Book 1 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 1 - The Nature of Ethical Inquiry
Explanation - Part By Part
"Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts."
Aristotle is acknowledging that the level of clarity or precision we can achieve in a discussion depends on the nature of the subject being discussed. Not all subjects allow for the same amount of exactness, just as not all crafts or skills aim for the same type of outcome. For instance, a mathematician can achieve a clear, precise answer, but that level of precision might not be possible—or even appropriate—when discussing broader, more uncertain topics like ethics or politics. The main point is that expecting absolute precision in every field or topic is not reasonable: different subjects have different goals and methods.
"Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature."
Aristotle is pointing out that concepts like "fine" (noble or virtuous) and "just" actions, which are central to political science, can vary significantly depending on people's opinions and cultural norms. Because of this variability, these actions might appear to be established only by societal conventions (rules or agreements created by humans) rather than being grounded in something universal or natural. In other words, what one society considers morally right or praiseworthy might differ greatly from another, making it seem as though such judgments lack a fixed, natural foundation.
"And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage."
Aristotle is pointing out that even things we generally consider "good," like wealth or courage, are not universally beneficial in every case. These "goods" can backfire or have unintended consequences. For example, wealth can lead someone to ruin—perhaps through greed, extravagance, or making them a target for others. Similarly, courage, while admirable, could lead a person into reckless or dangerous situations that might harm them.
The key idea here is that what seems good in one context can be harmful in another, making it difficult to clearly define "the good" in a way that applies universally or always leads to positive outcomes. This variability in how "goods" affect people underlines why determining "the good" requires careful and nuanced thinking.
"We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better."
Aristotle is essentially saying that when discussing subjects like ethics and politics—areas filled with complexity, variability, and subjective judgments—we shouldn't expect perfect precision or absolute truth. Instead, we should aim to outline and approach the truth in broad strokes, understanding that the conclusions we reach in these matters won't have the same level of certainty as conclusions in, say, mathematics or the physical sciences. These discussions deal with things that are "mostly true" or depend on context, so our expectations for precision should match the nature of the topic. In short: be content with reasonable approximations rather than demanding perfect answers when the subject inherently resists such precision.
"In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."
Aristotle is making a crucial point here about understanding and evaluating ideas based on the nature of the subject. He is essentially saying that different disciplines and areas of knowledge require different standards of precision. For example, in mathematics, which deals with abstract and fixed truths, we can and should expect a high level of certainty and exactness. However, when it comes to areas like rhetoric or political science, which deal with human behavior, social systems, and values—things that are inherently variable and influenced by opinion—such exactness isn't always possible or appropriate.
To evaluate these topics properly, we must adapt our expectations. It would be absurd to demand the same rigid, scientific proof from a rhetorician (someone skilled in persuasive speaking) as we would from a mathematician. Similarly, it would also be unwise to accept loose or vague reasoning about something as logically precise as mathematics.
Ultimately, intellectual flexibility—understanding that different types of knowledge require different approaches and standards—is what Aristotle considers a hallmark of an educated and wise person.