The Naturalist

You can say that Aristotle was more of a naturalist. He didn't look at principles of virtue as something people invented. There seemed to be an unexplained natural order to things. Religions try to define the origin but he just pointed out the fact that they exist. When people recognize them and follow them, good things happen. A stonemason can be a master of his trade but when he cooperates with an architect who is a master also, beautiful buildings are produced. He believed that everything in the universe has a purpose for good. Virtue is what it means to achieve that purpose on the highest level. The human purpose is happiness. So when we approach politics, or any human association, the ultimate purpose is to guarantee the ability of the humans involved to have lasting happiness.

This is the light he shines on every principle also. Identifying the items involved, the actions they are capable of, and the purpose. They are not only displayed but are defined by showing what they are not, what actions are outside their scope, and what they produce when used improperly. Vice is the word used for actions that keep a person from reaching his purpose. But it also applies to objects and animals too. It works in science and works in politics. Identifying the actions that interfere with virtue is what these studies are about. Today we have the ability to manipulate a lot of things. Usually nature has a better way, such as in foods. But there are also things we do to make our lives easier and humans happier. Machines and appliances make a few of Aristotle's slavery arguments moot since there is no need for manual labor in the form of slaves anymore. Hydrocarbons are the slaves for this era. But at the same time, we exercise to stay in shape since the natural use of our bodies is work.

So when we talk about government and getting wealth, it is along the lines of achieving virtue or happiness for all the participants; at least making it available to them. He divided wealth between ways to enrich a household for a good life and other forms of commerce. It wasn't that there was something wrong with commerce, but it didn't always have a direct application to make people happy. The ability to barter the abundance from one group of people for the abundance of another in an honest exchange is the proper use of money. There are many ways to make a living. Manual labor has the least amount of risk involved since it is a direct exchange for coin and then purchasing things for the family. The value of an occupation is determined by the participants. Some that require more skill and intellect are useful for others so they will be worth more money. Hunting was risky but civilized people liked farming both crops and raising animals because the returns were more of a guarantee. Thieves and robbers bypass the risks and simply take from others by force. There are those who use portions of the honest means of exchange from a country and enrich themselves with it. This is a practice that doesn't always provide opportunity to make people of a country happy. Borrowing with usury is also a practice that has no goal but making money with money. The further away it is from the direct exchange of products, the more corrupt it becomes, since the virtue of money is the exchange of goods and services.