Pardon the heinously awful pun, but I saw it as a perfect (bit of an overstatement) segue to this latest post about the theory of virtue, namely Aristotle's famous theory of the Golden Mean, but also about whether virtue could be considered a means to some end (double-meaning!).
Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been countless definitions of what it means to be moral. Cataloging these could be the project of a life time, and I do not want to embark on such a quest today (or ever), but I do want to discuss some things that I believe must be essential to any relevant discussion of virtue theory. To start, I would like to share some thoughts on the Golden Mean theory postulated by Aristotle over 2,300 years ago. For starters, there is debate in academia these days about whether Aristotle even had any notion of "moral" virtue, that is, virtues that ought to be practiced simply because it is "right" to do so. Aristotle does have the notion of eudaimonia, or human flourishing/happiness, as the outgrowth of the practice of virtue, but it is unclear whether this is meant in a moral sense. It seems he may simply have been referring to the best way to live a contented life, and he does not make explicit mention that his Golden Mean theory was anything that bore moral weight. I am far from an expert on Aristotle, and I would like to table the discussion of whether or not his theory of virtue was intended morally or not and move to a critical analysis of how his theory stands up if it is to be taken as a definitive definition of virtue. Could the Golden Mean theory be a proper theory of what virtue is, or is it rather just a description of what virtue happens to look like in practice?
When interpreting Aristotle's Golden Mean theory of virtue, some attribute the phrase "everything in moderation" to him. It is clear that this is not Aristotle's position, as he makes reference to the fact that one does not ingest poison in moderation in his works. The Golden Mean does not entail that one must have every single thing in moderation, but rather that virtue is often the balancing of two opposing forces within oneself. For example, one instantiation of temperance requires that one both not eat/drink too much or too little, lest one be intemperate. Now, this is a perfectly sound empirical observation made by Aristotle, but is a Golden Mean really what virtue is? One might question what exactly it means to be above or below the mean when it comes to a given virtue. One thing is clear, Aristotle cannot (or, at least, should not) hold that the mean is a balance between either too much or too little of a certain virtue. It is ridiculous to say that someone either has too much or too little bravery. One is either brave in some respect, or one is not; the spectrum of the Golden Mean is measured by gradations of having a specific virtue. Surely, someone could be braver than another, but it can never be a negative thing to have bravery. When presented with a dangerous situation, one is either cowardly, brave, or foolhardy. Additionally, Aristotle himself admits that some virtues do not admit of deficiencies or surpluses. This seems to stick a fork in any ontological interpretation of the Golden Mean theory, as it cannot be of the essential structure of virtue to be the mean between two extremes.
When we pick up the pieces of what is left of the Golden Mean theory, it seems as if all that remains is a moderately astute observation made by Aristotle about what virtue entails. Surely, within man there are drives to be weak, self-indulgent, and impractical, however, I do not believe that these drives have a positive relation to virtue as much as they demonstrate the lack thereof. The Golden Mean theory is not worthless, as there are grains of truth in it, but it is not a proper definition of virtue. Virtue can only be the excellence of man at being man. By positing a theory of virtue, one must necessarily have in mind some sort of human nature or essence, as without some common nature there could not be something that is the perfection of all people. This leaves open nearly limitless possibilities for what true virtue could be, but it must entail some common nature. Furthermore, if one is to pursue some type of virtue theory in ethics, it must preclude any view of virtue as a means to an end. Virtue, being the perfection of man, is always the end of his life, and is never the means to any goal, such as happiness, pleasure, etc.; it is good in itself. I realize that I have not filled in much of the void left by my rejection of the Golden Mean theory as a true theory of virtue, but that would take many more words and is a task for a different day. For now, I think it suffices to say that virtue is neither a Golden Mean or a means to an end, and it certainly is not a meanie (yikes)!
Peace be with you,
William
P.S.- I think, as a part of my whole project (oh, how pretentious of me!) to make philosophy about real life, I am going to start posting artistic suggestions at the end of each new blog post from here on out. Let's call them "Concretizations of the Universal Form of Coolness"
CUFC- "Sabertooth Tiger" and "Toboggan" by Breathe Owl Breathe (songs), Downton Abbey (BBC show)
Whatever you say! Lost in the fog!
ReplyDelete