however, with how many economists analyze things and with the vertical structure that many business organizations are patterned upon. For this reason Aristotle's thought is particularly germane to contemporary concerns about what those at the top of organizations deserve or do not deserve.
What we are seeing today is an odd juxtaposition of two things. On the one hand, there is the phenomenon of the “rock star” CEO. The cult of leadership personalities, such as Jack Welch and “J4M” who supposedly embody virtues for which extraordinary economic value is assigned, is reflected in the eye-popping ratios of monetary compensation when compared to the lowest-ranking members of a firm. On the other hand, there is the perception that if overvalued personalities are “bubbles” that have burst in the wake of a widespread crisis of moral authenticity maybe we ought to carefully scrutinize individual moral accountability at all levels of business organizations. In other words, we need to foster virtuous “leaders” not just at the top but in the middle and at the bottom of organizations as well. This entails rethinking business management. The virtuous leader is able to deliberate well and is curious, rational, introspective, and self-critical. Aristotle is dubious about whether one will long be successful in business matters absent such traits. Practical and virtuous individuals pose hard questions regarding what is good. Through habitual questioning of this sort, they arrive at an understanding of that which is right for not only for themselves, but also for their business and for their communities.
Aristotle states that deliberative people will opt to restrain their wealth. However, this does not mean that he is delivering a condemnation of business entrepreneurship or calling on the wealthy to relinquish all of their possessions. The point is not that the creation of wealth is inherently evil, but rather that it is good to seek moderation.
Considering commonly held views on happiness, Aristotle concludes they are reducible to a triad of pleasure, politics, and contemplation. “To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment. For there are, we may say, three prominent types of life—that just mentioned, the political, and thirdly the contemplative life.”8 We shall consider each of these kinds of life in turn.
The Life of Pleasure
Gimme the loot, gimme the loot.
—Notorious B.I.G.
The way of pleasure is devoted to sensual satisfactions and to distractions of the mind that cause our most elevated intellectual abilities to lay fallow. Pursuing a pleasure-filled life means amassing creature comforts, enjoying culinary pleasures, inhabiting an enormous residence, and so on. The vast majority of people, observes Aristotle, cling to this ideal of happiness. Yet he rejects straightaway the hedonistic lifestyle sought by most people on the grounds that dwelling on sensual satisfaction places us on par with nonhuman creatures. “Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts, but they get some ground for their view from the fact that many of those in high places share the tastes of Sardanapallus.”9
In today's world, business is of course deeply engaged in catering to, indeed fueling, such an ideal of a life of pleasure, both through encouraging mass consumption of goods and services and enlisting as employees people whose main objective in work is making enough money to fund that way of life. A materialistic culture is most “successful” when people's conception of themselves is dictated by how much money they possess and, accordingly, how much they are capable of consuming. Paul Nystrom coined the phrase “philosophy of futility” to denote a disposition triggered by the boredom attending the industrial era for people to pursue gratification from shallow aspects of life such as fashion. As Nystrom puts it:
One's outlook on life and its purposes may greatly modify one's attitude toward goods in which fashion is prominent. At the present time, not a few people in western nations have departed from old-time standards of religion and philosophy, and having failed to develop forceful views to take their places, hold to something that may be called, for want of a better name a philosophy of futility. This view of life (or lack of a view of life) involves a question as to the value of motives and purposes of the main human activities. There is ever a tendency to challenge the purpose of life itself. This lack of purpose in life has an effect on consumption similar to that of having a narrow life interest, that is, in concentrating human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption.10
The Life of Politics
The next account of happiness that Aristotle examines, the life of politics, seems at first glance to be disconnected from the life of business. But Aristotle believed that the life of politics mainly is about the governance of people with an eye to gaining honor, or stated in modern parlance, an outstanding reputation. “A consideration of the prominent types of life shows that people of superior refinement and of active disposition identify happiness with honour; for this is, roughly speaking, the end of the political life.”11 So it is not much of a stretch to connect the life of politics in Aristotle's sense to the life of business. The structure of many of today's business firms parallel governmental organizations. Within such top-to-bottom structures managerial and executive positions empower people to govern substantial numbers of other individuals. In the course of exercising their power, business leaders are as quick to seize opportunities for burnishing their reputations as politicians are. Just think about the eagerness of corporate CEOs to get in the limelight on CNBC to brag about themselves and their firms.
The Life of Contemplation
The life of contemplation is the third of Aristotle's alternatives. Concerning distractions of the mind, Aristotle reckons it is ludicrous to labor for the sole purpose of paying for diversions. “Now to exert oneself and work for the sake of amusement seems silly and utterly childish.”12 Today most of us would agree. After all, what would you think of a person who told you that their sole objective in slaving away at their job was to pay for video games, trips to amusement parks, and visits to comedy clubs? To Aristotle's way of thinking, it is more reasonable to see amusements as recreation that revivifies us while on the way to more important endeavors. “But to amuse oneself in order that one may exert oneself, as Anacharsis puts it, seems right; for amusement is a sort of relaxation, and we need relaxation because we cannot work continuously. Relaxation, then, is not an end; for it is taken for the sake of activity.”13 Although Aristotle accords merit to the acclaim people seek from governing others, ultimately he deems such a pursuit as deficient because it makes people dependent on others' opinions. We should not deem something a supreme good if it remains outside our influence. Plus, Aristotle notes that people who are ostensibly pursuing public approval are actually seeking to have their virtues acknowledged. For Aristotle, this shows that virtue lies at the heart of the good life. He writes:
A consideration of the prominent types of life shows that people of superior refinement and of active disposition identify happiness with honour; for this is, roughly speaking, the end of political life. But it seems too superficial to be what we are looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who bestow honour rather than on him who receives it, but the good we divine to be something proper to a man and not easily taken from him. Further, men seem to pursue honour in order that they may be assured of their goodness; at least it is by men of practical wisdom that they seek to be honoured, and among those who know them and on the ground of their virtue; clearly, then, according to them at any rate, virtue is better.14
In Aristotle's view:
If happiness is activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be the best thing in us. Whether it be reason or something else that is this element which is thought to be our natural ruler and guide and to take thought of things noble and divine, whether it be itself also divine or only the most divine element in is, the activity
