In this essay we will discuss and analyze Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean. This topic area can be found in Book II, page 888, 6—15, through 890, 25. The purpose for Aristotle touching on this subject matter was to discern the states of character which are virtuous from those which are not. By this, I mean he is attempting to categorize which virtues are causal of a human “to be in a good state and to perform their functions well”(888—15). In order to keep this paper orderly and comprehensible, we will work in chronological order through Aristotle’s variety of premises and conclusions which lead to his main idea which is ––––––––––––.
Aristotle begins his discussion on deficiency, intermediate, and excess by introducing what he is looking to accomplish; and by this I mean what we stated earlier in regard to humans and their respective states and functions. He supports this conclusion with the analogy of “the virtue of eyes” and “the virtue of horses” respectively. In this analogy he explains what I interpret as the following: for a person to be in his best state, he must encompass what it is that makes his genus be in its best possible condition. In other words, in order to be virtuous you must also be the best at what you are designated to be purposeful for.
When Aristotle gives the example of virtue of the eyes he implies that this concept may be extended not only to the object as a whole but also its parts. So for a human, if he may posses virtues of eyes he must also have the capacity for virtues of the pupil, iris, cornea, lens, and so forth. So forth meaning down to the cell and each process of the cell. This must be true for every part which is not the eye as well. And further, as true for infinitely small, must also ...
... middle of paper ...
... gives the example of rape and so we will look at this case so as to not turn our idea of what is base into his idea. If rape were able to be virtuous it would mean that there would be the right amount of rape in two senses. The first sense would be the intermediate in rape itself. Rape would therefore have an objective and standard correct amount. This is absurd because no true virtuous person would consider rape to have to such a thing due to its inherently terrible nature. For if it did, it would also encompass what is the second sense: rape would now have an intermediate amount for each person. If this were true, and a virtuous person knew the intermediate amount of rape to them was no rape (which makes sense because the right amount is none to Aristotle), the deficiency would have to be negative and this is not possible. You may not have a negative deficiency.
He stated, “So virtue is a provisional disposition… virtue is a mean; but in respect of what is right and what is right and best, it is an extreme (Aristotle, 42).” Here Aristotle explains that moral virtue is determined by reason and that it avoids the states of too much, excess, or too little, deficiency. He believes that our soul is the principle of living because it is inside of us. Therefore, for Aristotle the soul was morally which is where we are given the right reason. He believes that, “there are two parts of the soul, one rational and one irrational (Aristotle, 145).” The rational part, which is how he believe we should do our actions upon, consists of possessing reason, part that can think and command, and intellectual virtues, which are virtues that come from time and experience. Courage is a moral virtue. When having courage, you either have too much fear, which makes you a coward, or you have too little fear, where you’d be considered rash or fool hardy. Generosity is also a moral virtue. When you are generous, you are either giving too much, which makes you profligate, or you are giving too little which would consider you as a stingy person. Moral virtues lead you to happiness because of their intermediate state that is by
The formula of humanity and universal laws help people decide how a certain act would affect the world and if it would be a moral thing to do. This allows for a more standardization of figuring out if something is moral or not. Aristotle’s view of virtue is like The Bible. The things that he finds are virtuous can be seen in different ways. For example, people use The Bible to say certain things like men shouldn’t marry other men or that capital punishment is bad, but other people can use the same text to argue that men should get married and that capital punishment is fine. Same can be said for Aristotle because he gives a list of virtues in chapter 7, but these virtues can be seen in different ways. An example of this could be friendliness which is a virtue. People can be too friendly or not friendly enough but it’s personal preference and changes for everyone. Furthermore, some virtues aren’t on the list, and as societies grow more virtuous characteristics arise as
At this point, one might want to examine closer what Aristotle denotes by virtue, by what means it can be obtained, and what the effects of virtuousness are on something that possesses it. Aristotle identifies virtue as “a state that decides…the mean relative to us, which is defined by reference to reason… It is a mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency.” The key concept in this definition is the mean relative to us, by which Aristotle understands the intermediate between something that is equidistant from each extremity . As he puts it, in everything continuous and divisible we can take either too much of something, too little, or some intermediate that is between the excess and deficiency. Moreover, the mean relative to us is not merely a mathematical intermediate halfway between the two extremes. For if, Aristotle explains, “ten pounds is a lot for someone o eat, and two pounds a little, I does not follow that the train...
The Nicomachean Ethics, written by Aristotle, represents his most important contribution within the field of Ethics; it is a collection of ten books, covering a variety of interesting topics, throughout the collection. Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings. Without pretending to exhaust with too many references, it would be rather useful to focus on the most criticized part of the philosopher’s attempt, which is also the very starting point of his masterpiece, identified as eudaimonia (happiness, well being) and ergon (function), in Aristotelian terms.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that virtue and happiness come from achieving the moral mean. The moral mean is the midpoint between deficiency and excess in any particular behavior. For example, the moral mean of recklessness and cowardice is courage. In matters of ple...
He raises artisans as examples; the functions of the flute-player and sculptor is to play the flute and sculpt, respectively. Body parts also apply, as the human eye’s function is to see, as the leg is to walk. He then assumes that for any of these functions, the “good” is to perform that function “well”. The flute-player’s good is to play the flute well, and the eye’s good is to have good vision. Aristotle then questions, if a sculptor and leg have functions, then why shouldn’t a human? This argument is weak in that it is purely an assumption. It relies on teleological philosophy, where everything is accepted to have a function. This also implies that Aristotle assumes that men were designed to have a single function, meaning some high being/entity crafted the human being. However, his words can also be questioning the human function in respect to the human body parts. If body parts each have their own function, then it would only make sense if the whole, or the human, to have a function to which the body parts function for. Although this argument seems better, it still doesn’t serve as a good explanation to why humans should have a function. This argument does not hold any much validity either, as a statement saying a (two-meter-tall) man has little cells, therefore he too is little would also be true in this context. The inference does not make any sense because nothing
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
For Aristotle, every object has a final cause, which is the reason for which the object is made. In other words, the final cause is the function of the object. An object achieves the Good when it fulfills its function excellently. As an example, a good shovel is a shovel that digs well, whereas a good knife is a knife that cuts well. These functions depend heavily on the object, and an object is not good if it fulfills a function of a different object, a knife that is good at digging holes well would not be a good knife. This principle holds for human beings as well, a good person is the one who fulfills his or her function in an excellent manner. This includes both the function of a person as an individual in a certain field, as well as the general function of a human on a holistic sense. There is no perfect definition of what the overall function of a human being is, though. However, society as a whole has identified several virtues, characteristics that are widely thought to help people fulfill the function of being human and therefore lead to the good. Aristotle believed these traits are learned and developed through practice, but he also says these traits deteriorate if practiced wrong. Under what this philosophy, the best course would seem to be developing these traits to their fullest extreme. Yet Aristotle states “, we observe that these sorts of states naturally tend to be ruined by excess and deficiency” (Nicomachean Ethics, II, 1104a15). In other words, do much of a characteristic can be just as bad as too little of the trait or not having the trait at all. For instance, too much bravery causes one to act without thinking of the consequences or considering the dangers, whereas too much lawfulness would result an individual who is strict and inflexible. On the other hand, living without bravery or lawfulness would also cause problems. Aristotle believes the
The virtues defined by Aristotle consist of two extremes or vices, the excess and the deficiency. The mean or the intermediate between the excess and the deficiency is the virtue. One virtue Aristotle explains is bravery, with its vices being rashness and cowardice. Each aspect of these is contrary to the others, meaning that the intermediate opposes the extreme. Similarly, one extreme opposes the mean and its other extreme. The implications of this are that the excess opposes the deficiency more than the mean. This causes the mean to sometimes resemble its neighboring extreme. Obtaining the mean involves the challenge of being excellent. The challenging part, however, is “doing it to the right person, in the right amount, at the right time, for the right end, and in the right way” (Nicomachean Ethics 1109a28-29:29). Fortunately, one can steer themselves to the mean if one is conscious of the extreme they are naturally inclined to go towards. Since everybody is uniquely different the means by which one steers themselves in the right direction is different for each individual. In addition, Aristotle names three requirements for an action to be a virtue. First one must be cons...
On Aristotle’s search to find the highest good of a human being, he first asked what the ergon, or task, of being human is. His main focus was mostly on what the purpose or goal of human existence should be. Aristotle said that everyone is trying to reach happiness, whether it is by having money, love, or being honored. However, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he believes that the good we are trying to reach is one ultimate level of experience and that it is “desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.” All the other good that we experience throughout our lives is just pushing us toward the one thing that will make us happy in the end. Although we may think of being happy as a state of mind, Aristotle thought of it as how you lived your life. In other words, the happiness will not come and go within a couple of minutes or hours. It is a goal that is reached “at the end of one’s life and is a measurement of how well one has lived up to their full potential as a human being” (Shields).
For Aristotle the doctrine of the mean is a way to categorize (one of his favorite activities) moral virtue; however, there are some exceptions, as Aristotle noted, leaving a gap that must be filled. The doctrine is very helpful and does work, but one must beware the exceptions and carefully contemplate for himself whether these things are so.
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
For Aristotle the Chief Good of any being is in the exercise of their purpose. For Aristotle, it seems that life cannot be the work of man, as any number of plants possess simple life; nor can sensation be his calling, as all manner of animal possess sensation. Rather, says Aristotle, we must look to reason as the foundation of Man's work, as Man possesses reason where others do not. And, he continues, as work may be of a good or bad nature, it can be assumed that, "the Good of Man comes to be 'a working of the Soul (reason) in the way...
Interest is sparked in this area that Aristotle writes of because there is a natural need for Ethics in human life. John K. Roth states, “Aristotle assumes that all things, human beings included, have a good, a purpose or end, which it is their nature to fulfill”. This helps one understand Aristotle’s way of thinking, and provides insight to the basis of his theories. A common theory explored by Aristotle is the Ethics of Virtues, and how to practice them. A theory included in Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is the unity of all the virtues, and in order to be virtuous, one must exhibit all the virtues. One of these virtues being practical wisdom, or Phronesis.
Happiness is the goal of every human beings according to Aristotle, however what does happiness imply? It is in his attempt to define happiness and to find a way to attain it that Aristotle comes across the idea of virtue. It is thus necessary to explain the relationship between these two terms. I will start by defining the good and virtue and then clarify their close link with the argument of function, I will then go into more details in explaining the different ways in which they are closely related and finally I am going to give an account of the apparent contradiction in Book X which is a praise of the life of study.