Book II of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics explains to us how the virtuous person goes about his or her life. It was interesting to discover that, to Aristotle, “virtue” is all about the average. In other words, what makes a human being “perform his [or her] characteristics actively well” (Chapter 6) is found in a mean. He reasons that because science seeks the point at which nothing can be added or taken away, we should similarly look at human virtues in terms of seeking a balance between two excessive vices. It is very similar to a number line. For example, given a line of 100 units, we would find the virtuous, balanced state of courage at fifty. At zero, we encounter cowardice and at one hundred we encounter rashness. While it can be viewed mathematically, the mean virtue and two excessive vices are more based upon our nature as humans than arithmetic. Aristotle puts forward many virtues and opposing vices and emphasizes how the best way to reach each one of them is to practice them.
He postulates, however, that only few can ever find that mean and in picking the extreme on which to lean on in a given virtue, one should pick the one that is most similar to the mean. After giving such arithmetic arguments for what ethical code one should strive for, he settles for picking the “lesser of two evils” (Chapter 9). To an extent, Aristotle doubts the capacity of human beings to reach his state of virtue and in no way explains how it is that an ethical individual should act.
So what kind of person is the type that would be able to find the state of virtue that Aristotle describes? How do we become the person that can be generous to “the right person, in the right amount, at the right time, with the right aim in view and in the right way” (Chapter 9)?
Aristotle ignores the answers to these essential questions. He does not acknowledge what one must do to live a moral life or judge the course of action taken in a situation. While living in a state of virtue is important, placing the answer as to how it is that we achieve this state in a place that is out of reach dismisses purpose in asking the question and, essentially, in the more fundamental part of ethics. Surely we can agree that achieving a state of virtue in which we appropriate courage, generosity, temperance, and others to the best extent is difficult, but we cannot conclude that practicing them to the best extent is impossible.
1 comment:
In regards to the first couple paragraphs concerning virtue as a “mean”, I feel that, indeed, Aristotle’s ideas do encompass a necessary balance between – as we mentioned in class – outward demonstrations of wealth, political power, friendship, and good fortune in order to achieve virtue. However, I feel that it should be noted that Aristotle, later in his writings, goes on to say that a life of happiness does not stem from pleasure and honor, but from a life of contemplation. His own words generate a vivid contradiction as pleasure and honor are largely associated with wealth, political power, friendship, and good fortune, all of which he initially claims make up a virtuous, and therefore happy life. He simultaneously says that these same type of external pleasurable and honorable qualities do not formulate a happy life. Aristotle also holds that a truthfully happy life must not be upheld by external conditions, and must instead be self-sufficient, such as a scholarly, contemplative life may endorse; nonetheless, the four attributes of a “happy” and “virtuous” life that he speaks of do not in any way entail a contemplative life, nor are they self-sufficient, but merely rest on the faith that people will be around the individual to make possible and then recognize his wealth, political power, friendship, and good fortune. Aristotle's entire argument for what he sees as a "good" or "virtuous" life is completely in opposition to itself in this manner.
Post a Comment