Doctrine Of Mean Aristotle

Aristotle and Plato both said that there are four "natural virtues": Justice, Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. These values are all necessary to achieve human flourishing. Another key part of Aristotle’s ethic is what he referred to as ‘The Golden Mean’. He believed that a virtue can not necessarily be viewed as a virtue when it is used in excess. For example, courage is a virtue, but in excess it becomes rashness, a vice rather than a virtue. Moreover, when there is a lack of a certain virtue, this is also considered a vice. Aristotle's ethic is based primarily on balance. There cannot be too much excess or too little of the virtue. Thus, he said: "The mean [i.e. the balance] is successful and commendable. Virtue then is a state of deliberate moral purpose consisting in a mean that is relative to ourselves, the mean being determined by reason, or as a prudent man would determine it.”

In order to achieve this final, we need to live a virtuous life according to the Golden mean, which is finding the middle grounds of the virtues we live by. Aristotle explains that we should continuously act in accordance with virtues, which are acquired from our upbringing and experiences. Because Aristotle believed in teleology, he said that by aiming our actions toward an end (happiness), our souls need to work in the way of excellence.

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 ––––––––––––.

The previous passage shows then that the appetites or desires of corrupted people should not be taken into account while discussing the moral quality of an individuals’ actions. Aristotle’s definition of mean, which is having certain feelings “at the right times, about the right things, towards the right people, for the right end, and in the right way”, clearly states that there is only one right answer to any moral dilemma faced by an

Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, talks about certain virtues are the intermediate area of an excess and deficiency of virtues. For example, in a scale where rashness is the excess of bravery and cowardness being the deficiency of bravery, bravery itself being the mean between the two extremes. In that example, bravery would be the virtue that everyone should seek, in Chapter 9 [How can we reach the Mean?] Aristotle briefly talks about how it is difficult to achieve that specific state. First he describes the idea that since it is hard to reach this intermediate area that is the virtue, it should be praised when we use the virtue or a doing an act at the right time, to the right person, in the right amount and for the right end. To elaborate on this idea of the right moments, Aristotle has mentioned that it is often hard to reach the mean of a

Aristotle’s theory will be discussed in full length on his theory of virtue. Now Aristotle did believe in a multitude of theories that are all based off of virtue, but also the soul. To Aristotle, virtue is an excellence, which comes after happiness and achieving our final goal. When Aristotle talks about an individual’s final goal and excellence of that

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.

According to Aristotle, the mean is the “equal to” part, in between “greater than” and “less than”. A more context definition would be having enough so that you would not be either “excessive or deficient”. Each person have a different “mean” according to his/her standard. Aristotle gives us an example in his writing piece that ten pounds of food maybe enough for an athlete, but it would be too much for a trainer. As a knowledge person, you would be able to identify what is enough for you and choose the mean of it; a mean that personally related to you, not a mean of something. It is a guide to good living because it’s what guide your virtue, your character, your moral standard. If you can balance out your feelings and actions and not have

Unlike happiness, virtue is not an activity, but a disposition and a state of being. More precisely, it is a disposition to behave in the right manner. In Aristotle’s description, virtues are the “means” and intermediate states between what he considers vicious states (excess and deficiency). In other words, they are the moderation of desiring too much and desiring too little. For example, the state of being courageous is considered a virtuous disposition because it moderates the states of being cowardly (deficit) and rash (excess). Furthermore, Aristotle describes the virtuous person as one whose passions and deliberation are aligned; someone whose possession of goodness allows their acts to be guided by the balance of their “means” and their rationality. This means that to achieve a virtuous state one has to consistently aim for the “mean” of their actions to the point where it’s instinctive. (Nic. Ethics II 6).

Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, believes that one acquires virtue by exercising moral habituation. Aristotle’s theory of a virtuous character is developed by aligning with the Doctrine of the Mean. The philosopher developed the Doctrine of the Mean in Book II of Nicomachean Ethics to serve the purpose of conveying Aristotle’s concept on virtue ethics. A virtuous character can be considered as a person who acts in the right manner through habit and practice rather than reasoning. Aristotle writes, “Virtue, then, is a state involving rational choice, consisting in a mean relative to us and determined by reason - the reason, that is, by reference to which the practically wise person would determine it” (Aristotle, 30). Aristotle’s

To Aristotle, ethics is not an exact science, it’s ruled by broad generalizations that work most of the time and are found with those of experience, the men of practical wisdom (Nicomachean Ethics, 1094b15-1095a10). We don’t need a focused study in the sciences to understand the good, all one needs is a proper understanding of how the external aspects of life: friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth operate in concert. No aspects of friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth ought to be practiced too much (excess) or too little (deficient); moral virtue is action performed between two extremes (Nic. Ethics, 1106b5-25). And it is by consultation that one may find the middle ground between excess and deficiency, The Golden Mean (Nic. Ethics, 1097b5-20; Nic. Ethics, 1104a10-25).

In books one and two of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle lays a foundation for and explains reasoning behind his theory of moral virtue. Aristotle does this to give understanding of what it means to be morally virtuous, and how to achieve it. I believe Aristotle’s theory, in the face of objections regarding the relativity of virtue, is sufficient to achieve an understanding to what it means to be morally virtuous and how to act in a morally virtuous manner.

Within the narrative The Flight of Icarus a man named Daedalus murders his nephew and flees to a nearby village called Crete where he fell in love with a slave. Eventually they have a child named Icarus. When he tried to leave Crete with his son they were captured and held as prisoners, but were able to escape with the help of a woman. Next, they created wings that allowed them to fly with the use of feathers and wax. Daedalus warned his son, “not to fly too high to avoid having the wax melted by the sun and not to fly too low so that ocean water wouldn’t soak his feathers” (Rosenstand, 2013, p. 468). This is the scenario that is a parallel to Aristotle’s idea behind the “Golden Mean” and living life in moderation. For a while the son listened to his father and kept a good distance from the sun and ocean. However, further within the journey Icarus flew too high, causing the wax to melt and his feathers to fall and eventually he fell from the sky. He ended up falling into the ocean below and drowned. The father waited for his remains to surface and then proceeded to carry him to be buried on an island.

In his work, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle divulges into a philosophical inquiry into the nature of the good life for a human being. Through living with the mean state and with moral virtue, the disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, Aristotle explains how one can reach the end purpose of life and achieve eudaimonia, human flourishing. Aristotle’s fundamental claims surrounding moral excellence and habituation allow to one enact the necessary process of moderating thinking and feeling to become a morally excellent person. In order to reach human thriving, one must habituate themself to continually make good choices of the mean state, so that through acting virtuously, one can develop moral excellence in all aspects of their lives.

The doctrine of the mean states that for someone to be a good person they must occupy the “golden mean,” meaning a person may become virtuous by acting between the extremes of excess and deficiency. For example during war, the two extremes would be for a soldier to be rash or cowardly, but being courageous is the accepted golden mean. According to Aristotle, virtue lies in between the two extremes, which are the vices, and thus a virtuous person is one who can find the mean that is relative to his or her situation: that is the mean changes depending on the circumstances surrounding each decision. Using the previous example, a priest would never be expected to take up arms in battle, an act that would be considered cowardly in other