the unique universal end. l Some of those who refuse to take the Sentence literally do so because they see no role for [B] other than to prove [A]. The theorem is important because it suggests that [B] plays two roles in the Sentence.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE THEOREM Ê [B] ensures that at most one universal end exists. Importance: otherwise it would make little sense for Aristotle to say " this end will be... the best good ". Ë [B] ensures that any universal end is non- instrumental. Importance: it would be inappropriate to call " the best good " a universal end pursued because of some other end.

THREE VERSIONS OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION Ê Hypothetical version: "If A and B, then D". Ë Non-hypothetical version: "A and B; thus D". Objection 1: According to Aristotle, " honor, pleasure, understanding, and every virtue we certainly choose because of themselves ". Reply: They may still be instrumental. Objection 2: [A] is implausible, so how could Aristotle assert it without supporting it? Reply: Aristotle does support [A]. Ì Intermediate version: “Maybe A and B; then D".

OVERVIEW Part 1 A FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE Part 2 A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SENTENCE Part 3 AN OBJECTION TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION

AN OBJECTION TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION l Parenthetical inference: If [not-B] there is no non-instrumental end, then [C] " it will go on without limit ". Contrapositively: If it does not go on without limit, then every (maximal) pursuit-chain is finite, and its last member is non-instrumental.E1  E2  E3  E4 l The objection: A pursuit-chain with finitely many members may be a pursuit-circle. E1  E2  E3 

REACTIONS TO THE OBJECTION Ê Reaction 1: The fallacy is subtle (it was missed by several commentators), so it is not implausible to say Aristotle commits it. Ë Reaction 2: Understand " it will go on without limit " as including pursuit-circles. Reply: Then [not-C] entails that no end is pursued because of itself (this would be a pursuit-circle with a single member), contrary to what Aristotle asserts.

CONCLUSION l Virtues of the literal interpretation: It is (1) literal, (2) charitable, (3) parsimonious, and (4) flexible. l Vices of the literal interpretation: It is (1) not completely charitable, and (2) not completely literal. l Despite its flaws, the literal interpretation seems to be on balance the best available interpretation of the Sentence.

RICHEIMER'S CHARGE OF TRIVIALIZATION l The objection: It trivializes the debate to understand [A] as the strong claim that there is a universal end. l My reply: The Critic does not contest a strong understanding of [A] (traditionally understood as "there is an end at which every chain terminates") but rather contests the inference from [B] to [A]. A different Critic claims that [A] is implausible, but I have already addressed this.

RICHEIMER'S REDEFINITION OF 'NON-INSTRUMENTAL' l The objection: If a 'non-instrumental' end is redefined as an end pursued because of itself (even if also pursued because of some other end), then the existence of such an end plus [A] does not guarantee uniqueness:  E1   Eu  Eu*  l My reply: It does not matter how 'non- instrumental' is defined. What matters is that [B] says there is an end not pursued because of any other end.

RICHEIMER'S FURTHER POINTS Ê Does my focus on the Sentence miss the Critic's larger point?  No: the Critic's point is that Aristotle commits a fallacy in the Sentence. Ë Is my method inappropriate?  No: argument- ative rigor is appropriate everywhere, even if numerical precision is not. Ì Do I assume that "the text is self-sufficient" etc? No: I rather assume that an interpretation on which Aristotle uses good reasoning is preferable to one on which he does not.