Having read Book II of Nichomachean Ethics (for the second time around), I'm always struck by the doctrine of the mean. I know that what's about to follow isn't the most philosophically groundbreaking material that I could write about, but it is something very near-and-dear to the realm of human experience. That, of course, is something I appreciate the most about Aristotle: his down-to-earth quality (well, moreso than Plato, anyway). As you might imagine, the empiricist in me is as happy as a kid in a candy store. But I digress...
Anyway, the doctrine of the mean has always seemed marvelously, intuitively, and infuriatingly human to me. The manner in which human beings are supposed to aim for the mean is equally so. Since Aristotle is so fond of moral virtue being developed through action, I will propose a personification of the doctrine of the mean in the most action-packed environment most college students get to engage in these days....the party environment. Consider the token example of this doctrine, the mean of courage accompanied to the party on either side by his brothers cowardice and rashness. At this party, courage would be like the over-achieving older brother; neither of his siblings quite know how he became such a virtuous goody-two-shoes, nor do they have the slightest idea how to emulate him properly. In any case, he somehow manages to enjoy the party without making a blubbering idiot of himself, and other party-goers are better (more cheerful, perhaps more virtuous) for his company.
Rashness is the drunken party boy who takes what he believes to be the boldness and extraversion of his older brother WAY too far; he is the guy with a lamp-shade on his head at the end of the night, and the same guy that brings other party-goers down with him a dangerous drunken stupor...not exactly the picture of virtue. Lastly, you have cowardice, who recognizes that Rashness has just gone completely off the deep end and, at any rate, is too busy being a nervous (okay, agoraphobic, possibly wetting himself) wallflower to engage in the party; this guy is not deriving any virtue from his activity, and the other people at the party aren't exactly deriving a great deal of enjoyment (or virtue) from his company, either.
The problem with the excess and deficiency is the same issue you see in many sibling rivalries. Courage just seems so perfect, and impossible to copycat, that all the other two can do are settle with approximations. The only difference is.....all human beings are the younger brothers (or sisters) in this situation. We all display different dimensions of excess and deficiency, and we all shoot for that ideal of the mean....and sometimes, we get it right. But we're human, fallible, the younger siblings of absolute virtue; we're never going to get it exactly right all the time.
This example carries over further into aiming for the "lesser of two evils," trying to emulate the mean by overshooting and coming closer to the vice that is closest to it. Granted, Rashness gets himself into some serious trouble, but at least he interacts with people at the party; the same cannot be said for cowardice. Humans go through this continuous cycle of sliding from one extreme (excess) to the other (deficiency), and occasionally hit right on the mark. As I said, this doctrine is very human. That's one reason it resonates with the imperfection in all of us.
Fascinating explanation of this aspect of virtue formation. I like the idea of sibling rivalry. On the approximation of virtue issue, that's okay on some level. For Aristotle, in many ways how we come to be good is by imitating what we recognize as correct action.
ReplyDelete