GEC 105A - Science, Technology, and Society and the Human Condition Lesson 3 Lo THE GOOD LIFE Are we living the good life? This question is inarguably one universal human concer. Everyone aims to tead a good life. Yet, what constitutes a happy and contented life varies from person to person. Unique backgrounds, experiences, social contexts, and even preferences make it difficult to subscribe to a unified standard on which to tease out the meaning of ‘the good life’. Thus, the prospect of a standard of the good life- one that Fesonates across unique human experiences - is inviting. Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and the Good Life To answer the question, “Are we living the goad life?” necessary reflection must be made on two things: first, what standard could be used to define “the good life?” Second, haw can the standard serve as a guide toward living the good life in the midst of scientific progress and ‘technological advancement? In the documentary film, The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, C.S. Lewis posited that “science must be guided by some ethical basis that is not dictated by science itself.” One such ethical basis is Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 BC, ts probably the most ‘important ancient Greek philosopher and scientist. He was a student of Plato, who was then a student of Socrates. Together, they were considered the “Big Three of Greek Philosophy,’ Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, the fundamental basis of Aristotelian ethics, consist of ten books. Originally, they were lecture notes: written on scrolls when he taught at the Lyceum. it is widely believed that the lecture notes were compiled by or were dedicated to one of Aristotle’s sons, Nichomacus. Alternatively, it is believed that the work was dedicated to Aristotle's father who was of the same name. ‘The Nichomacean Ethics, abbreviated as NE or sometimes EN based ‘on the Latin version of the name, is a treatise on the nature of moral life: and human happiness based on the unique essence of human nature, The NE is particularly useful in defining what a good life is. In Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle stated: All human activities aim at some good. Every art and humen inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason, the good has been rightly -Mocute Il-sevaes as that at which all things aim (Nichomachean Ethics 22) Everyone has a definition of what good is - getting a college degree, Vaveling across the world, succeeding in a business venture, pursuing a healthy and active lifestyle, or being a responsible parent. However, although everyone aims to achieve that which is good. Aristotle posited two types of goad. In NE Book 2 Chapter 2, (NE 2:2), Aristotle explained that every action aims at some goad. However, some actions aim at an instrumental good while some aim at an intrinsic good. He made it clear that the uitimate good is better than the instrumental good for the latter is goed as a means to achieving something else or some other end while the former is good in itself. Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Good What then is the ultimate good? Based on the contrast between two types of good, one could reflect on some potential candidates for the uttimate good. One might think that pleasure is the ultimate good. One aims for pleasure in the food they eat or in the experiences they immerse themselves into. Yet, while pleasure is an important human need, it can not be the ultimate good. First, it is transitory - it passes. One may have been pleased with the food they had for lunch, but he or she will be hungry egain or will want something else after a while. Second, pleasure does not encompass all aspects of life. One may be pleased with an opportunity to: travel but that may not make him or her feel good about leaving, say, his or her studies or the relationship he or she has been struggling with. Others might think that wealth is a potential candidate for the ultimate good, but a critique of wealth would prove otherwise. indeed, many, if not most, aim to be financially stable, to be rich, or to be abie to afford a luxurious life. However, it is very common to hear people say that they aim to be wealthy insofar as it would help them achieve some other goals. Elsewhere, it is also common to hear stories about people who have become very wealthy but remain, by and large, unhappy with the lives they lead. In this sense, wealth is just an intermediate good - that is, only instrumental. It is not the ultimate good because it fs not self-sufficient and ches not stop one from aiming for some other ‘greater’ good. Another candidate for the ultimate good is fame and honor. Many People today seem to be motivated by a desire to be known - to be famous. Others strive for honor and recognition. This is reflected by those people who use social media to acquire large virtual following on the internet and wish to gain a foothold on the benefits that fame brings. Many people act according to how they think they will be admired and appreciated by other people. However, these cannot constitute the ultimate good, sinply because they are based on the perception of others. Fame and honor can never be good in themselves. If one’s definition of the good life is being GECC 105A - Science, Technology, and Society and th= Human ConditionGEC 105A - Science, Technology, and Society and the Human Condition 18 Popular or respected, then the good life becomes elusive since it is based ‘on the subjective views of others. Unlike pleasure, wealth, fame, and honor, happiness is the ultimate good. In the Aristotelian sense, happiness is “living well and doing well” (NE 1:4). Among the Greeks, this is known as eudaimonia, from the root word is, meaning good, and daimon, meaning spirit. Combining the root words, eudaimonia means happiness or welfare. More accurately, others translate it as human flourishing or prosperity. Aristotle proposed two hallmarks of eudaimonia, namely virtue and excellence (NE 1:7). Thus, happiness in the sense of eudaimonia has to be distinguished from merely living good. Eudaimonia transcends all aspects of life for it is about living well and doing ‘well in whatever one does. Eudaimonia: Uniquely Human? Eudaimonia or happiness is unique to humans for it is a uniquely human function. It is achieved only through a rationally directed life. Aristotle’s notion of a tripartite soul as a nested hierarchy of the functions and activities of the soul. The degrees and functions of the soul are nested, such that the one which has a higher degree of the soul has all of the lower degrees. Thus, on the nutritive degree, all living things, i.e., plants, animals, and humans, require nourishment and have the ability to move and perceive. Finally, on a rational degree, only humans are capable of theoretical and practical functions. Following this, humans possess the nutritive, sensitive, and rational degrees of the soul. More importantly, only humans are capable of a life guided by reason. Because this is so, happiness, too, is a uniquely human function for it can only be achieved through a rationally directed life. Humans Animals Plants ‘Vegetative Soul (eoroducton our Moblies Sensation moagnt, Reflector Aréte and Human Happiness Eudaimonia is what defines the good life. To live a good life is to live a happy life. For Aristotle, eudaimonia {s only possible by living a life a virtue. ‘Module Ui19 Aréte, a Greek term, is defined as “excellence of any kind” and can also mean “moral virtue.” Virtue is what makes one function well. Aristotle suggested two types of virtue: intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Virtue plays a significant role in the living and attainment of the good life. It fs the constant practice of the good no matter how difficult the circumstances may be. Virtue is the excellence of character that empowers ‘one to do and be good. Such virtue is cultivated with habit and discipline as it is not a one-time deed, but a constant and consistent series of actions. Everyone has the capacity within himself/herself to be good, but he/she also has to be disciplined to make a habit of exercising the good. Virtue, then, being of two kinds, intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in the main owes its birth and growth to teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time), while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit (Nichomachean Ethics 2:1). Intellectual virtue or virtue of thought is achieved through education, time, and experience. Key intellectual virtues are wisdom, which guides ethical behavior, and understanding, which is gained from scientific endeavors and contemplation. Wisdom and understanding are achieved through formal and non-formal means. Intellectual virtues are acquired through self-taught knowledge and skills as much as that knowledge and skills taught and learned in formal institutions. Moral virtue or virtue of character is achieved through habitual practice. Some key moral virtues are generosity, temperance, and courage. Aristotle explained that although the capacity for intellectual virtue is innate, it is brought into completion only by practice. it is by repeatedly being unselfish that one develops the virtue of generosity. It is by Tepeatedly resisting and foregoing every inviting opportunity that one develops the virtue of temperance. It is y repeatedly exhibiting the proper action and emotional response in the face of danger that one develops the virtue of courage. By and large, moral virtue is like a skill. Skill is acquired only through repeated practice. Everyone is capable of learning how to play the guitar because everyone has an innate capacity for intellectual virtue, but not everyone acquires it because only thase who devote time and practice develop the skill of playing the instrument. If one learns that eating too many fatty foods is bad for the health, he or she has to make it a habit to stay away from this type of food because health contributes to living well and doing well. If one believes that too much use of social media is detrimental to human relationships and productivity, he or she must regulate his or her use of social media and deliberately spend more time with friends, and family, and work than in virtual platform. If one understands the enormous damage to the environment that plastic materials bring, he or she repeatedly forego the next plastic item he or she could do away with. Good relationship dynamics GECC 105A- Science, Technology, and SocietyGECC 105A - Science, Technology, and Society and the Human Condition 20 and a healthy enviranment contribute to one’s wellness, in how he or she lives and what he or she does. Both intellectual virtue and moral virtue should be in accordance with reason to achieve eudaimonia. The indifference with these virtues, for reasons that are only for one's convenience, pleasure, or satisfaction, leads humans away from eudaimonia. A virtue is ruined by any excess and deficiency in how one lives and acts. A balance between two extremes is a requisite f virtue. This balance is @ mean of excess not in the sense of a geometric or arithmetic average. Instead, it is a mean relative to the person, circumstances, and the right emotional response in every experience (NE2:2; 2-6). Consider the virtue of courage. Courage was earlier defined as displaying the right action and emotional response in the face of danger. The virtue of courage is ruined by an excess of the needed emotional and Proper action to address a particular situation. A person who does not properly assess the danger and is total without fear may develop the vice of foolhardiness or rashness. Also, courage is ruined by a deficiency of the needed emotion and proper action. When one overthinks of a looming danger, that he or she becomes too fearful and incapable of acting on the problem, he or she develops the vice of cowardice. What then is a good life? Putting everything in perspective, the good life in the sense of eudaimonia is the state of being happy, healthy, and prosperous in the way one thinks, lives, and acts. The path ta the good life consists of the virtues of thought and character, which are relative mediators between the two extremes of excess and deficiency. In this way, the good life is understood as happiness brought about by living a virtuous life. One could draw parallels between moving toward the good life and moving toward further progress and development in science and technology. In appraising the goodness of the next medical procedure, the new social media trend, the latest mobile device, or the upcoming technology for food safety, one must be guided by Aristotelian virtues. Science and technology can be ruined by under-or- over-appreciation of the scope and function it plays in the pursuit of the uniquely human experience of happiness. Refusing science and technology all together to imprave human life is as problematic as allowing it to entirely dictate reason and action without any regard for ethical and moral standards. By imposing on science and technology an ethical standard that is not dictated by itself, as C.S. Lewis proposed, not only will scientific advancement and technological development flourish, but also the human person.a LEARNING ACTIVITIES Guide questions Compare and contrast each pair of terms related to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics as discussed in this section. 1. Instrumental Good - Ultimate Good 2. Pleasure - Happiness 3. Virtue - Vice » i. Intellectual Virtue - Moral Virtue 5. Science and Technology - The Good Life Congratulations! You are now ready to study the next [esson in Module II. GECC 105A - Science, Technology, and Society and the Human Condition ‘Module it