Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean

Throughout this Book 1, the discussion digresses multiple times to explore the method by which the topic will be examined. Realising that concepts such as happiness are subjective, he establishes in the third Chapter that the fruits of the discussion will be satisfactory so long as it holds true universally. He also considers in Chapter four whether the discussion should originate from the principles, or from our experiences, and suggests that we should being from things known and immediate to us, which seems to be a logical choice as the discussions as a whole focus on what a man should do in order to act according to virtue in order to become good and attain happiness. In addition, the sixth Chapter is devoted to criticism of the theory of Forms. Since good can exist in so many different ways, but are undoubtedly good, Aristotle argues that there is no common idea governing it. He also denies the existence of separate Forms that are merely mimicked by what we perceive, since a thing and the Thing Itself has the same

Aristotle says humans need a clearer statement of what the best good is. Human beings already have happiness to chase after; but Aristotle believes there are different kinds of happiness. With the different types we get people trying to strive for different types of happiness and are maybe unclear as to which one to chase. This is where Aristotle says the confusion comes in. We need a clearer explantion of happiness and what it is. From reading book one we can see there are four subcatergories of happiness; which are material, formal, efficient and final. Aristotle is trying to get at which one is the most important one to us as human beings. It is really to see that humans want money, pleasure, and to be trusted and honored because we believe that these goods will lead us to being happy. It also seems that all other goods are ways towards finding

Aristotle begins to question what is good? The good is explained to differ in different activities and arts, but shares a common ground because it appears to be for the sake of how things are done; a means to an end. Aristotle uses the example of medicine; its mean is to end in health. However, there are many different ends and humans chose some of them, as a means to something else, therefore not all ends are final ones. That which is chosen never as a mean to something else proves to be more final than that which is chosen for itself and something else. Therefore, Aristotle justifies that the mean that is always chosen for itself and not for means of something else is called the final. Aristotle uses this definition and applies it to happiness, since happiness is always chosen as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else. The thought of honor, pleasure and virtue being chosen as an end for itself may apply but can be assumed they lead to happiness as a means to an end.

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

He also, unlike Plato, believes that there are ways for everyone to achieve the good rather than just intellectuals and their theories. As a result, Aristotle wants us to find a more attainable method that will allow to participate in being virtuous or

Aristotle searches his answer to the question, what is happiness? In order to find his answer, he places constraints on what can count as happiness and searches the function of a man He proclaims good must be something final, and self-sufficient. Good is seen different in different activities and art, but it is resent for the sake of which everything is done. Aristotle searches what the good than is in each. In medicine it is health, in strategy victory, in architecture in a house and so on from all the other arts but in every task it describes the end of that task, since the point in all of them is for the sake of the end that everything is done. Thus, if there is something that is the end of all the things done by human action this can be the predictable of, “good.”

Aristotle’s argument is a by-product of a similar one proposed by Plato near the beginning of the Republic (R 352d–354b). Here Socrates wanted to persuade his intended audience that a just life is best for it will bring the individual the most happiness. Whereas both arguments seem dependent on a connection between being a decent individual, having a good life, and correlating both of these to rationality, Aristotle’s version of the argument differs in what the best good is.

Subsequently, Aristotle recognizes the good because of pleasure associated with it; for Kant this is insignificant. All that matters is our duty, and all pleasure that comes along with it is not good in itself. However, for Aristotle, the very mark of good action is that we also experience pleasure in doing it--even if the rational principle is the most important part. In the end, Aristotle would probably agree with Kant that it is more important for an action to be morally correct than pleasant. Yet, for Aristotle we must develop habits that lead to a good state of character out of which we act well, whereas for Kant we act well by developing a good will that refers outside of ourselves, to a moral law.

Virtue is a set of good qualities expressed by people's actions and purposes in life. Some philosophers have claimed that there is no truth in virtue as it is not a priori knowledge; you can't prove that it is wrong to kill by deductive reasoning. The right and the wrong don't come from the true and the false. But Aristotle shows that knowing the natural end of man enables to tell if it is true of false that an action is right or wrong. So, for Aristotle, what does the vituous life entails? What is his 'doctrine of the mean'? What is the government type that further Aristotle's virtue life? Is it a plausible type of society?

So it is more than a simple correspondence. To avoid deception in thinking, Aristotle says that we must perceive REALITY and exclude

Aristotle lays down two key ideas with in his theory of “Human Nature”. The first idea is the ethnic qualities of man, which included the features of thought and body and is a development for contemplative excellence. The Second part of this theory is Aristotle gives the outlook that life with contemplations is the basis of a truly good life. This includes his views of how human incentives and the role of one’s qualities will lead one to living the good life. In “The Politics” Suzie Sparague introduces Aristotle’s well thought out argument, in which Aristotle argues that specific conceptions of “Human Good.” At the same time as the reader gets to this part of the book he/she is probably wondering what Aristotle means by human good. Human good as seen through the eyes of Aristotle is the ability to be morally sound, or to be just in the actions we make as humans.

In the beginning of his book he says that “Good is that at which all things aim” and that all arts aim for ends. He also believes that end “is some product over and above the mere exercise of the art… these products are essentially superior in value to the activities”. He is saying that the product of the end or Telos is greater then what the activity is started with. Telos is the goal, purpose, or end of all arts. Therefore, Aristotle implies that

Based on the preceding analysis, I think Aristotle’s viewpoint provides the best way to consider this issue. His approach is the most useful for two main reasons, namely his concept of the golden mean and his idea about learning which virtues to follow based on role models. These ideas strike me as the most realistically applicable of all three theorists. In other words, Aristotle’s system of ethics is one that is useful in practice, not just on paper.

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

It is a simple exercise to find the mean between two numbers, it is the midpoint between any two values on the number line. However, when you drift away from the number system, calculating the mean of a set can be quite a different process. If you consider fear and confidence, it is less intuitive that the mean of these two qualities is bravery. And such, it even follows that there is no single variable that defines bravery. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses one of his most famous principles in great detail, the ‘Doctrine of the Mean’. It declares that a moral (ethical) action is a mean between two extremes, and that a virtuous person is capable of choosing the mean consistently.