A Life of Moderation
In discussing virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that virtue of character – the virtue of ēthos – is based upon the performance of activities and actions. Thus, a just and virtuous person would build their virtue of character by performing just and good activities.
He moves on to say that these activities are ruined by excess or deficiency:
The same is true, then, of temperance, bravery , and the other virtues. For if, for instance someone avoids and is afraid of everything, standing firm against nothing, he becomes cowardly; if he is afraid of nothing at all and goes to face everything, he becomes rash. Temperance and bravery, then, are […] preserved by the mean.
Aristotle suggests that performing the right activities in the right amounts is crucial since improper habituation can be difficult (if not impossible) to correct. It seems plausible, given Aristotle’s arguments, that individual actions may be more virtuous if performed in moderation. However, can a life where all activities are neither in excess nor lacking be considered good? Is the life that is led directly and steadily in the middle considered successful?
Winston
Feb 17, 04:47 PM
Ben Franklin, one of the most interesting and prolific minds ever, urged moderation in all things. Yet he did not practice what he preached. A life that never deviates from the middle of the road is certainly safest, but dull and boring, and rarely leads to significant accomplishments.
Atul
Feb 18, 10:08 PM
Some philosophies advocate not only performing good deeds, but having only pure thoughts. Since humans can’t know what others are thinking, this perhaps has little consequence, (unless one believes that God or a higher power can know what we are thinking). I think intentions, not just actions, should be considered. A person who commits an act which is not good, but did so without realizing the consequences should be forgiven.
Thame
Feb 20, 11:27 AM
Winston: Yes, you make an excellent point about whether or not it is possible to live an exceptional life by being moderate.
Atul:
“Some philosophies advocate not only performing good deeds, but having only pure thoughts. Since humans can’t know what others are thinking, this perhaps has little consequence.”
So, is living a successful life something that is ascribed by other humans? If living a good life involved having no impure thoughts, but a person did have impure thoughts, would they still be happy simply because other people could not know?
“A person who commits an act which is not good, but did so without realizing the consequences should be forgiven.”
I agree.
James
Feb 21, 09:16 AM
As opposed to pure thoughts and notions that are, for the most part, unattainable, Buddhist teachings look to end suffering by getting rid of attachment. Everything is impermanent according to Buddhism. As such, attachment will eventually cause suffering.
Makes some sense. Attachment CAN bring us joy, but it’s often fleeting. For the most part, attachment to ideas, money, things leads to suffering when those things are gone.
Thame
Feb 21, 09:00 PM
Just from what you described, it seems like a pessimistic point of view, as if they fear the possibility of loss so they don’t even attempt to create a profound connection with an activity or other person.
Can we excel at an activity without becoming attached to it? Would buddhists be indifferent to their own religion?
Atul
Feb 21, 10:33 PM
Thame,
The notion of living a successful life is ascribed by others and that in turn has an impact on how successful an individual feels since we are social beings. A successful life seems to be more often than not measured by superficial factors.
A “what others don’t know won’t hurt them” mentality keeps people with impure thoughts from feeling guilty about them perhaps. I don’t think these can be stopped, even by the most pure individuals. In fact, I think impure thoughts happen without our own control. Dreams are another avenue in which impure thoughts may be displayed, but nobody has complete control over their dreams either.
James,
Yes, Buddhism makes sense in that attachment can lead to suffering, but it as Thame says it’s pessimistic. Complete detachment may prevent suffering but it also prevents some forms of joy, however fleeting. I don’t know if I’d want to live a detached risk-free life without some material pleasures, but some monks can do it. They may experience enlightenment that I would never understand.
Atul
Thame
Feb 22, 08:18 AM
“The notion of living a successful life is ascribed by others and that in turn has an impact on how successful an individual feels since we are social beings. A successful life seems to be more often than not measured by superficial factors.”
What if the person does not feel that they have lived a successful live. Does this mean that a combination of both the society’s consideration and the person’s feeling of their own success are required? Is one more important than the other?
“Dreams are another avenue in which impure thoughts may be displayed, but nobody has complete control over their dreams either.”
Yes, I’m taking an amazing psychology course right now so expect some related posts :D
Ryan
Feb 22, 01:34 PM
Well you discuss a very interesting point in regards to what is expected of the person who follows the “middle path.” Aristotle says that the path that you speak of would be the “mean.” For example, he says that for a person to be courageous they would be courageous for the sake of the beautiful and they aren’t rash or cowardly in their actions. Courage is the “mean” between rash and cowardly behavior.
So he doesn’t mean that you should live a life that is the middle path in the sense that you are just doing good to get by but not showing any sense of exceptional virtue. By the “mean” he means not falling into excessive or deficient behavior. If someone is excessive in their actions then even when they reach the state of pleasure in their actions, they may wish to have more pleasure, so they never actually attain a state of pleasure.
In addition, the person who is deficient won’t reach that state of pleasure due to their lack of effort. So to answer your question, I think the “mean” that Aristotle describes is acting in the best way and not in the sort of lazy way that you have seemed to interpret. The way to attain pleasure of actions would be to follow that “mean” path, and to not stray into excessive or deficient behavior.
I really like your site, and the questions that you pose! Being a philosophy major I respect those who pose such thought provoking questions.
Thame
Feb 24, 01:33 PM
Ryan: Thank you very much.
The Doctrine of the Mean also applies to what I was saying. Can we not learn more by testing the extremes than we would by living strictly in the middle of the activity or state’s range?
While Aristotle suggests that we should sometimes shoot for a particular extreme, he believes that we should only do so to land closer to the mean.
Ryan
Feb 24, 03:16 PM
Thame: Well Aristotle discusses that knowledge of the extremes isn’t necessary and can be difficult to reverse. For example, he says that there are five conditions that are often mistaken for courage. One of the conditions is experience. These types of people have experience (knowledge) of a situation, and therefore are less fearful when faced with situations.
However, people who have experience and knowledge are facing fear since they know that the fear won’t harm them due to their knowledge of the situations. To Aristotle, this isn’t acceptable since one should stand against fear in the name of the beautiful, not because they know the outcome.
According to Aristotle, being excessive will end in pain, since you will be in a state of pleasure, but due to your excessive nature, will want more and eventually will not be able to be given more. This leaves you in a state of pain. Additionally, living in a deficient extreme you will never feel pleasure because you never experience the virtue due to your inability to act in accordance with the mean.
I think he would recommend that you stay with the mean and spend time trying to develop more virtues in accordance with the mean instead of testing the extremes, since they will only lead you to pain.
I hope I helped clear up some of your questions. _
Thame
Feb 25, 11:20 AM
Thank you very much Ryan.
I suppose I should hold off on my thoughts until I’ve finished the chapter then :D
I’m reading the book for a class and immediatly write about my thoughts here before reading his actual conclusions.
“I think he would recommend that you stay with the mean and spend time trying to develop more virtues in accordance with the mean instead of testing the extremes, since they will only lead you to pain.”
That makes sense.
Ryan
Feb 25, 06:41 PM
Thame: I’m happy that I can help. I probably wouldn’t know this if it weren’t for my Aristotle class that I’m taking, lol.
Oh, another reason that he may say to avoid excessive or deficient extremes would be that he believes that it is a human’s duty to do good things to other people and abide by laws. So he may say that since you aren’t in accordance with the mean then you aren’t able to act virtuously to your neighbor, which is your duty.
Just a thought. Your views are well founded, though, and I enjoy them. :)
Thame
Feb 26, 11:59 AM
“Oh, another reason that he may say to avoid excessive or deficient extremes would be that he believes that it is a human’s duty to do good things to other people and abide by laws. So he may say that since you aren’t in accordance with the mean then you aren’t able to act virtuously to your neighbor, which is your duty.”
I see. That also makes sense.
I’m doing a group project on his conception of Moral Virtue which should help clear things up.
“Your views are well founded”
Haha, right :D
Kenan
May 19, 10:09 PM
“Everything in moderation…including moderation.”
I believe that moderation is often a good choice in life…but there are different degrees of moderation, so that statement is misleading when ‘moderation’ is defined that way.
‘Moderation’ can also be defined by societal norms…so for example in the 1700s ‘moderation’ would perhaps mean not beating your slaves TOO hard. That said, it is rare that there is an individual who reshapes society, so often it is best to follow societal norms.
“Everything in moderation” should definitely not mean that you get too comfortable and aim directly for the middle in all areas simply because a maxim encourages you to do so.