ttributes of the practical science of ethics need not extend. That limit is "the Good," which is to say Good for the sake of man. This argues that human life has purpose in general terms and on that account is worthy of further study and understanding.
No less significant in Aristotle's text is the view that the individual's practice of ethics with a view toward the highest and best Good for man takes place within a larger social context of the human community or political environment. As Roche says, Aristotle's Book I is "an inquiry belonging to politike philosophia; he discusses the limitations of such an inquiry; and he reveals the primary object of the study--to grasp the nature of eudamonia" (Roche, 1992, p. 51). It is at this point that Aristotle's own language in Chapter 1 regarding the positioning of ethics as a proper science becomes relevant.
Does it not follow, then, that a knowledge of the Good is of great importance to us for the conduct of our lives? . . . If this is so, we must try to describe at least in outline what the Good really is, and by which of the sciences or faculties it is studied . . . Clearly this description fits the science of politics; for it is political science that prescribes what subjects are to be taught in states, and which of the different sections of the community are to learn, and up to what point . . . But if politics makes use of the other sciences, and also lays down what we should do and from what we should refrain, its end must include theirs [the ends of the other sciences]; and this end must be the good for man. For even if the good of the community coincides with that of the individual, it is clearly a greater and more perfect thing to achieve and preserve that of a community; for while it is desirable to secure what is good in the case of an individual, to do so in the case of a people or state is something finer and more sublime (I.i.64; I.ii.64).
This is another way of ...