Ethics in psychology

Aristotle and Plato are considered to be among the most influential figures in the field of philosophy. Although they had similar philosophical concepts, their ideologies differed as Aristotle started to develop his own philosophical concepts. After being Plato’s students at the Academy, Aristotle started to venture into different areas of philosophy and science that his Teacher, Plato, had not given attention to and this could have attributed to their difference in opinions. While Aristotle’s philosophies had relevance, Plato’s philosophies had a more compelling argument as they offered a better understanding regarding what drives human decisions and actions.

            Like most philosophers, Aristotle and Plato sought to explain the role that happiness plays in guiding an individual’s moral compass. Happiness in this case was not a representation of people’s state of mind or the good human life and prosperity that people seek but rather the happiness brought about by achieving a state of virtue (Duignan 1). According to Aristotle, happiness could be achieved if people engaged in the right kind of actions aimed at bringing about happiness. He further argued that human beings employed reasoning when determining what actions would bring about happiness and therefore issues such as morals were determined by the actions that people considered to be human. Like Plato, Aristotle believe that the soul contributed to achieving a state of happiness (Duignan 1). However, the soul was not solely responsible as this happiness could only be achieved if the soul engaged in rational activities whose rationality was determined by the virtues that people held.

            Aristotle was of the opinion that; people were driven by intellectual virtues such as wisdom that brought understanding; and practical virtues like courage. The decisions that people made were therefore determined by these virtues as people sought to balance the practical and intellectual virtues (Duignan 1). In order to be happy and moral, people needed to cultivate these virtues over a duration of time as this was the only way to get the knowledge and understanding needed to discern right from wrong as well as attaining true happiness. Although Aristotle’s argument does make sense, it is less convincing compared to Plato as it does not explain how people are happy even when they engage in the wrong kinds of actions. The practical and intellectual virtues mean that people have the wisdom and understanding to know what the wrong kind of actions can do to other people and engaging such actions is immoral and therefore cannot bring happiness (Kontos, 227). However, Aristotle overlooked the negative actions that people engage in and therefore failed to account for the fact that people can be happy regardless of what virtues drive them.

            In contrast, Plato believed that morality was determined by the soul and that true happiness could be achieved if one understood how the soul works. In his moral philosophies, Plato was of the opinion that wisdom was the main virtue that tied all other virtues together and through it, people could discern moral actions from immoral ones (Duignan 1). Unlike Aristotle who believed that different virtues worked together to influence the soul into making decisions, Plato believed that wisdom was the only significant virtue as it brought understanding on how everything else works (Duignan 1). Aristotle’s error in regarding the virtues as different entities led to the misconceived idea that a person’s decision could determine what virtues one could possess and which remained out of reach. Plato however overcame this query by establishing wisdom as the only virtue needed to lead a happy and moral life. 

            In addition, Plato believed that a moral and happy person is one who has reached a point where the three parts that make up the soul are in harmony. The three parts comprised of reason, spirit and appetite and they all worked together to bring about what is good for the soul as well as ensuring that the soul, and therefore the individual, acted in a moral and ethical way (Duignan 1). The reason part of the soul, for example, only sought to achieve the human good as well as good in general. For this to occur however, the individual must have gone through a lot of training in relation to the dialectic disciplines as well as going through various educational programs to gain knowledge.

            Plato also had a better argument concerning ethics compared to Aristotle. Since Plato believed that knowledge was a virtue on its own, he associated acts of good with the assumption that only those that knew right from wrong would behave in an ethical manner (Leszl 8). In line with this argument, since knowledge could be taught, it then meant that a virtue could be learnt since knowledge was, according to Plato, a virtue. Aristotle on the other hand believed that knowledge was not enough because human actions were determined by both knowledge and the desire to do what was right. He therefore believed doing good was more of a habit formed over various decisions where an individual choses to act in a proper manner (Duignan 1). Therefore, Aristotle considered knowledge to be a goal that could only be achieved through effort and constantly choosing to do the right thing. His argument was however unsatisfactory especially because he believed that some virtues would be unattainable by people who did not form a continuous habit.

            The shortcoming in Aristotle’s argument that some virtues are unattainable to people that do not form a habit to do good is seen in the number of people who do wrong yet can still possess virtues. People who do not practise ethics for instance can possess other virtues such as knowledge and patience despite Aristotle’s assumption that such virtues would remain hidden (Duignan 1). There is the possibility that people with a habit of engaging in unethical acts can still possess virtues associated with ethical acts. Criminals for instance can exercise patience despite having lived a life of crime thus discrediting Aristotle’s argument about ethics.

            Plato on the other hand attributed virtues and ethics to the soul which controlled the functions of the body as well as making ethical decisions. He was of the opinion that the soul is eternal and originally exists out of the body. The soul is however aware, even out of the body and it prepares for the experiences when it is put into a body (Duignan 1). On its own, the soul is pure and therefore ethical and moral. However, its purity is reduced once it becomes part of the body because it is divided into three parts that have to respond to various factors among which are the desires of the body. As part of his argument, Plato compares the soul to a person in control of two horses, one which is generous and obeys the commands issued while the other is rebellious and does not follow instructions with the same ease (Duignan 1). Although free will can be used to criticize the argument about the soul being in control, Plato points out that knowing what is good involves input from free will and the decision to act on it ensures that, as much as the soul is in control, knowledge is used to determine what actions a person will engage in. It is this ability to counteract arguments against Plato’s arguments that make his ideology more convincing.

            Free will is a good example of what Plato means when he refers to the body as a hindrance to the soul. Plat believes that the soul is perfect on its own and would therefore always do the ethical and moral thing. However, when it becomes a part of the body, it has to account for issues such as free will and physical desires. The soul therefore pushes the individual to seek knowledge that will bring about the wisdom needed to discern right from wrong (Duignan 1). The knowledge helps people to know what is good and therefore ensures that the actions that people engage in are moral and just. Plato moves further to state that, while the soul strives to attain the outmost good, ignorance has the ability to prevent the development of knowledge. It is this ignorance that leads to the occurrence of vices in society.

            Both Plato and Aristotle make valid arguments regarding what drives people to discern right from wrong. Although they both attribute good morals and ethics to the quest for finding happiness and the intervention of the soul, they differ in regards to how the soul influences the attainment and utilization of knowledge. Out of the two arguments, Plato is more convincing as he not only makes his case but also counteracts most arguments questioning his belief. His ideology is more concrete and gives the best argument on what drives people to do the right thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Duignan, Brian, “Plato and Aristotle: How they differ” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018, retrieved             from, https://www.britannica.com/story/plato-and-aristotle-how-do-they-differ

Kontos, Pavlos, “Evil in Aristotle” Cambridge University Press, 2018

Leszl, Walter, “Plato’s attitude to poetry and the fine arts, and the origins of aesthetics” Open      Edition Journals, 2006, retrieved from,          https://journals.openedition.org/etudesplatoniciennes/997