An Analysis Of Aristotle's Doctrine Of The Mean

1067 Words3 Pages

Aristotle’s “doctrine of the mean,” I believe, may shed some light on the nature of moral virtues (virtues of character). The doctrine of the mean can tell us some things about moral virtues, but I would also that the doctrine of the mean ultimately creates a rather unhelpful and overly simplistic concept of morality. More than anything, I think the doctrine of the mean tells us more about Aristotle than the nature of moral virtues. First, we should define the terms we are discussing. When Aristotle talked about “moral virtue,” he considered it a state of character— character as opposed to “virtues of intellect” (which Aristotle also talked about). The doctrine of the mean is Aristotle’s analytical model for determining how people can best …show more content…

Both of these are vices. In between them, at the mean, there is virtue. That is his doctrine of the mean. Just as with physical health, too little or too much can be detrimental, and so too with moral health. Aristotle uses the virtue of courage as one example of this doctrine. Courage is generally accepted as a good thing. With too little of it, people are reduced to cowardice. However, at the other end, too much of it leads to foolhardiness. The only way, Aristotle describes to the public, to be virtuous and courageous is to strive for the middle, the mean. Aristotle uses archery as a metaphor for why the doctrine of the mean is the key to excellence. To hit the bullseye takes precision. Too much variation in any direction, too much deficiency or too much excess, spoils that …show more content…

Certainly we should try to avoid cowardice and foolhardiness. Aristotle does not tell us where the lines are on his sliding scales of morality. When does cowardice give way to courage? When does courage give way to foolhardiness? I remember I was watching Selma, the movie about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s efforts in changing voting rights, the other day. There was a scene on the Edmond Pettus Bridge where a lot of unarmed marchers tried to make their way across despite the rather strong, and armed, disagreement of several Alabama state troopers. They end up beaten and turned away. Would Aristotle call this foolhardiness? Later, again at the Edmond Pettus Bridge, King leads the movement across and sees no opposition, but he turns them back because he was suspicious. Would Aristotle call this, as some of King’s allies did, cowardice? It is easy for us to call it all courage, since we know how it turned out. How useful is the doctrine of the mean at helping us decide what we should do and how we should live our lives if it waits until after the results come out to tell us how virtuous we

Open Document