1 the Compatibility of Augustine's Formal Account of Eudaimonia With
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 The Compatibility of Augustine’s Formal Account of Eudaimonia with his Neoplatonic Metaphysics of Goodness. Abstract: Augustine’s moral philosophy follows the general pattern of ancient moral theory by distinguishing between the formal and substantive conceptions of ethical eudaimonism. In this paper, I develop Augustine’s ethical theory, demonstrating its grounding in both eudaimonism and Christian Neo- Platonism: the former provides its formal structure, the latter its substance or content, consisting in its metaphysical grounding and teleological end. In the first section, I consider the formal structure of Augustine’s ethics. Second, I argue God’s role as the summum bonum is grounded in Augustine’s Neo- Platonic metaphysics of goodness. Finally, I explore a puzzle raised by Augustine’s ethics: is loving God for His own sake compatible with loving God because it makes us happy? In other words, is Augustine’s formal account of eudaimonia compatible with the substance of his ethics informed by Christian Neoplatonism? 2 In De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, Augustine makes two significant claims that summarize his moral philosophy. First, everyone desires happiness and this consists in loving man’s highest good. Second, since this highest good is identified with God himself, man’s happiness is only found in God.1 This pair of principles encapsulate two streams of ethical thought converging together to form Augustine’s moral philosophy, following the general pattern of ancient moral theory by distinguishing between the formal and substantive conceptions of ethical eudaimonism. In what follows, I develop Augustine’s moral philosophy, demonstrating its grounding in both eudaimonism and Christian Neoplatonism: the former provides its formal structure, the latter its substance or content, consisting in its metaphysical grounding and teleological end. In the first section, I consider the formal structure of Augustine’s ethics. Second, I argue God’s role as the summum bonum is grounded in Augustine’s Neoplatonist metaphysics of goodness. I conclude by exploring a puzzle raised by Augustine’s ethics: is loving God for His own sake compatible with loving God because it makes us happy? In other words, is Augustine’s formal account of eudaimonia compatible with the substance of his ethics informed by Christian Neo-Platonism? The Formal Structure of Augustine’s Ethics: Eudaimonism The formal structure of Augustine’s ethical eudaimonism differs not from his classical predecessors, but like the ancients before him, Augustine has a unique way of filling out its content.2 1 Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, 3.4-5. See Thomas Osborne, Love of Self and Love of God in Thirteenth Century Ethics(Notre Dame: Notre Dame university Press, 2005), 15. 2 See Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX.1. He claims all philosophers focus on the nature of the happy life as the final end or good, but that each philosopher differs as to what this happiness consists in. This point demonstrates the difference between the formal structure of ethics as the search for the happy life in the summum bonum on the one hand, and its substance or content on the other. Aristotle makes an identical distinction in Nicomachean Ethics I.4.1095a18-20. He states, “As far as its name goes [i.e., the highest good men seek], most people virtually agree; for both the many and the cultivated call it happiness…But they disagree about what happiness is.” In the Summa Theologiae I-II.1.7, Thomas Aquinas calls this a distinction between the formal concept of eudaimonia and the substance or content of eudaimonia. Similarly, Augustine agrees that all men seek the happy life, but differ as to what this happy life consists in. For Aristotle, it consists in an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. For the Epicureans, it consists in a certain type of pleasure. For the Stoics, such as Seneca, it consists in the “attainment of perfect reason,” concerning what one can control and what must be left to fate. For Augustine, as we shall see, the content of eudaimonia consists in a right ordering of love according to the object’s value, and since God has the most value, he ought to be loved as the summum bonum. 3 Unlike modern moral philosophy—concerned primarily with duties and obligations on the one hand or consequences on the other—Augustine’s ethics begins not with a rule, maxim, or pleasure calculus, but with a teleological end—the happy life (beata vita). This ethical foundation is built on claim concerning human nature: (1) All men desire and seek the happy life. References to this permeate his writings. In the Confessions, he claims, “Surely, the happy life is the object of everyone’s desire, and there is absolutely no-one who does not desire it.”3 Specifically, happiness is the goal of both philosophical speculation and religious affection. It “is the single goal for the sake of which the industry of all philosophers is seen to have stayed up late and toiled.”4 The quest for the happy life also encompasses the religious sphere as well. In Sermon 150, Augustine explains to his congregation that the reason they became Christians was “to achieve the happy life,” and that seeking the happy life is a characteristic of all men, grounded in an “appetite for the happy.”5 Humans, therefore, have a natural inclination to seek happiness,6 and this provides the motivation for action: If two men were asked whether they want to go with the army, it might happen that one of them would say “yes” and the other “no”: but if they were asked whether they wanted to be happy, each would instantly and without hesitation say “Yes”—and the one would have no reason for wanting to go with the army nor the other for not wanting to go, save to be happy.7 According to Augustine, all men act for the sake of some end they wish to attain, and this end is happiness. We can summarize Augustine’s account of motivation as follows: (2) All men act for the sake of which they believe will make them happy. 3 Augustine, Confessions, X.20. See also De Civitate Dei, XI.26. 4 Augustine, De Civitate Dei, VIII.3. See also Sermons, 150.3 and De Civitate Dei, XVIII.41. 5 Augustine, Sermons, 150.3. 6 In Confessions, X.20 Augustine suggests our conception of happiness is grounded in memory. It is unclear to me whether he is alluding to the Platonic doctrine of recollection, or simply claiming that the conception of happiness is grounded in our nature, and known by retrieving this information via the mind (hence “memory”). The latter view fits with his statement in Free Will, ii.25-27, where he states “The idea of happiness has nevertheless been impressed on our minds. It is through this that we know and say confidently and without hesitation that we want to be happy.” 7 Confessions, X.21. 4 This “appetite for the happy” provides the motivation for both good and bad actions.8 Thus the foundation for Augustinian ethics is that we all act for the sake of some end, and this end we are seeking is our happiness. How does one attain the happy life? According to Augustine, it is achieved only by finding the “highest good.”9 So the first step in obtaining the happy life is directing action toward the right end. He says: Here the supreme good is sought, the good to which we refer everything that we do, desiring it not for the sake of something else, but for its own sake. Obtaining it, we require nothing further in order to be happy. It is truly called an end, because we want everything else for the sake of this, but this we want only for itself.10 Here we see the typical formal conditions for an ultimate end: finality, completeness, and self-sufficiency. We can conclude Augustine’s formal account of eudaimonia with a final principle: (3) Human happiness consists in attainment of the highest good.11 For Augustine, the “highest good” is that which all others goods are referred to, and that for the sake of which all other goods are directed towards.12 Actions, therefore, have a teleological structure: we act for the sake of some good or end, and the summum bonum will be that good for which all others goods are done—it will be the end of the teleological chain: the point, purpose, and reason for all action. In order to understand Augustine’s summum bonum, his Neo-Platonic metaphysics of goodness must be examined. Augustine’s (Neoplatonic) Metaphysics of Goodness Augustine’s conception of goodness is grounded within his Neoplatonic metaphysics, particularly in the so called “great chain of being.” “Being” for Augustine is an ordered scale. God is identified with 8 See Sermons, 150.3. He claims that men perform both good and bad actions because each believes that performing the action will make them happy. 9 Letters 118.13-20. 10 De Civitate Dei, VIII.8. 11 In De Civitate Dei VIII.3, he says that “the supreme good is that which, when attained, makes men happy.” 12 See Letters, 118, 13-20, and De Civitate Dei, VIII.8 5 “Being” itself and every other existent thing obtains its being from God, and has a lesser degree of being proportional to its participation in God.13 In De Natura Boni, Augustine develops his conception of goodness within the context of this Neoplatonic hierarchy of being. There he identifies God with the supreme, eternal, immortal, and unchanging Good. All other goods derive their origin, being, and goodness only by participation in him.14 Every natural good is good by nature, as created by God.15 Similar to his gradation view of being, there is a gradation view of goodness: there exists an ordering of goods based on three natural properties given to objects by God.