Alexander The Great: The Good Of Man

While discussing the good of man, Aristotle also mentions the good of the state. Aristotle believes that the good of the state is the greater and more perfect thing to achieve, when compared to the good of man. Aristotle believes that the good of one man alone is just another source of satisfaction, but by securing it for a nation and your state, you are performing a more noble and a more divine deed. So, when working with the state, it is important for an individual to prioritize the state over himself. If you seek good for yourself, then that is good as well, but you should be prioritizing the state over yourself, since the good of the state is the greater and more perfect goal. Aristotle defines the good of man as being able to achieve happiness,

However, as time progresses, he starts to fall from this path, and starts working towards his own good instead. Alexander’s rule started with his mission to punish Persia for the misdeeds they’ve committed against Greece in past years. This mission had the good of the state in mind. Alexander is directly improving the honour of Greece, and therefore improving the nation. By improving the nation, he is working towards the good of the state. However, as Alexander’s conquests persisted, he started to ignore the good of the state, and instead focus on his own indulgences and desires. While returning from his failed conquest of India, Alexander discovered that eight of his own satraps and generals were abusing his kingdom for their own good. They were promptly executed. They were abusing their power because they thought that Alexander would be so busy with his own goals that he would be ignoring the lives of his citizens. They were correct. If Alexander had continued on his conquests(which had no purpose other than to fulfill his desire to see the end of the world), then the abuse of power being perpetrated by these generals and satraps would have gone

Aristotle believed that good character is established through the performance of right acts until doing those acts become second nature. Acts are defined as right and virtuous when they are in the middle of two larger extremes. For example, Alexander was virtuous when he courageously avenged the misdeeds that the Persians had done to the Greeks in years past. The goal with actions is to be courageous, since it falls in the middle of two extremes. So, he was being virtuous by being courageous, an adjective that fell in the middle of rashness and cowardice. However, as time passed, Alexander’s virtuous acts came to a halt. During a drunken argument, Alexander angrily killed Cleitus the Black. Cleitus was one of Alexander’s best generals, and was credited with saving Alexander’s life on the battlefield. Alexander’s irascible decision making was what had caused him to kill Cleitus. If he had followed Aristotle’s guidelines, he would have decided to be patient, and thus had been virtuous. The decision to be virtuous could have improved his character, which in turn may have prevented other non virtuous acts. In another instance, Alexander he decided to make his soldiers take part in a Persian custom, which involved them prostrating to him. His soldiers were enraged at the thought of Alexander likening himself to a god. They refused to follow Alexander’s blasphemous orders. Alexander’s soldiers disobeyed