Aristotle dedicated an entire book to the topic of ethics, a book that was named "Nicomachean Ethics"[1]. In the first chapter of his book, he addresses the question of motivation to engage with these topics, meaning what the goal of human behavior should be according to ethical principles. After presenting Aristotle's answer to this question here, we will turn to what Maimonides wrote on the matter – given the not insignificant influence of Aristotle's writings on Maimonides' views – and we will attempt to distinguish between what Maimonides adopted from Aristotle and the topics from which he diverges and even disagrees.
Ethics in Ancient Greek Thought Before Aristotle
The origin of ethics in Western thought, like other branches of philosophy, lies in Greek thought.
The Sophists [2] believed that there was no universal principle by which one could determine what is the appropriate action and what is the good deed. Any statement about good depends on conventions or the individual's subjective perception [3]. This relativism does not in principle deny the existence of a normative ethical system at a given time or in a given place, as the existence of such a system does not have to be above time and place.
The Hedonists [4] believed that there was a principle by which one could determine the appropriate action, and that was the pursuit of pleasure, which is considered the highest good. Pleasure is a matter of individual taste, and therefore a universal ethical system cannot exist.
The teachings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle grew out of opposition to the arguments of the Sophists and Hedonists, as they believed there was a universal standard for determining moral rules. According to Socrates, everyone is capable of discovering truth and virtue thru deep thinking. Virtues are already inherent in humans from birth, as stated by him: "People manage their affairs correctly and well only when guided by knowledge" [5]. According to Socrates, goodness and knowledge are interdependent: knowing the truth enables a person to know what good deeds are, and thus prevents them from doing bad deeds.
Plato developed and expanded the Socratic idea that no one knowingly does evil because it is evil. In his opinion, man does evil out of a mistake in the nature of evil, because he thinks of it as good. The right intention and the right action come from within, from a desire to know the essence of true good. For "no one does evil knowingly." And therefore, reason is the foundation of morality. 6]
However, it still needs to be determined what the cognitive contents are that lead to moral behavior.
What is "ethics" for Aristotle?
Essentially, Aristotle views ethics as part of political science, meaning as the science that determines the proper and desirable behavior of humans toward those around them, since "man is by nature a social animal" [7]. However, it is necessary to identify what should be the criterion for what is truly worthy and desirable, and therefore he opens the first chapter of his book with the following sentence:
Every art and every subject of research, as well as every action and occupation, is strong in its aspiration toward what is good; therefore, they rightly defined the good as that which everything aspires to [8].
However, this definition is lacking: what is this "good" that everyone strives for? Aristotle addresses this question and offers various explanations that will be detailed below. He first claims that the main goal to achieve is happiness: "It is nothing but happiness, and no one distinguishes at all between a happy life and a good and successful life" [9]. And what is happiness? Life will be desirable and nothing will be lacking. We attribute this characteristic to happiness... Therefore, we find that happiness is something perfect and sufficient in itself, and it is the purpose toward which all our actions are directed [10]. However, it remains to specify its content, and Aristotle answers this demand as follows: "pleasure or wealth or honor"[11].
However, these things are dynamic and can change for each person according to their circumstances, as "the same person changes their mind, so that when they are sick, they identify happiness with health, and when they lose their wealth, with happiness" [12].
At this point, Aristotle offers a new explanation for happiness. In his opinion: "Most people, and the simplest among them, identify good and happiness with pleasure" [13]. However, a problem arises here: the concept of "pleasure" is usually reserved for the satisfaction of physical needs, and then there is no certainty that we can call the behavior to obtain them appropriate, as Aristotle puts it:
And behold, the sons of the common people appear to us as those of base character, because they choose a way of life that is fitting for beasts; however, they have the means to justify this choice, since many of the powerful follow the ways of Sardanapalus [14]. 15]
Therefore, he proposes a different, more honorable goal: "Those scholars who are men of action are likely to identify happiness with honor, since honor is like the ultimate purpose of political life"[16].
We have learned that Aristotle requires every person to act in such a way that human society as a whole enjoys the greatest happiness, which can be expressed in various forms: pleasure, wealth, honor, health, etc., and even a life of contemplation, depending on the circumstances. Therefore, he should not act selfishly to fulfilll his own desires, but rather strive to achieve happiness among the greatest possible number of members of the community in which he resides. It follows that "morality is essentially the performance of certain actions not because we see them as inherently right, but because we see them as bringing us closer to 'the good for man'" [17].
Eudaimonia
If so, what is "the good for man"? This is what Aristotle calls eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία), which, according to a group of researchers, is:
Eudaimonia is often translated as "happiness," but the contemporary interpretation used in philosophy translates it as "flourishing" or "prosperity." Different interpretations of Aristotle's eudaimonia have been offered in modern philosophy. These interpretations share the idea that eudaimonia reflects virtues, excellence, and the realization of one's full potential. Rooted in its philosophical origins, eudaimonia represents an objective standard of good and is considered a worthy pursuit in life. 18]
In Aristotle's view, the essence of morality is therefore in performing certain actions that bring a person closer to εὐδαιμονία.
Criticism of Aristotle's approach to the purpose of morality
Aristotle does not doubt man's duty to act according to well-defined rules, but he struggles to find a single, clear, and universal purpose. The εὐδαιμονία, which is supposedly the goal to strive for for as many people as possible, also lacks a clear definition. After all, the feeling of happiness is subjective; it can differ from person to person and also change over generations. As Aristotle himself noted, this feeling depends on a person's state, so it can change over time even for the same individual.
Furthermore, even if it's understood that a healthy social life requires moral behavior from everyone toward all other people, there's no sufficient reason here for everyone to feel obligated to act according to moral rules! The self-conviction that there is an obligation to act according to certain rules must be based on a belief in a transcendent entity that imposes this behavior on the individual. Dostoevsky expressed this idea in his famous novel, "The Brothers Karamazov":
God... what if we don't exist? What if... this is an artificial idea of humanity? And then, if we are not, man is the master of the earth, the universe. Great! But how can he do good without God? Question! I'm constantly occupied with only this. For who will man love then? To whom will he give thanks, to whom will he sing a hymn? Rakitin laughs. Rakitin says that it is possible to love humanity even without God. Only a weakling can claim that, and I won't be able to understand it. Rakitin's life is easy. Today he told me, "You'd better worry about expanding human civil rights, or even about the price of meat not going up. In this way, you will discover love for humanity in a simpler and more intimate way than through philosophies. To this I retorted: "And you, I say, without God, will make meat more expensive, if you get the chance, and make a ruble on every kopeck." He got angry. For what is the good deed? Answer me, Alexey. In my eyes, this deed is good, and in the eyes of the Chinese, another deed is good – the matter is therefore relative. Isn't that right? Isn't it relative? This is a tricky question. You wouldn't laugh if I told you I haven't slept for two nights because of this question. Now I'm only surprised at how people live and don't think about it at all. Nonsense! Ivan has no God. He has an idea. Not on my scale. But he's silent... Once... I told him, "If so, everything is permitted, if that's the case." 19]
And more explicitly, Dostoevsky writes in a letter:
Now let's assume there is no God and no immortality of the soul. Now tell me, why should I live righteously and do good deeds if I'm going to die completely on earth? ...and if so, why shouldn't I go (as long as I can rely on my intelligence and agility to avoid getting caught by the law) to slaughter another person, to steal... [20]
After all, it's possible that society would be happier if I behaved in a certain way, but what is the source of my obligation to care for that society?
If so, Jean-Paul Sartre is Aristotelian, when, following what Dostoevsky wrote, he claims:
Dostoevsky wrote: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." This is the starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permitted if God does not exist, and because of this, man is abandoned, as he finds no possibility of enduring either within himself or outside of himself. First of all, he doesn't make excuses. If, in fact, existence precedes essence, it will never be possible to explain it by referring to a given and fixed human nature; in other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. 21]
If there is no God, not only is there no obligation to keep moral rules, but man must invent them.
The source of the obligation to act according to moral rules according to Maimonides
For Maimonides, the foundation of morality is God's commandment, which appears at the beginning of the Laws of Opinions: "(a) to emulate His ways, (b) to cleave to those who know Him." In the first chapter of Hilchot De'ot, the Rambam explains the first commandment, how to "imitate the ways" of the Holy One. In the Book of Commandments, Maimonides brings three different verses from which the Sages learned "the commandment we were commanded to emulate Him, may He be blessed, to the best of our ability" [22]. All the verses are from the Book of Deuteronomy: "For if you carefully observe all this commandment... to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to cling to Him" (Deuteronomy 11:22); "You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him" (ibid. 13:5); "If you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in His ways" (ibid. 28:9).
These verses were interpreted by the Sages [23], and they concluded from them that there is a general commandment in the Torah for moral behavior, in addition to the many commandments in the Torah whose purpose is to instill good character traits in specific cases (such as laws regarding orphans, widows, and slaves; the prohibition of interest; the prohibition of bribery, etc.). Unlike both classical and modern philosophical theories, in which ethics is one of its main fields and is entirely based on the dictates of conscience, reason, or accumulated experience, Jewish ethics is fundamentally transcendental, both in the very demand for moral behavior and in giving content to this commandment.
The Sages, in their attempt to give content to this commandment, determined that one should learn from God's ways, whether explicitly revealed or implicitly mentioned in the Torah. Moses asked God, "Please show me Your ways" (Exodus 33:13), and he was answered – at least partially – when God revealed to him what His thirteen attributes are: "The Lord, the Lord, a merciful and gracious God, etc." (ibid. 34:6-7). From here they demanded, "Just as the place is called merciful and gracious, so too, be merciful and gracious yourself and give a free gift to all" [24]. Not only in this verse were the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed, but "just as the Holy One is called righteous, as it is said, 'The Lord is righteous in all His ways and gracious in all His works' (Psalm 145:17), so too, you should be righteous... so too, you should be gracious" [25].
The Purpose of Morality According to Maimonides
However, according to Maimonides' system as well, the purpose of moral behavior is the benefit of society. 26] And he wrote: "The commandments... which we have enumerated in the laws of character, all have a simple and clear benefit, because they are all virtues by which the state of society among people is improved"[27]. Later, Maimonides adds that the purpose of these commandments is not -
But for the benefit of mankind... because if you assume that one person is alone and has no dealings with anyone, you will find that all his moral virtues are then null and void and have no purpose, and they do not bring any perfection to his personality at all. [28]
And yet, it turns out that according to Maimonides, the benefit of morality is not only that "the state of society between people will be improved." But in addition to this, "all these vises [bad traits] are partitions that separate a person from God, may He be blessed"[29]. It therefore follows that the acquisition of virtues has another purpose beside the betterment of society.
We have learned that moral behavior and the acquisition of virtues have purposes that are divided into two layers, one above the other. At the first level, there is a requirement to bring about the repair of society through behavior that aligns with the attributes of the Holy One. Middos at this level have only instrumental significance. In the second level, a religious and personal role is attributed to the virtues themselves: the purpose of man is to perceive God, and whoever strives to reach Him is required to internalize his virtues and, as far as possible, become like Him, until he is entirely "kindness, charity, and justice." Perceiving God is not merely an intellectual pursuit but a goal that demands active and complete personal identification and intervention. Just as this explanation applies to a private individual, so too does it apply to someone gifted with prophesy. A necessary condition for inspiring prophesy is the removal of the "barriers separating man from God, may He be blessed," by man reaching the level of perceiving God.
Basing moral principles on Greek philosophy
In explaining the details of the commandment, the Rambam uses many sources, including not only the words of the Sages, but – as is his way – also the philosophy of Aristotle, through the writings of Arab philosophers, and among them mainly the writings of Al-Farabi. 30] This is despite the fact that, according to Maimonides, moral behavior is a Divine commandment, while according to Aristotle, it is solely a commandment of reason.
As mentioned, in Aristotle's view, the essence of morality is to achieve the good for humanity. Maimonides also believes that the purpose of man is to achieve perfection and that moral behavior is a means and instrument for attaining this goal. However, in his opinion, this perfection is a goal of a religious nature that leads to clinging to God, which is the ultimate purpose of all the commandments. Aristotle cannot accept this approach because in his world there are no transcendental commandments, and therefore perfection has only human meaning.
In conclusion, Maimonides and Aristotle disagree, both in the starting point of the moral commandment and in its purpose. On the other hand, the influence of Aristotle's ethics is felt on the details of the commandment, as described by Maimonides. Essentially, the idea of the "golden mean" [31] is entirely based on the words of Aristotle.
The question arises: how is it possible that Maimonides would rely on secular philosophical Torah, whose beginning and end are in human reason, to infuse content into a commandment whose beginning and end are holy? Some are trying to emphasize that the doctrine of the "middle way" is a doctrine taught by our sages and prophets, and from there it found an echo in the thought of the gentiles. According to this, the words and opinions of the Rambam are drawn from a blessed source, from the source of Israel, and the words of the philosophers serve him only as "a supporting teacher." 32]
However, it seems this is not Maimonides' way. According to his view, it is permissible, and even desirable, to use the findings of science and philosophical theories as long as they do not contradict the core principles of religion, because, in his view, the findings of science and philosophy are not foreign to Judaism as he sees it. Maimonides essentially accepts Aristotle's scientific method and utilizes his organized teachings in places where such teachings are not found in our sources. Contrary to what was stated above, Maimonides derived the idea of the golden mean from the writings of Aristotle, not from verses in the Bible or from rabbinic interpretations. In the time of Maimonides, the prevailing opinion was that philosophy and the sciences were known and accepted in Israel even before they were revived by Greek philosophers, but that they were forgotten and lost when we were exiled from our land. Therefore, we must learn these sciences from the Gentiles in order to reintroduce them into our curriculum. And so Maimonides writes: "Know that the many sciences that existed in our nation regarding these truths were lost over time and due to the rule of foolish nations over us, etc." [33]. Therefore, in Maimonides' view, even Aristotle's philosophical writings are essentially of Jewish origin [34].
The Rambam's right as a philosophical thinker is essentially twofold: the Aristotelianization of Judaism and the Judaization of Aristotelianism. What does the Aristotelianization of Judaism mean? This does not mean that Maimonides was the first to introduce Aristotle's philosophy into Judaism, but rather that before him, this was not done with such systematic consistency as we find in this great thinker. For example, in Rabbi Abraham ibn Daud's book "Emunah Ramah," there is a tendency to reconcile the two Torahs [להבדיל בין קודש לחול ובין אור לחושך], that of Judaism and that of Greek philosophy. However, in this Jewish philosopher, who predated Maimonides, there is more of an aspiration for parallelism and compatibility between the different Torahs than for mutual sharpening. Not so with Maimonides; he first grasped the problems under discussion in all their clarity, without ignoring the contradictions between the Torah of Moses and the philosophy of Aristotle, and then sought the point of contact between the two, creating a new synthesis, a synthesis for generations. 35]
So, despite a fundamental disagreement between Aristotle's approach and traditional Jewish thought, Maimonides managed to draw from Aristotle the necessary materials he needed.
Different approaches to the question of the relationship between religion and morality
Some say that there are three different approaches to the question of the relationship between religion and morality:
Some argued that religious assumptions are essential for moral activity, and that religion, in one way or another, is a condition for morality. A well-known thinker from this school is Kant. Although he emphasized the autonomous nature of morality, Kant believed that certain religious beliefs – the existence of God, the belief in reward and punishment – are essential for moral activity, and he called them: "postulates of practical reason."
There were thinkers – such as Aristotle, Plato, and their followers – who rejected this dependence, attempting to prove the autonomy of morality.
Other thinkers went even further, arguing that religion interferes with and is contrary to morality. An example of this type of thinker is Nietzsche, who believed that religion hinders and stifles human development.
According to what was explained above, it is clear that Maimonides belongs to the first category. In his opinion, the source of morality – both the commandment and the giving of content – is God. However, Maimonides does not leave the laws of opinions as laws without an obvious reason. In the Laws of Opinions, he tries to follow Aristotle and base the demand for ethical behavior on logical arguments. Unlike Kant, who believed that religion – without feeling bound by it – is beneficial for ensuring moral behavior because the commandment and content are based on reason, Maimonides believed that morality is entirely a divine commandment that can be reconciled with human reason, which will decide in case of doubt.
Summary
In the dilemma posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro [37], the question discussed was: What is piety? At a certain point in the discussion, Euthyphron offers this definition: piety is what all the gods love, and conversely, what all the gods hate is sin.
Socrates asks about this: Is piety loved because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?
In modern discussions, the dilemma is usually presented like this: Is an act moral because God willed it, or did God will it because it is moral?
According to Aristotle, there is no doubt, as in his view, God does not give any commandments to man, and morality must be based solely on human thought. Apparently, according to Maimonides as well, this dilemma does not exist for him. He certainly believes that moral rules have autonomous and intellectual value, but there was never a moment when God adopted them. The way Rambam understands the unity of God – see Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 1:7 – leaves no room for any moral-ethical system outside of Him – He is morality and morality is He.
[1] Although there is another book dedicated to the topic of ethics, called "Eudemian Ethics," Nicomachean Ethics is "more mature" (David William Ross, Hebrew Encyclopedia, entry on Aristotle, p. 846).
[2] The Sophists were a respected group of private tutors in ancient Greece's Athens, whose main focus was teaching rhetoric. The evidence we currently have about them comes to us thru partial quotations from their teachings written by their opponents, particularly the writings of Plato. However, the importance of their teachings within the framework of Greek philosophy is significant, also because Socratic philosophy grew against the backdrop of Sophism.
[3] An opinion shared even by modern skeptics.
[4] Aristippus of Cyrene founded the school of hedonism in Greek philosophy. Following Socrates, who said that "happiness is one of the goals of moral activity," Aristippus believed that pleasure is the highest good. Epicurus made the same argument, but he placed spiritual pleasure above sensory pleasure, which is largely dependent on chance rather than will.
[5] Plato, Meno, translated from Greek by Aryeh Simon, Jerusalem 1975, p. 76 (96e).
[6] The Hebrew Encyclopedia, Yosef Klausner, E. Plato, p. 231.
[7] Aristotle, Ethics, translated from Greek by Joseph G. Liebes, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv 1985, p. 24.
[8] Ibid., p. 15.
[9] Ibid., pp. 17-18.
[10] Ibid., p. 25.
[11] Ibid., p. 18.
[12] Ibid., p. 18.
[13] Ibid., p. 19.
[14] Sardanapalus is a fictional literary figure created by the Greek writer Ctesias. He is described as the last king of the Assyrian Empire and the one who brought about its downfall with his own hands. Sardanapalus is depicted as a decadent figure who squanders his life and the empire's resources and dies in an orgy of destruction. The legendary decadence of Sardanapalus later became a theme in literature and art, especially during the Romantic era.
[15] Ibid., p. 19.
[16] Ibid., p. 19.
[17] David William Ross, Hebrew Encyclopedia, entry "Aristotle," p. 847.
[18] Free translation of the following passage:
Nasir Abbas, Muhammad Ali Raza, Wajid Hussain, Kazim Abbas, Aristotle's eudemonia and its impact on human well-being in modern psychology: a critical analysis, in International Journal of Contemporary Social Science, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2024).
[19] Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, translated by Zvi Arad, Dvir Publishing House 1993, Part Four, Book 11, Chapter 4.
[20] Free translation from French (I couldn't find the exact reference):
Maintenant supposons qu’il n’y a pas de Dieu ni immortalité de l’âme. Maintenant dites-moi, pourquoi devrais-je vivre avec droiture et faire de bonnes actions, si je vais mourir entièrement sur terre? … Et si c’est le cas, pourquoi ne devrais-je pas (tant que je peux compter sur mon intelligence et l’agilité pour éviter les être pris par la loi) couper la gorge d’un autre homme, voler.(https://la-philosophie.com/si-dieu-existe-pas-tout-est-permis-dostoievski).
[21] Free translation of the following passage:
Dostoievsky avait écrit: «Si Dieu n’existait pas, tout serait permis». C’est là le point de départ de l’existentialisme. En effet, tout est permis si Dieu n’existe pas, et par conséquent l’homme est délaissé, parce qu’il ne trouve ni en lui, ni hors de lui une possibilité de s’accrocher. Il ne trouve d’abord pas d’excuses. Si, en effet, l’existence précède l’essence, on ne pourra jamais expliquer par référence à une nature humaine donnée et figée ; autrement dit, il n’y a pas de déterminisme, l’homme est libre, l’homme est liberté” (Jean-Paul Sartre, L'Existentialisme est un Humanisme, Paris 1970, p. 36).
[22] The Book of Commandments, Eighth Commandment.
[23] Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 14a, Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 13b.
[24] Books of the Maccabees 11:22.
[25] There.
[26] See explicit statements in this spirit in the Guide for the Perplexed III, chapter 38 and 39, under the heading "And the third kind."
[27] Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, Chapter 8.
[28] Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3, Chapter 1.
[29] In the seventh chapter out of eight chapters.
[30] See for example: H. Davidson: Maimonides' Shemonah Peraqim and Alfarabi's Fusul al-Madani, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, XXXI (1963), pp. 35-50
[31] Laws of Opinions 1:4.
[32] See the commentary of Rabbi M. D. Rabbinowitz, in eight chapters, within: Introductions to the Commentary on the Mishnah, Jerusalem 1994, Chapter Four, Note 9 at the beginning of the chapter.
[33] Guide for the Perplexed I a. In that regard, see also Guide for the Perplexed, Part II.
[34] However, it is possible that Maimonides did not truly believe in the truth of this legend, but rather that it served as a winning argument for him to draw information from foreign sources.
[35] Menachem Stein, Maimonides and Aristotelianism, The Israeli Writers Association near "Massada" Publishing House, 1970.
[36] Daniel Statman and Avraham Sagi, Religion and Morality, Jerusalem 1993, p. 9.
Translated from Prof. Alex Klein
[37] Euthyphro
