Aristotle, Mill and Atwood, Essay Example

Aristotle’s account of the eudaimonic life is a development of the notion of happiness in terms of a consideration of both the necessity of reason and the possibility of virtuous human relations. Insofar as Aristotle’s central concern with eudaimonia is human life, his interpretation is closely related to his own view of the human being. Aristotle defines the human being in terms of the notion of rationality as essentially a human trait; that is, it is ultimately rationality that differentiates human life from animal life. The particular human eudaimonic life thus entails a maximization of the essential rationality of human existence. The eudaimonic life is achieved through the development of the rational potential of the human being. Accordingly, the reflective and logical life becomes symmetrical to the possibility of happiness itself. However, such a pursuit of reason is not only an individualistic or subjective goal, isolated in a solipsistic manner. As the human being lives amongst others, the human is essentially a social being, which indicates that this rationality must also be acted: that is to say, human comportment and relations to others must demonstrate the virtuousness of reason. In other words, the human relation leads to happiness through the performance of this very relation in terms of logic. Thus, in Aristotle’s eudaimonic life, reason becomes an active force within the world, visible in the existential comportment of human relations and the greater society as a whole. Concomitantly, Aristotle nevertheless relates eudaimonia to various virtues in life such as goodness, friendship, etc.,. In this regard eudaimonic life necessitates a certain complimentary relation between reason and that which cannot be exclusively achieved through reason, such as beauty, goodness, love, etc.,.

In Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the author’s depiction of the formation of an oppressive nation based on the principles of Old Testament thought immediately suggests a classical case of the restriction of rationality and freedom. When considering Atwood’s imagined polity in relation to Aristotle’s theory, what becomes apparent is the abandonment of reason within society. For example, in the Republic of Gilead, the emphasis on religious dogma suggests the prohibition of reason in favor of the acceptance of a pre-established mode of thinking, in essence, the prostration to a particular form of ideology. As Atwood lucidly summarizes the turn the Republic of Gilead has taken, “A return to traditional values. Waste not want not. I am not being wasted. Why do I want?” (3) This lack of the practicing of individual reason is explicitly anti-Aristotelian, as the “logical” order of the society has been defined according to a non-critical acceptance of pre-established normativities. The subsequent restrictions of autonomy of females further emphasizes that the practice of reason is excluded from all members of the community, as only some are allowed to participate in this community. Accordingly, in Atwood’s Republic of Gilead, reason is not allowed to realize its potential in an existential manifestation that relates to the lives of others on any significant scale. In the central character of Offred, there is nevertheless an attempt to rationally think the very constraints of the society. This is further developed in Offred’s friendship with the Commander, who himself expresses a certain resentment of the particular societal structure, and the two develop what may be termed an eudaimonic friendship in their intellectual exchanges. Nevertheless, such a society remains fundamentally hostile to the Aristotelian account of eudaimonia.

Mill’s utilitarianism confers a fundamental role to individualism in the goal of the formation of an ideal society. Thus, whereas the teleology of Mill’s account of society is related to a notion of a greater happiness, such happiness is only possible through the individual. In essence, the government must be conducive towards the fostering of individual liberty. The paradox at the heart of Mill’s interpretation, however, is the possible tension that may exist between individual aspiration and a general happiness. Mill attempts to subvert this paradox by suggesting that “humans most value more elevated pleasures, those associated with the exercise of our faculties of intellect.” (8, Mill Lesson) Accordingly, Mill can be viewed as essentializing the human being, in his claim that all humans have a shared perception of pleasure. Mill thus refutes the notion that the pursuit of individual liberty could potentially lead to exploitation according to a construal of liberty as rational and intellectual, thus preventing any such corruption.

When comparing Atwood’s Republic of Gilead to Mill’s liberty principle what immediately becomes apparent is the ambiguity of the liberty principle itself. Whereas the Republic of Gilead can be viewed as explicitly against such individual liberty, according to the segregation of men and women into various castes, the encouraged reproduction by white women, etc., the obvious restrictions of Atwood’s dystopia do not merely suggest that Mill’s liberty principle is therefore necessarily correct. Rather, Mill’s liberty principle is based on the fundamental presupposition that there is an essential rationality inherent to humans that is consistent with their liberty, and moreover, that such rationality will flourish in accordance with such a liberty. Atwood’s novel does not only demonstrate a restriction of the liberty principle: it suggests that when certain groups are allowed liberty, such liberty will not immediately transform itself into a universal liberty. Rather, the relationship between the individual and society suggests a resolute tension, a tension that Mill’s account ignores in favor of his utopic perspective on human existence.

Works Cited

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. Essex, UK: Heineman, 1986 John Stuart Mill Lesson. Powerpoint Presentation.