Aristotle’s ethics is often regarded as fundamental to any subsequent ethics. For the right reason.

Temperance

Let me resonate with one of Aristotle’s cardinal virtues, temperance. The other three being courage, practical wisdom, and justice.

Aristotle examines many examples of temperance, ranging from food to sex, but one that should primarily concern us in 2020 is temperance in wealth. Aristotle is explicit that private property is essential for any man to be free, so it is the crucial precondition for a cardinal virtue of moderation. In this, he directly opposes Plato, who constructs his ideal state on the abolition of private property. However, Aristotle also suggests that having too much wealth for an individual is as detrimental as having too little property.

Temperance and welfare state

Does not such a definition of moderation of wealth resemble what the contemporary welfare state tries to achieve? While socialism does not align with Aristotle’s principles, as it abhors private property, does the welfare state, which is fundamental to modern Western societies, enact this cardinal virtue of moderation?

How does the welfare state enact moderation? Simply saying, by taxing wealthier people more than those who are poor and by subsidising the poor, redistributing wealth from the more prosperous to the more impoverished. Does this not enact moderation that Aristotle was pleading for?

Fortunately not.

Temperance cannot be collective

There is one crucial aspect of moderation of welfare state that contradicts Aristotle, and that is who is the subject of temperance. There is no doubt that for Aristotle, it is the individual who has to be moderate. A person is good and happy if it is moderate. Quite the opposite, a state can never feel good, which is a final goal for any human being, so the state cannot be virtuous in this Aristotelian sense. A man should be and could be.

No one can feel good for anyone else. That means that if any institution, or any representation of a collective, takes the place of an individual, such an institution prevents the individual from even having the option to be good or moderate. So when the state moderates society in terms of wealth, in reality, it prevents individuals from being moderate.

The state always acts against ethics

There are several issues with the state as an agent in ethical matters. First of all, the state can only pretend to act in the name of all. We know not only that it cannot decide for the good of all, since what is particular moderation has as many definitions as people who decide about it. Secondly, the particular interests of the ruling elite come into play due to the inherent nature of human beings, so the ethical decisions of the state are often biased and thus not entirely ethical.

But my argument goes even further. By the mere act of any collective organisation in the name of an individual, such an individual is deprived of being able to act ethically and thus to be human.

Welfare state, thus, in reality, creates something opposite to its intentions. It deprives citizens of the option of being virtuous.

Organisations that (can) act ethically

The final question should then be: Does any organisation exist that does not prevent its members from being virtuous? Yes, there are many. Private commercial entities do not deprive individuals of the opportunity to be virtuous because they exist only in exchange for values. When values are exchanged, the benefits an employee receives in return for the value of the company (a salary) are the only remaining considerations. An individual is free to actualise his pursuit of happiness through all four virtues, including moderation.

Not only commercial entities, but also various non-profit organisations, fit the non-obstructive part of collective organisations; all but those whose mission is to embody one or all four virtues in a person fit a definition of ethical organisations. So, all organisations whose mission or vision is not to achieve one of the four virtues allow individuals to be virtuous.

There is only one known collective organisation whose mission addresses four cardinal virtues but does not interfere with its members’ pursuit of happiness and virtue. But let me leave the name of this organisation open. Let’s pretend it is ineffable.