Ethics for Aristotle

Aristotelian ethics begins with the establishment of the notion of happiness. In this sense, it can be considered a eudemonist ethics for seeking what it is to act well on a human scale, to act according to virtue. Happiness is defined as a certain activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue. Based on this definition, it is necessary to study what a perfect virtue is and, thus, it is also necessary to study the nature of moral virtue. As moral virtue consists of a mean relative to us, we will analyze the concept of mean (average or just-measure) as it appears in Book II of Nicomachean Ethics.

Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition – since they cannot be either faculties or passions – to act deliberately and the disposition is in accordance with right reason. Moral virtue consists of an average relative to us. After establishing moral virtue as a disposition – hexis – that is, how man behaves in relation to emotions, there is still a need for the specific difference between moral virtue and intellectual virtue to be made explicit.

According to the Stagirite, what distinguishes the two kinds of virtue is the mean. Intellectual virtue is acquired through teaching, and thus needs experience and time. Moral virtue is acquired, in turn, as a result of habit. Habit determines our behavior as good or bad. It is due to habit that we take the right measure with respect to ourselves. Therefore, the average is imposed by reason in relation to the emotions and is relative to the circumstances in which the action takes place.

None of the moral virtues arises in men by nature because what is by nature cannot be altered by habit and “nature gives us the ability to receive them, and this ability is perfected by habit” (ARISTOTLE, Nicomachean Ethics, II, 1103 to 26). Virtues and arts are acquired by exercise, that is, the practice of virtues is a prerequisite for acquiring them. Without practice, there is no possibility for man to be good, to be virtuous. We become just by doing just acts because “all virtue is generated and destroyed by the same causes and by the same means” (ARISTOTLE, Nicomachean Ethics, II, 1103b 5-6). Since the moral virtues are seen as the product of habit, they are consequently taken to be innate. When considering moral virtues as acquired, there is an implication that man is the cause of his own actions, responsible for his character – for this reason action precedes and prevails over disposition. It is in the nature of the virtues the possibility of being destroyed by lack or excess and it is up to the average to preserve the moral virtues and also differentiate them from the natural virtues. It can be noted, therefore, that the idea of just-measure advocates that any virtue is destroyed by extremes: virtue is the balance between feeling in excess and apathy. Therefore, it is evident that virtue seeks harmony – and this is given by the ratio between extreme emotions. The middle ground is experiencing the right emotions at the right time and in relation to the right people and the right objects, in the right way. This is the average, this is moral excellence.

Read Also: Photo of Celebrities without makeup: the psychology of the persona

By proposing the average as a type of moral virtue, as a moral rule, the Stagirite returned to classical Greek wisdom because it indicated the average as the golden rule of moral action. Meanness has the aspect of not silencing emotions, but seeking proportion and, due to this proportion, the action will be adequate from a moral perspective and, concomitantly, the action will be linked to emotions and passions. According to Aristotle, the middle position is what has the same distance from each of the extremes. With regard to us and always considering this bias, the middle is what neither exceeds nor lacks. Here it is evident that the “means” takes place in relation to the agent since “it is not unique and the same for all” (ARISTOTELES, Nicomachean Ethics, II, 1106 to 34).

Moral virtue must have the quality of aiming for the middle ground because it is related to passions and actions. In actions and passions, on the other hand, there is lack, excess and the mean. Actions and appetites do not have, in their nature, something that determines their tendency towards lack or excess. In turn, the tendency towards average expresses moral virtue, expresses the excellence of the soul’s desiring faculty. What makes us tend towards the average is education and the repetition of good and noble acts. Accordingly, the habit is developed and aims at the mean. This, in turn, is determined by a rational principle (LOPES, 2008). It can be noted that, for Aristotle, virtue is a kind of mean since it aims at the middle ground and is seen as a disposition of character that is related to the choice of acts and passions.

Read Also: How is the routine of a University Professor?

The just measure is determined by a rational principle proper to man endowed with practical wisdom. Thus, when searching for the essence of virtue, for its definition, Aristotle defines it as average, or even, “average is the quiddity of virtue” (ZINGANO, 2008, p. 23).

The Stagirita states that his investigation about virtue is not exclusively theoretical, but the investigation takes place with the aim of making men good – because it is up to the same science, that is, Political Science, both the knowledge of the virtues and the function of making men good. Therefore, the definition of virtue and its application in particular facts is sought.

Virtue is a mean between two vices. One of these vices involves excess and the other vice involves lack. Therefore, it is up to virtue and its nature to aim at the mean both in actions – although some actions do not allow a middle ground because their very names already imply, in themselves, evil – as in the passions. One of the extremes – between which the median lies – is more misleading than the other. Therefore, one should be aware of the errors to which it is easier to be dragged. One can know which error one is dragged into by analyzing the pleasure and suffering caused by it. When discovering which error one is more prone to, one must go in the opposite direction, to the other extreme in order to reach the intermediate state and, consequently, move away from the error.

In all things the mean is to be praised, concludes Aristotle at the end of Book II. However, sometimes one must lean towards excess, sometimes towards lack in order to reach more easily what is correct and the middle ground.