Essay on The Doctrine of the Mean

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.”

Virtue is a quality that one possesses. But how can virtue be attained? Does someone simply decide they want to be virtuous? The question I am focusing on is as follows: Is avoiding evil sufficient to make one virtuous or must virtue be an active choice? Upon hearing this question I immediately thought “of course just avoiding evil alone doesn't make one virtuous”, but as I began to think more deeply about the question and to analyze examples from “Out Of The Silent Planet” by C.S. Lewis, it started to change what I thought. I do think that virtue is an active choice, however I also think avoiding evil is active choice.

The idea of striving for goodness has always been something that has been instilled in our minds since birth. We were always taught to the do the right thing. But why? What are the benefits of being a good person versus being bad? This is question that Colin Mcginn tackles in his article, “Why Not Be a Bad Person?” In it, he explains why he think virtue is the more intriguing moral standard, and explores why some people may disagree with him.

I believe virtue is anything that may be advantageous in one’s own way. It may be good, it may be bad in

“But virtue, like Nature itself, is more accurate and better than any art; virtue therefore will aim at the mean; - I speak of moral virtue, as it’s moral virtue which is concerned with emotions and actions, and it is these which admit of excess and deficiency and the mean. Thus it is possible to go too far, or not go far enough, in respect of fear, courage, desire, anger, pity and pleasure and pain generally, and the excess and the deficiency are alike wrong; but to experience these emotions at the right times and on the right occasions and towards the right person and for the right causes and in the right manner is the mean of the supreme good, which is characteristic of virtue.” (Aristotle)

definition of virtue says it is a point between a deficiency and an excess of trait, and the point of

According to Aristotle, intellectual virtues belong in the ‘rational’ fragment of the soul and moral virtues lie in the ‘irrational’ measure of the soul However, they are both dependant on reason. Although Aristotle recognised many virtues, he was an advocate for the notion of the existence of only four cardinal virtues. His proposal proved to be popular in the society that he lived in, being acknowledged by Plato and other bodies. The four cardinal virtues are: courage, a virtue which ensures control in the interest of goodness, temperance, a virtue which diminishes wants and desires by limiting them to reason, justice, the only virtue that consists of expressing care for other beings. A human that possesses the virtue of justice has the ability to practise this virtue on other human beings and not solely on themselves. The final and one of the most important virtues is prudence, a logical virtue of practical reason by which we separate the good and the methods of achieving it. Aristotle accentuates that virtues are pragmatic skills and hence experience guides us towards becoming more dexterous in avoiding deficiency. Although familiarity with the vices as extremes supports us in our aspiration for the mean, the wider connotations of the doctrine is that only through experience will we as humans come to know the right pretences and

In this paper, I will present a similarity and difference between Aristotle’s concept of a virtuous act and Kant’s discussion of dutiful action. In The Nicomachean Ethics, The source of a virtuous action happens when your passions and thoughts are balanced. It is balanced when there is

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores virtues as necessary conditions for being happy. A virtuous person is a person with a disposition toward virtuous actions and who derives pleasure from behaving virtuously. Aristotle distinguishes between two types of human virtue: virtues of thought and virtues of character. Virtues of thought are acquired through learning and include virtues like wisdom and prudence; virtues of character include bravery and charity, which are acquired by habituation and require external goods to develop. As a consequence, not all people can acquire virtues of character because not all people have the external goods and resources required to develop that disposition.

In this sense, a person can do the “right” thing, but if it is not done by his own will or choice, it is not morally virtuous. The claims of Books II and III directly contradict each other. The former argues that force must play a part in the development of moral virtue, while the latter explicitly states that what is done by force is not at all morally virtuous.

We are born with faculties like we are with passions. “We are not made up of good or bad nature; we are not praised nor blamed”(page 225, Mayfield). This quote is explaining with passions and faculties are how we feel and desire which is neither right nor wrong, good or bad. Since passions and faculties are not defined, state of character is virtue. State of character is our actions and our habits. “The virtue of man also will be the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well” (page 225, Mayfield). In order to have true virtue you need to act to “accordance with a golden mean of moderation” (page 78, Palmer). This means that you need to find an intermediate so you will be praised and succeed. You can’t take too much or too little. Too much for someone could be too little for someone else, therefore each person needs to find their own individual mean.

Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces

However , acting virtuous is the mean to becoming virtuous . There are conditions for virtue which consist of , having the appropriate inner state , taking pleasure in what your doing , doing it for certainty and firmness , and being aware of what you are dong . If a person performs a virtuous act without the right intentions the act is not longer virtuous . Virtue is acquired through habituation , making or becoming accustom or use to something . A person is not born with virtue , but by nature is capable of achieving and perfecting virtue . The way in which a person habituates virtue is by practicing virtuous acts and initiating virtue at a young age .

First, Aristotle believes that humans should only focus on one goal and is to live a happy life by being virtuous. Therefore, we must acquire the highest good by choosing good acts over bad acts. The Highest good of human action is based on the activity of the soul by using virtue. Therefore, Aristotle believes that we need to focus on virtue because he is concerned with a persons’ character. For example, by not being virtuous can affect a person character because they are not showing moral standards. For example, temperance can effect on how we react to a situation .Also, temperance can affect us neatly because we are responding to the

Another part of Aristotles' theory includes the idea of virtue. From my understanding, Virtue of character has a lot to do with our actions. It looks at what makes us do what we do. He explains, “Virtue, then, is of two sorts, virtue of thought and virtue of character” (Aristotle 18). In order to reach eudaimonia, we have to act virtuously. That is done by doing the right thing and knowing that you are doing it. Virtue of character is something that we do not automatically just have. It is something that we have to work on and practice. With practice, right actions will become habits. The virtuous person is someone who does not have to think about what the right thing to do is, they just do it.