In class we discussed Aristotle’s
golden mean, stating that virtue is the mean between excess and deficiency.
According the Aristotle, the best thing to do is the thing that avoids excess
and deficiency. Aristotle believed that virtues were good; however, too much of
a virtue is bad, therefore we need to have a golden mean. Virtues are a
midpoint between excess and deficiency and we should aim for this golden mean
in order to live a good life and be a good person. For example, cowardice is a deficiency,
while rashness is excess, courage is the mid point and is the golden mean in
which we should strive.
I
understand Aristotle’s theory; however, it is not something that I will
personally try to apply to my life. I think trying to always live by the golden
mean is a waste of life and all the amazing experiences one should have; it
sounds boring. The best parts of life are the mistakes you make when being
excessive or deficient in a virtue. Not always following Aristotle’s idea of
the golden mean causes people to be bolder, act foolishly, and make mistakes.
Personally I have made many mistakes in my life but I don’t regret any of them,
they shaped me into who I am today and taught me lessons that I’m so glad I
learned. If I was following Aristotle’s golden mean maybe I would have been
happier in the moment but by not following it, I am happier in the long run.
This
summer I worked as a waitress in a higher end Tex-Mex restaurant. Every day I
went to work I did not practice the golden mean; I was always far too helpful
and friendly to my co-workers. Many of
the other waiters and waitresses have worked there for at least a year, they
had the system down. After watching the veteran waiters I found that they knew
exactly what to do and when to do it in order to get the best tips possible and
be in the best favor with the managers, this mainly meant looking out for only
themselves. They had to be efficient, a bit selfish and definitely not generous
with their time. I decided to be extra generous with my time and help everyone
I possible could (I was interested in not only making money but friends as
well). I would help run food to other tables and refill water for customers who
were not mine. This over generousness with my time may sound a bit foolish
because it meant that I would sometimes neglect my own costumers, which hurt my
tips but I ended up making great friends at the end of the day I felt like I
had made the right choices and I could go to bed a happy person.
Aristotle
would not support my over generousness because in the situation it was not the
golden mean; it was a bit foolish yet for me it was the right way to act in the
situation. I would have felt bad if I refused to help them when they asked for
help, even though that is what the other waiters would have done. In the moment I sometimes regretted helping others
but at the end of the day when I was about to fall asleep I was happy with my
decisions despite what Aristotle says that behaving in the right manner is a
moral virtue and requires us to have a manner between two extremes (or vices). -Morgan
I think you have pointed out an unaddressed problem with Aristotle's theory of the golden mean, which is that in some cases two different virtues will overlap and a person must choose which virtue will ultimately be more satisfying for them. We can both agree that generosity is a virtue, but so is friendliness. You chose to pursue friendliness as a virtue, but your coworkers chose a different path and attempted to find the balance of generosity. Your extra generosity translated into a balanced level of friendliness, so you were happy because an important virtue to you personally was satisfied. Your coworkers were also satisfied, because to them, friendliness wasn’t of high as an import. Different personality types will follow pulls from different virtues, and in cases like yours, certain decisions between virtues will present themselves. Aristotle failed to bring this situation up, that virtues may overlap, and the individual must choose which is more important to them depending on their final goal they wish to achieve.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand your argument that the golden mean in itself does portray a sort of boring lifestyle, but the golden mean isn't the only thing that dictates how one lives, according to Aristotle. As we discussed in class, he also mentions how happiness is the highest good, and that people's actions are based on being happy. Aristotle also recognizes that happiness can mean a different thing to every person. You point out in your post that you were "interested in not making money but friends as well." What made you happy at work was not only making money, but to make friends, while your coworkers got their happiness from just making money. In your coworkers' point of view, it was considered unreasonably excessive to be as generous with their time as you were with the customers because their aim was not to be happy from making friends at work. In order to obtain their version of happiness, they had to make decisions at work that only promoted their monetary gains. For you, this version of happiness was lacking friendship. And so you must adjust your actions to best acquire your version of happiness. And so, according to the golden mean, your generosity was not overdone considering your goal of friendship. Although you disagree, I believe that Aristotle would not say that your actions were unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteMorgan,
ReplyDeleteIt seems you have misunderstood Aristotle’s intentions in asserting the intermediate as the ideal. In an effort to make sure that at least we are on the same page, I will show you where I perceive the error. Additionally, building from this clarification I intend to present arguments that will hopefully make you more appreciative of Aristotle’s theory, particularly with regard to your view of mistakes and feelings and Aristotle’s intention by the mean relative to us.
First off, Aristotle does not believe that too much of a virtue is a bad thing. In respect to action, there is excess, deficiency, and the mean. Aristotle defines virtue as the mean. Anything outside of the mean is by definition a vice. In this sense, one cannot act overly virtuous. But if one acts in excess with regard to some action, then one acts in vice. Aristotle does not mean that the quantity of virtue is good or bad, but rather the “quality” (this admittedly is not the best word for my intention here) of the action in relation to excess, deficiency, and the mean. Aristotle makes this point most clear on page 41 in the last paragraph of section two.
Secondly, there are several issues I have regarding your claim about the value of mistakes. You claim you value your mistakes and that Aristotle is wrong to preach against them. You justify this claim by claiming excitement is good, or rather a lack of excitement is bad. By this very same argument, one might say that you support conflicts of any kind purely on the assertion that adding some excitement to life is worthwhile. For example, one might say you support violence based on your line of reasoning. So, I would caution you in your assertion that excitement is more valuable than virtue.
Regarding how mistakes make you happy, I think you might be mistaken. It is not the excitement that makes them worthy of your appreciation, but it is that fact that they give the opportunity to get closer to the intermediate. In other words, mistakes allow one to realize that they might have been acting in accordance with vice as opposed to virtue. No one intentionally makes mistakes, for that would be conflict with the definition of mistake. The only plausible reason for anyone to value them is that, when realized, they help a person see the error of their ways.
Regarding your coworkers, this is where I see the major error in your opposition to Aristotle. You set them out as a kind of standard with which to reference your individual vice or virtue. The right thing to do is not necessarily dictated by a sample group of food-industry employees. It is not decided by what other people perceive of you either. Aristotle's theory does provide a good backdrop on which to base one's behavior. He does this in bringing up what he calls the mean relative to us. Aristotle understands (and expresses) that ethical situations depend on vastly varying contexts, both in regard to the ethical event and the people that participate in it. This means that what is virtuous for you, may not be what is virtuous for other people. This point also weighs in on Caleigh’s comment (which by the way is addressed by Aristotle in this sense and more directly later on in the Nicomachean Ethics of which we only read about twenty pages). There may be a situation in which you have to act towards several different things, and by Aristotle’s definition of virtue you would have to find the intermediate with regard to the situation and with regard to yourself (Aristotle talks about this on page 39 about halfway through the page). He only means that what is virtuous is a kind a middle ground with respect to the “quality” of an action.
Morgan, you bring up a very interesting point and I would like to point out how your belief lines up better with Epicurean values and how the golden mean would not align at all with the belief that epicureans are searching for a life with the greatest pleasure in that if the mean does not bring you pleasure but the excess does then one should indulge in excess unless it creates pain. So is one belief better than the other? Is one right and the other wrong? Or is it possible for the both to exist side by side?
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some contention in whether or not the true point that was made by Aristotle in his theory of the Golden Mean is expressed in this blog post. I am sure that it is possible that what Aristotle meant in this is not what you express, but just as it is with all philosophical domains from so long ago it is open to interpretation. I agree with the points that you make. Aristotle's views on excesses and deficiencies seems impersonal, especially when examined on the individual scale. Although it sounds good to practice all things in moderation, be it kindness to a customer or what have you, the "extra mile" can be what separates you from everyone else. These things can be what endears us to others, the people only you will meet in your lifetime. I feel like if i had a million lives to live I would follow his teachings closely, but we have one lifetime to experience whatever we are able to in this world, and people with excess generosity make that experience all the more pleasant.
ReplyDelete