In Book 1 Chapter 3 of Nicomachean
Ethics, Aristotle discusses two topics: the nature of the conclusions of
political science or ethics, and the character that will be required of the
students of this science. On the first point, Aristotle notes that ethics is an
inexact science, and in this he seems to differ from Plato, who thought that there
was a form of Justice and a form of the Good which we can know with greater and
greater clarity, outside the cave.
Aristotle says we should expect only the
degree of precision which is appropriate to this object. And because there is
great diversity and variation in the spheres of what is noble and what is
just, and because the goods and the use of these goods differs from lifetime to
lifetime, from circumstance to circumstance, we cannot expect precise
answers. I think it's important to recognize here that Aristotle is not
giving us a license for relativism, for supposing that anything can be good for
anybody. He's suggesting that there are a set of objective goods in ethics, but
that there is a range, especially in regard to their application in a
particular person's lifetime and circumstances.
What is good for one
person will not automatically be good for another person; what is good will
vary to a good degree with circumstances. And this means there can be no exact
formula for happiness, and choosing the good over the course of an entire
lifetime will require good judgment and prudence on every occasion. So we
shouldn't expect formulaic or precise mathematical answers: do A, B, and C and
you're guaranteed to be happy. That's not the way human happiness and human
flourishing work, Aristotle is telling us.
Aristotle says we should be satisfied
with this discussion of ethics if we can describe the truth "sketchily and in outline, because we are making generalizations on
the basis of generalizations." Here's one way I think we can think about that. The
first level of generalization deals with our determining the good or the virtue
to pursue in a particular set of circumstances. This can be stated as a
generalization. I might say, in thinking of a fireman facing a burning building,
that in general it is good and courageous for the fireman to go into
the burning building. Now that's a generalization and it can be overturned
by particular circumstances: if the building is about to collapse or if
there's some other circumstance that mitigates against it, I might say that's
not the rule to follow.
But I can make a generalization that it is in general
courageous for firemen to enter burning buildings, and that could be a good guide
for action for this particular man at this particular point in his life. The
second level of generalization, the generalization based upon
generalizations, I think comes in when we think about how to combine all the goods
and all the virtues over an entire lifetime. So think of my fireman trying
now to reconcile his obligations and his virtues as a fireman and as a father and
as a citizen and as a member of a church community and the like. He has to make
all these decisions, balancing these things. This requires a further level of
generalization and I might even say a third level of generalization, where I
try now as a philosopher to describe what does it mean to live a good life,
generally, for for all people, for everyone? Not just this one fireman with
his multiple different circumstances, virtues, and roles to reconcile, but for
any human being.
Notice I've risen here to a level of
generality so high that I'm not going to be able to make even as precise a
statement of what courage is as I could make for the fireman facing the burning,
this particular burning building. So "generalizations upon generalizations"
means we're going to lose a certain level of detail and precision as we try
to give a more and more general account of noble and just and good actions.
Aristotle then emphasizes again that it is the mark of an educated
person to look only for as much precision in our answers as the nature
of the object studied allows. So it's because the the real objective nature of
human noble and good actions varies as much as it does that we have to be
satisfied with less precise answers.
We could state the converse of this claim
as well and say that to ask for more precision than the subject matter's
nature will permit is the mark of an untrained mind. And we can think of this
as a kind of warning Aristotle is giving to his students at the beginning of this
study: "If you're coming in here expecting exact precise formulaic answers for the
good life, for ethics and political science, you
need to correct that expectation right now because that's not the nature of the
object or the nature of the study that we're making of that object."
Aristotle's second point in this chapter is his famous or perhaps infamous
argument that certain character traits of youth disqualify one from the study
of ethics or at the very least they interfere with that study.
And he gives
two reasons for this, two pieces of evidence. First, that ethics and politics
is the science of experience, and youth just by definition has less or none of
this experience. No matter how widely traveled he is, no matter how varied his
experience has been, a 20 year old will not be familiar with the full range of
actions and the full range of circumstances that require judgment and
decision of over the course of an entire human life. We would expect people with
more experience of the world to be more skilled in choosing, if only because
they've been exposed to a much broader range of circumstances. His second piece
of evidence is that young people tend to follow their feelings, and for this
reason the rational study of ethical behavior will be useless for them.
Now he adds immediately that this does not, this is not a matter of years only.
It does not matter if one is immature in age or
immature in character; if they are dominated by their feelings they cannot
profit from this kind of study. So it's not a matter of age alone but of
character, and especially of the balance of reason and emotion in one's soul.
think the key point to get out of this is not that Aristotle is somehow
prejudiced against teenagers but that reason must rule over your desires and
your actions to a certain degree before you can profitably study ethics and
politics. In other words this is an advanced study that requires a certain
level of character development, a certain level of maturity. It's not going to be
helpful for people who haven't resolved that particular problem, who haven't
brought their emotions under the control of their reason to a significant degree
yet. So that's his argument for excluding youth or immature people
from the profitable study of ethics.
So that's been my quick look at Book 1
Chapter 3 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. I hope you found it helpful.
Thanks for watching today; goodbye..
Hello, I'm Craig and this is
Crash Course Government and Politics. And today we're gonna talk about, well, mostly history. Wait Stan, this isn't Crash Course History. This must be
some kind of exception, like the Mongols. [Mongoltage] Apparently we're not stepping on anybody's toes by
talking about the history of American political parties, as long as we stay away from history in general.
Thank goodness, we wouldn't want to start a Crash Course interdisciplinary feud. Just kidding, I'm
totally feuding with that Phil guy over at Astronomy. [Theme Music] Political historians like to divide America
into eras according to which parties were active at the time. These are called party
systems, and there have been 5 or 6 of them depending on who you ask. I want to say there
were 6, but that's just me.
And some political scientists and historians. But mainly me, because I'm
the important one here, and not Phil from Astronomy. There were no parties during the first elections
under the new Constitution in 1788, partly because the framers were afraid of parties,
which Madison called factions, and partly because there was universal agreement that
the first president of the US should be George Washington. And so he was. It was only after
he retired after his second term that voters started to break into political factions and
vote based on their ideological leanings. Although, to call these factions parties is
a bit of a stretch. Anyway, the first party system, which probably
started in the 1796 election included the Federalists, who supported Washington's Vice-President
John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans who supported Thomas Jefferson. So, the Federalist
political party was different than the group that worked to get the Constitution ratified,
even though they were also called Federalists.
And Alexander Hamilton was prominent in both
groups. What the two parties believed isn't so important for this series. We talked about
it in Crash Course US History, but overall the Federalists were supported by North-Eastern
business elites, especially merchants who wanted closer ties with England, and those
who generally wanted a stronger national government. The Democratic-Republicans were more skeptical
of national power, and, when push came to shove, favored the more revolutionary French.
Ultimately, the Democratic-Republicans were way more successful. They were dominant in
the presidential contests of the time, as Jefferson in 1800 and 1804, Madison in 1808
and 1816, and Monroe in 1820 and 1824 were all Democratic-Republicans. Monroe's elections
kind of don't count though, as the Federalists weren't really a factor in national politics
after 1815. In fact, the period between 1815 and 1824
is sometimes called "The Era of Good Feelings". And that's how I like to refer to lunch every
day. I just got back from a 45-minute Era of Good Feelings. Mmm, it was a burrito bowl.
Sadly, the Era of Good Feelings came to an
end with the election of 1824, which saw John Quincy Adams defeat Andrew Jackson in a bitter
election that ended up being decided in the House of Representatives. Jackson, ever the gracious
loser, decried the election as a "corrupt bargain," and rode this angry sentiment to victory in the
1828 election. Jackson was a divisive figure in a lot of ways, especially if you like the Supreme Court
or Native Americans but, from our perspective, he's really useful, because his election helped to launch the
second party system.
Let's go to the Thought Bubble. The new party, called the Whigs, started out
as an anti-Jackson party. They claimed Jackson was a tyrant, and they might have had a point.
The second Party System brought innovations to the political process, mostly in the party
that opposed the Whigs. The Democratic-Republicans re-branded themselves as the "Democrats".
These Democrats, especially under the leadership of Jackson's Vice President, and future magnificently
bewhiskered President, Martin Van Buren, introduced some of the features of politics that we still
see today. They established a central party committee, state party organizations, and
party newspapers. Okay so we don't have party newspapers anymore, because we don't really
have newspapers anymore. The Democrats also established state and national conventions
for nominating candidates. Before this, all candidates had been chosen by caucuses of
party leaders, which is less, well, democratic. The Whigs were generally less successful in
national elections, but they introduced flair into politics in the campaign of 1840. And
we could all use a little more flair.
This was the first time a Whig candidate,
William Henry Harrison, won the presidency. And he introduced a great deal of political
theater into running for office. The Whigs held parades featuring a rolling model of
a log cabin that Harrison supposedly grew up in (he didn't) and copious amounts of hard
cider for supporters. It also featured a giant ball covered in campaign slogans that supposedly
spawned the phrase "keep the ball rolling", and gave us the first campaign slogan with
both rhyming and alliteration, "Tippecanoe and Tyler, too".
So catchy it's still used
to this day. I put it in my wedding vows, "Do you take this woman? I do… and Tippecanoe
and Tyler, too." This came from Harrison's supposed status
as the hero of the battle of Tippecanoe, which introduced another aspect into American politics —
the idea that successful candidates for president should, if at all possible, be war heroes.
Thanks, Thought Bubble. Eventually, the issue of slavery pretty much
destroyed the Whig party, and the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 ushered in the
third party system. Lincoln ran and won as a Republican, and after 1860, the US basically
settled into a two-party system with all elections basically between Democrats and Republicans.
But over the years, the compositions of these parties, who supports each party, and what
the party stands for changed enough that we think of those shifts as creating new party
So the Republican party was originally a conglomeration
of reformers who coalesced around being against slavery. Republicans have always been pro-business
and have tried to associate themselves with liberty. In fact, one of their earliest rallying
cries was "Free soil, free labor, free men." As viewers of the Crash Course US History
video on Reconstruction know, it was a pretty pivotal and divisive time in American history.
In terms of political parties though, this was when the Southern states all tilted towards
the Democratic party, largely because Republicans were (correctly) seen as being responsible
for ending slavery. Democrats during the third party system were
a bit of an odd mix. Their strength came from white, largely racist Southerners and working
class immigrants in the north, many of whom gravitated to the Democrats because the Republicans
tended not to like immigrants or alcohol, and many Republican reforms in this era were designed to keep
middle-class Protestant business elites in power. Another reason for Democrats' success in recruiting
immigrant votes was that this was the era of political machines, which traded political appointments
for support to win elections and maintain power.
The most famous of these machines tended to
be in big cities with large immigrant populations like Boston and New York, and they were mostly
Democratic, although there were Republican political machines too, mostly in the Midwest.
The supposed Democratic abuses of machines brought about electoral reforms like voter
registration, secret ballots, requiring that voters be alive, and other good government
reforms that had the effect of reducing the number of voters and making elections a lot
less fun. The third party system lasted from roughly
1860 to 1896, when another pivotal election brought about a change in the composition
of one of the parties, in this case, the Democrats. Some time in the 1880s, and certainly by 1892,
a new party The People's Party, or Populists, began to form in the south and the western
parts of the US.
They had a number of concerns, mainly about regulation of farm prices and
railroad shipping rates, but also things like supporting a national income tax and a general
mistrust of bankers and plutocrats. (Those are the Democrats that live on Pluto, but
according to Phil, no one lives on Pluto. Whatever Phil!) They won a few congressional elections, but
eventually merged with the Democrats when they nominated the Democrat William Jennings
Bryan to be their presidential candidate in 1896. Adding certain elements of populism
shored up Democratic support in the South and the Midwest, but for many Americans their
ideas were too radical and the Democrats were unable to elect any presidential candidates between
1896 and 1932, with one exception: Woodrow Wilson. Good ol' Woodrow only made it in because the
Republican vote in 1912 was spilt between the establishment candidate Taft and former president Theodore
Roosevelt, who started his own progressive party.
The rise and fall of the Populists show us
something important about third parties in American politics. The first thing is that
they never win, largely because the way American elections are structured, but this doesn't
mean that they don't matter. Third parties can shift the terms of political debate. Without
a Socialist party (and there was one, believe it or not) issues of workers' rights wouldn't
have been nearly as prevalent in the early part of the 20th century. (Eagle was in the shot, I didn't
want it to be. Didn't want to influence political debate.) Often, third party ideas get incorporated
into the platforms of one of the other parties. This happened with the Populists, as their
plans for graduated national income tax and direct election of senators were eventually incorporated
into the constitution in the 16th and 17th amendments. After the election of 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt
became president and the Great Depression had kind of discredited Republican economic
policies, the Democrats were dominant in both Houses of Congress as well.
Thanks to these
advantages, the Democratic party saw another shift in its composition and priorities. One so big that
we say that the new fifth party system was the result. The Democrats' New Deal policy brought more
groups into the party's fold. Support for organized labor, especially the Wagner Act,
attracted union workers. The idea that government could work to alleviate poverty through research
and planning attracted some Socialists and many upper middle class intellectuals, including
a large percentage of the American Jewish community. Southern farmers, always a backbone
of the Democrats, were attracted by New Deal farm policies.
New Deal support for jobs and
FDR's repeal of prohibition helped bring urban immigrants, especially Catholics, into the
Democrats camp. The Democrats acknowledgment that African Americans were suffering especially
hard from the depression helped shift African American support away from the party of Lincoln. This was a major re-alignment, as black people,
when they could vote in America, had until the New Deal voted overwhelmingly for Republicans. And even though New Deal programs did very
little for black people (the programs were often quite discriminatory), the impression
that the Democrats and FDR were champions of the poor helped convince many African Americans
to vote Democrat, and they remain one of the most consistent groups in terms of their party
The coalition of groups that make up the Democratic
party, sometimes called the New Deal coalition (also my band name in high school), had been
pretty stable for quite some time, as has the coalition that makes up the Republican
party. This is why some people suggest that there've only been five party systems, with
the fifth beginning roughly in 1932 and continuing to the present. I disagree! As do other historians
and political scientists. My people, my posse. I bet they all have beards too. Us six-system-ers argue for a further realignment
of support after 1968 and consider the current political climate to be a sixth party system.
The main shift here, and in terms of Congress it has been really huge, is that the South,
which used to be solidly Democratic, is now pretty unshakably Republican.
Most historians will tell you that this has
largely to do with race, and the Democrats' support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965
Voting Rights Act, and we don't have time to go into just how true that is. What we
can say is that for whatever reason, the Republican party now draws a lot of support from White,
middle, and lower-middle class voters, especially in the South and Midwest, and that these were
groups that used to vote for Democrats. A major part of this realignment is white
working class men who generally used to be reliable union democrats, but are now just
as likely to vote republican. The democrats have maintained their support among liberal
intellectuals, members of minority groups, and to a lesser degree women, but their coalition
is much less powerful than it used to be.
We could say a lot more about political parties
in America and how they might be changing as we speak, but as I promised this episode
has been about history and how we got to where we are. If you're going to take away anything,
it should be that political parties change over time both in terms of their policies
and the groups that support them. And that it's often historical contingencies that cause
these shifts. And although we pretty much always had a two party system, third parties
are still valuable even though they never win because they help frame issues and move
the terms of political debate and even of policy. It's like me. I've never won an internet
award, but I made up the word "Doobly-doo," so… Thanks for watching, see you next time.
Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support
for Crash Course U.S. Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use
technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives
at voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the help of all these nice people, who aren't
Phil. Thanks for watching!.