4/ Axiology: A Practical or Theoretical Science?

1/ About the Idea That Morality or Ethics Belong to the Practical Sphere

a) The Aristotelian Tripartition of the Theoretical, Practical and Poetic Spheres

All thought is either practical or productive or theoretical ¹: Aristotle proposes this configuration of the field of knowledge in the Metaphysics, a framework to which even those who oppose it frequently refer.

According to the commentatorial tradition, the theoretical sciences include theology, mathematics, and physics; the practical sciences encompass politics, ethics, and economics; and the productive sciences focus on tekhnê, an activity covering both art and technique—a distinction that only moderns would come to draw.
Aristotle divides and classifies these sciences according to two criteria: the origin of the movement of their object and the degree of certainty attainable. Thus, In the case of productive science the principle of movement is in the producer and not in the product; likewise, in practical science the movement is not in the thing done, but rather in the doers. By contrast, The science of the natural philosopher deals with the things that have in themselves a principle of movement ².

What possesses its principle of movement within itself is necessary, whereas what receives it from without is contingent. The objects of theoretical sciences alone are therefore necessary, while those of the practical and productive spheres are marked by contingency. The second classification criterion—overlapping with the first—is consequently the degree of certainty attainable within each of these three types of science. Theoretical science alone can achieve perfect certainty, by virtue of the necessity of its object.

This dual criterion—ontological and epistemological, with one deduced from the other—leads Aristotle to propose this configuration of the field of knowledge. This tripartition of the sciences is also a hierarchy, with the theoretical sciences at its apex, since, for Aristotle, If the divine is present anywhere, it is present in things of this sort ³ [i.e. those that have within themselves the principle of their movement].

Let us now turn to ethics and consider how it fits within this classification of the sciences.

Two difficulties present themselves at the outset. As J. L. Labarrière notes, Any presentation of Aristotle's moral philosophy immediately encounters a stumbling block: he never uses the adjective êthikê in its substantive form, nor does he employ it to define a field of philosophy or a type of science ⁴. Aristotle does not connect what he expounds in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics to any branch of philosophy or type of science that might be termed morality, moral philosophy, moral science, or even practical philosophy. Instead, he uses the expression 'ethical discourse' to characterise the content of these two works. In other words, 'ethics' figures in Aristotle's thought only as an adjective.

Furthermore, the science concerned with these 'ethical discourses' is not ethics but politics: Aristotle uses politikê both as a noun and as an adjective qualifying a certain art, science, or power (dunamis) ⁵. Politics is regarded as the supreme architectonic science, within which the ends of other practical sciences serve as means to its ultimate aim—which Aristotle defines as happiness.

We cannot conclude from these two difficulties, however, that morality or ethics as disciplines have no place in Aristotelian knowledge simply because their content is subsumed within politics. Even if ethics is encompassed within the broader sphere of politics, it is not thereby eliminated. Moreover, politics itself is largely moral in character, since Aristotle's concern is with the establishment of 'good laws'.

If we follow tradition in calling the science focused on ethical discourse 'ethics', and set these difficulties aside, we observe that it engages the intellect in a manner entirely distinct from the theoretical sciences. This points to the existence of a practical rationality specific to prakta—things that must be done—rather than merely a transfer of theoretical rationality ⁶—a view explicitly directed against Plato, which aroused the interest of neo-Aristotelianism, a current that developed around the young Heidegger's lectures on Aristotle and was later taken up by thinkers such as Gadamer, Arendt, and Leo Strauss.

It would be impossible here to explore the precise nature of this practical rationality and the debates it has generated. The key idea to retain, however—inherited from Aristotle—is this: morality (or ethics) is a practical science, concerned with the practical realm rather than the theoretical one. It is precisely this idea that we must now examine.

1. Metaphysics, E, 1
2. Ibid., K, 7
3. Ibid., E, 1
4. Dictionnaire d'éthique et de philosophie morale, PUF, Paris, 2004, "Aristotle" article
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., « Practice » article