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 Metaphysics to which even those who oppose it often refer.

According to the tradition of commentators, theoretical sciences include theology, mathematics, and physics; practical sciences encompass politics, ethics, and economics; and productive sciences focus on tekhnê, an activity encompassing both art and technique, which moderns now distinguish.
Aristotle divides and classifies these sciences based on two criteria: the origin of the movement of their object and the degree of certainty achievable. 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. On the other hand, 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 outside is contingent. Thus, only the objects of theoretical sciences are necessary, while those in the practical and productive spheres are marked by contingency. Therefore, the second classification criterion, overlapping with the first, is the degree of certainty achievable in each of these three types of science. Theoretical science alone can achieve perfect certainty, due to 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 as the supreme sciences because, for Aristotle, If the divine is present anywhere, it is present in things of this sort ³ [i.e. the ones that have in themselves the principle of their movement].

Now let us turn to ethics and see how it fits within this classification of the sciences.

First, there are two difficulties. 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 could be termed morality, moral philosophy, moral science, or even practical philosophy. Instead, he uses the term 'ethical discourse' to describe the content of these two works. In other words, 'ethics' appears only as an adjective within Aristotle's thought.

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, in which the ends of other practical sciences serve as means to its ultimate aim, which Aristotle defines as happiness.

However, we cannot conclude from these two difficulties that morality or ethics, as disciplines, lack a place in Aristotelian knowledge merely 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, as Aristotle is concerned with establishing 'good laws'.

If we call the science focused on ethical discourse 'ethics', as tradition has done, and set aside these difficulties, we observe that it engages the intellect in a way entirely distinct from the theoretical sciences. This suggests the existence of a practical rationality specific to prakta—things that must be done—rather than merely a transfer of theoretical rationality ⁶. This view, explicitly countering Plato, sparked the interest of neo-Aristotelianism, which developed around the young Heidegger's lectures on Aristotle, followed by thinkers like Gadamer, Arendt, and Léo Strauss.

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