In Book II of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle tries to define virtue through the concept of the mean, or intermediate point, where virtue lies somewhere between two extremes. Virtue is excellence, not mediocrity. The quarterback's virtue enables him to throw an excellent pass, although to do this he mustn't throw short of his wide receiver or overthrow the ball at any time, but hit the point in between. Similarly, although virtue is concerned with avoiding both excess and defect in feeling and action, so that "in respect of its essence and the definition of its essential nature virtue is a mean," nevertheless " in regard to goodness and excellence it is an extreme" (1107 a6). A virtuous person excels at stopping at just the right point.
It is impossible to define the right point in abstract terms. If the extremes were definite and
I feel that Aristotle perhaps overemphasizes the fact that moral virtue is concerned with achieving just the right amount of feeling or action. It has other important aspects, which he mentions more briefly. In 1106 b21, Aristotle states that, "to experience [fear, confidence, desire, anger, pity, and generally any kind of pleasure] at the right time, toward the right objects, towards the right people, for the right reason, and in the right manner - that is the median and the best course." However, it is not clear that in all of these aspects virtue can be represented as a mean, or perhaps some of them pertain to practical wisdom rather than to moral virtue. Elsewhere (1105 a28-35) he says that an act does not come from moral virtue unless it is chosen for its own sake, not for an ulterior purpose such as avoiding punishment. This
All papers and essays are for research and reference purposes only!
Copyright 2002-2009
Direct Essays , LLC. All Rights Reserved. DMCA Webmasters make $$$$