NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle starts by explaining why people do what they do. Every action is the means to a greater end. Each end in turn can be seen as a means to an even greater end. A man makes horse shoes, the means, so he can shoe his horse, the end. He shoes his horse, the means, so he can ride into town, the end. So it goes until the ultimate end is reached, happiness.
He is careful to explain that not all of these acts are good and just, saying we must examine them. To fall short of the end, or to exceed it is potentially fatal, and so moderation is the answer. By acting always in moderation a person is sure to be just and temperate, and so is sure to be virtuous. In order to know how to be virtuous we must know how to identify virtuous characteristics. Each virtue has two vices, the Philosopher claims, one excess, and one deficiency. Courage has foolhardiness as its excess, and cowardliness has its deficiency, just as confidence has arrogance and shyness as its vices.
Some acts, by definition, have no moderation. These acts include murder, wrongful killing, theft, wrongful taking, and rape, wrongful sex. Anything not wrong by definition, however, must be done in moderation. Measuring moderation is not a scientific venture, and varies from person to person as is evident with Milo and his meat. A big man, Milo eats more meat than a young girl does for example. Seeking, and sticking to moderation will lead to a virtuous life, and is the only way to be truly happy in the end.
Aristotle makes a strong, clear argument as to the definition of virtue, and happiness. His argument is so strong that one is inclined to favor it at first glance. However, upon deeper examination his theories have glaring holes and a questionable inability to adapt, causing the value of his arguments to be debatable at best. While moderation is easily measured, and desirable characteristics agreed upon, virtue cannot be either measured or agreed upon in such a way as to be satisfactory even to a group of philosophers.
Aristotle's argument that virtue is a kind of moderation cannot be seriously considered as a guide to living because it does not address all the issues, and so should be used as model to shape certain parts of your life, if at all. Aristotle's first mistake comes in his idea that virtue is moderation of all things. He never fully states this, yet it is the only conclusion which can be drawn from the reading. This definition would require his high minded person to be perfect to achieve virtue. "Regarded in its essence, virtue is a moderation or middle state, but viewed in its relation to what is best and right it is the extreme of perfection. " One fault, one desire that could push a virtue toward a vice would ruin such a man, condemning him to an unhappy life.
Things that could fall into this category would include hobbies, emotions, or personal tastes. Having coin collecting as a hobby would mandate an excess of that with a deficiency in most other hobbies, which one would not think could cause you to stray from the path of virtue, but Aristotle makes no exceptions for this or emotions. Being happy is a vice itself, with unhappiness the other and contentment falling in the range of virtue, yet his formula for virtue is supposed to leave his followers happy, the ultimate end. Another example showing a weakness in his theory would be the case of a vegetarian.
A person does not like the taste of meat, the slaughtering of animals, or it makes them sick, so their consumption is reduced to zero. Zero by definition is the ultimate deficiency, as you cannot eat less than zero steaks, so cannot be considered in moderation. This person is no less virtuous, and if he balances what he does eat, will die no earlier than one who does eat meat. These are a few examples of how Aristotle's strict theory of mean is at fault, and incomplete.
Supporters of Aristotle may claim that this was not his intent, that he was merely outlining his ideas on virtue, and that it would not extend to all circumstances. Yet he clearly says, "Virtue, then, has to deal with feelings or passions and with outward acts, in which excess is wrong and deficiency also is blamed, but the mean amount is praised and is right" This clearly shows that any feeling or act not in moderation is wrong. He does make one exception when he says, "it is possible to feel fear, confidence, desire, anger, pity, and generally to be affected pleasantly and painfully, either too much or too little, in either case wrongly; but to be thus affected at the right times, and on the right occasions, and towards the right persons, and with the right object, and in the right fashion, is the mean course and best course, and these are characteristics of virtue. " He is making an exception for specific conditions, and only short periods of time. He never makes an exception for the vegetarian coin collector, sticking strictly to his idea that moderation can be compromised and virtue retained only in specific and extreme circumstances.
Such an idea is false because virtuous and happy people have lived complete lives with deficiencies in major categories like money, food, or health. Virtuous people have lived their entire lives practicing little moderation and have ended up very happy. Most people would agree that Saints would be considered virtuous, yet many lived with little money, little interest in material items, and an excess of caring, among other things. Aristotle would claim these people would die from their lack of money alone, probably from starvation or sickness. However if we look at Mother Theresa, who is sure to be canonized, we have a person who's extreme caring and kindness allowed her to have no interest in money, she was supported by donations and the church. By helping so many sick people she was exposed to health risks daily and was thus demonstrating excess of courage and caring, and by living through such excess to an old age, she shows the errors of Aristotle's reasoning.
Mother Theresa is an excellent example of how excesses in certain areas are as much virtue as moderation in all. Some acts can be seen either in moderation or in excess / deficiency . A man is swimming in the ocean, and is attacked by a shark. His wife dives in, ignoring the risk of being attacked herself, and pulls him ashore saving his life. This is virtuous, as she displayed courage, but was not foolhardy and killed.
Add a twist, the shark eats both, and she is foolhardy, not virtuous. With a different slant we see another side of the argument. She stands and watches while he is eaten by the shark. There is nothing she could do, as the shark would likely have consumed her also, therefor she cannot be called cowardly, and again is courageous and virtuous. However, had he swum to shore perhaps she would have been cowardly, there being little or no risk of her being eaten by the shark and she left him to die. In this situation there is no moderation, she either swims out or stands and watches, and depending upon the outcome she is labeled despite the fact that either action is acceptable in such a situation.
Based strictly on the Philosopher's writings there is no way to know before hand which is the more virtuous action, you must play out the situation completely before knowing exactly what should have been done. Aristotle bases his entire theory on knowing what is virtuous then doing it, never mentioning what happens when no virtuous action is evident until after the fact. This serious flaw must be considered before committing oneself to a theory on the attainment of virtue. "Happiness seems more than anything else to answer to this description: for we always choose it for itself, and never for the sake of something else; while honor and pleasure and reason, and all virtue or excellence, we choose partly for themselves (for, apart from any result, we should choose each of them), but partly also for the sake of happiness, supposing that they will help to make us happy. But no one chooses happiness for the sake of these things, or as a means to anything else at all. " Aristotle himself says happiness is, above all else, the ultimate end to which we strive. To this end we perform certain acts and seek certain recognition. This is a contradiction to his statements on moderation and virtue. "We may safely assert that the virtue or excellence of a thing causes that thing both to be itself in good condition and to perform its function well. " Most people are "in good condition" and "perform [their] function well" without being virtuous.
Granted some people are perfectly happy living in moderation, but most people are not, including many we hold as the most virtuous in history. What makes Mark McGwire happy is playing baseball, helping abused children, spending time with his son, and lifting weights, among other things. Sportswriters across America last year described him as virtuous, caring, and courageous, and many people felt the same way. While Aristotle might say helping people and loving your family is virtuous he would still claim that since McGwire does not balance his athletics, being in excess in baseball, or his weight lifting, not content with the physique of a Greek statue, striving for a better one, he displays corruption. He is saying that you must choose either virtue or happiness to most people. His path to virtue does not coincide with most people's path to happiness, which he claims virtue will lead to.
If we cannot be happy by being virtuous, nor virtuous while happy, what person is likely to accept his ideas as his own? None but those that can be both. Aristotle's definition of virtue would cause some people to be not in good condition or to be performing their functions poorly and so is an unacceptable definition of virtue. Aristotle expressed some brilliant ideas, and no one will argue that they are worth reading and thinking about. They do however lack in certain places for several reasons. His rigidity works against him in many ways and makes his theory unacceptable by today's standards.
Holes in his argument make it even weaker. Places where his statements do not connect and leave a question create many limitations to the application of his theory. He did not make exceptions in some cases, and did not provide for others. Many of the things that have occurred in the over two thousand years since then have greatly changed the human race and increased our knowledge. Had we not changed at all since Aristotle, his Nicomachean Ethics probably would have been the definitive text on virtue for the human race.
Most of the arguments against him have evolved during the time period after his death, leaving him no fault whatsoever for the invalidity of his writings today. Aristotle's argument that virtue is a kind of moderation is dated and inapplicable today due to insufficient detail and relativity to the lifestyle of today. Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: virtuous, human race, nicomachean ethics, mother theresa, virtue
Research essay sample on Nicomachean Ethics Mother Theresa
