Aristotle's Function Argument

Ho Man Leung

Professor Barbara Herman

Philosophy 22W

21 January 2015

First paper Draft

Aristotle raises the function argument in order to find out what the “final good” is for a human being. He describes this “final good” as some goal that every human’s actions should strive for. At first, he chooses happiness as this ultimate goal, and contends that it is a self-sufficient good in which all human do and desire. He also mentions that this final good can only be achieved by being “virtuous”. However, he is not satisfied with happiness; happiness is a mere feeling/sensation and does not provide a clear explanation of what the “final good” is. Furthermore, couldn’t a psychopath achieve his self-sufficient happiness when he murders for the pleasure/happiness

of killing? Aristotle raises the function argument to investigate further; that is, what really is the final good for humans?
Aristotle unfolds the function argument as he asserts that all humans must have a common function.

He raises artisans as examples; the functions of the flute-player and sculptor is to play the flute and sculpt, respectively. Body parts also apply, as the human eye’s function is to see, as the leg is to walk. He then assumes that for any of these functions, the “good” is to perform that function “well”. The flute-player’s good is to play the flute well, and the eye’s good is to have good vision. Aristotle then questions, if a sculptor and leg have functions, then why shouldn’t a human? This argument is weak in that it is purely an assumption. It relies on teleological philosophy, where everything is accepted to have a function. This also implies that Aristotle assumes that men were designed to have a single function, meaning some high being/entity crafted the human being. However, his words can also be questioning the human function in respect to the human body parts. If body parts each have their own function, then it would only make sense if the whole, or the human, to have a function to which the body parts function for. Although this argument seems better, it still doesn’t serve as a good explanation to why humans should have a function. This argument does not hold any much validity either, as a statement saying a (two-meter-tall) man has little cells, therefore he too is little would also be true in this context. The inference does not make any sense because nothing

states that something comprised of objects that have a function should have a function.
Furthermore, why would one thing absolutely have one function? If the function of the eye is to see well, then could it not be that another function is to be able to see miles away? Aristotle seems to defend this argument by suggesting the eye’s reference to the whole, that is to say a reference to the whole body of a human. The eye functions in reference to the human function, and therefore should be what aids the human the most. Then in this case, should the archer’s eye see miles away, or simply have good eyesight like any other human has? If the archer’s function is to shoot arrows accurately, then the “good” of his eye should lay in seeing far. Although Aristotle’s premises seem to necessitate the generalization of humans, it does not favor his argument - especially if he uses various professions (which incorporate various skillsets and “functions” that must aid the artisan) to prove a point, but then assumes that the eye can only have one function.
Despite his fallacies, Aristotle presses on as he attempts to discover what this function of human beings exactly is.

Since this function must be unique to the human being, he first rules out other beings that have overlapping functions: the plants, for example, are living things too, so the life of simply living and growing cannot be the function of a human. Similarly, the life of perception cannot be it either, since any other animal can perceive. Therefore, he concludes, the function of a human must be the “activity of soul which follows or implies rational principle.”

While his two premises seem to be sound, Aristotle suddenly pushes his logic to an unfavorable ground as he concludes the discussion of what the human function is. Aristotle seems to be deriving this conclusion from the assumption that human are the only beings that are capable of rational thinking. Something else a human being can do that an animal cannot, however, is have sexual intercourse without reproduction in mind. If Aristotle means to make conclusions based on what distinguishes a human from an animal, then the function of a human might as well be to pollute the world with atomic

bombs.
The function argument doesn’t end until Aristotle connects function with “good”, however, and raising this point may aid his argument. As mentioned earlier, a function coexists with how “good” it is executed. Since Aristotle’s premise is that a good for any function is to be well executed, it follows that the good in human function lays in how well a human can demonstrate rational principle. Demonstrating rational principle also implies making judgments based on reason, and not on instinct (which is what an animal would do). If what Gyges demonstrated in Socrates’ story was human behavior acting upon instict, then making judgments based on reason would mean acting upon law and order, thus making a man just and virtuous. Therefore, Aristotle’s argument of the human function is not simply distinguishing the human from the animal through the presence or absence of rational principles. His definition of the function is reinforced as he implies that only humans can put that rational principle to use in a virtuous manner and lead a good life. Ultimately, Aristotle concludes that using rational principles virtuously would grant that person a good life and consequently, happiness.