Aristotle Answers Gary and Peter
A group of us discussed Aristotle’s writing on excellence; the meaning and the process of creating an excellent/virtuous human being. Aristotle asserts a mode of human existence that involves excellence of character, and excellence of action. It is possible to make something of one’s self, to use the current manner of speaking. The short version of Aristotle’s prescription is that we are to aspire to the mean, the appropriate degree of expressed emotion, or intellectual endeavor in life. Thus over the arc of a life, one becomes excellent of character, a virtuous person.
Two weighty critical questions were posed early in our evening of discussion. From Gary: then is it possible to become an excellent murderer by seeking the mean of that activity? From Peter: So then, is this not merely a language game, a shuffling of definitions? Both are quality questions, which have been asked before.
To the “excellent murderer” question, the answer is no. To the language game question, the answer is also no, but a bit more difficult to understand. Language is our tool, subject to our intentional use. One can abuse a tool, break down it’s usefulness if that is what one intends to do.
But not every action nor every passion admits of a mean; for some have names that already imply badness, e.g. spite, shamelessness, envy, and in the case of actions adultery, theft, murder; for all of these and suchlike things imply by their names that they are themselves bad, and not the excesses or deficiencies of them. It is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard to them; one must always be wrong. Nor does goodness or badness with regard to such things depend on committing adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right way, but simply to do any of them is to go wrong. It would be equally absurd, then, to expect that in unjust, cowardly, and voluptuous action there should be a mean, an excess, and a deficiency; for at that rate there would be a mean of excess and of deficiency, an excess of excess, and a deficiency of deficiency. But as there is no excess and deficiency of temperance and courage because what is intermediate is in a sense an extreme, so too of the actions we have mentioned there is no mean nor any excess and deficiency, but however they are done they are wrong; for in general there is neither a mean of excess and deficiency, nor excess and deficiency of a mean.
—Nicomachean Ethics Book II by Aristotle 350 BCE trans by W. D. Ross
4 thoughts on “Aristotle Answers Gary and Peter”
You indeed seem to have captured Aristotle’s response as it applies to Gary and Peter’s questions, Jerry.
But of course another philosopher’s opinion is only the entry point, not ultimate authority, in an individual’s quest to establish a personal set of ethics — which may be what Gary and Peter are attempting. So I’d take issue with the venerable old Greek, suggesting that even properly labeled “good” and “bad” actions are not absolute; they can have degrees of goodness and badness — better and worse ways of undertaking them.
For example, imagine a violent criminal has taken a group of people hostage in a house, promising to kill one of them every hour his demands are not met. If a police sharpshooter were able to sight the guy through a window and fire a bullet cleanly through his skull, killing him without harming the hostages, surely such an assassination technically would be a form of murder, yet most folks would regard it as a virtuous outcome. Is it not likely that any “bad” action likewise can occur under mitigating circumstances that render it less bad?
And in mirror image, “good” also can be mitigated. An easy illustration is honesty — an undisputed virtue that can be practiced both benevolently and maliciously, as anyone who has been verbally lacerated “for your own good!” can attest.
I agree that there are no absolutes. We are stuck with/privileged to have, language with which to construct a raft to convey us safely on the sea of life. Aristotle suggests a manner in which language will help us with our need. There is no ultimate authority as far as I know.
I think Nancy has hit the nail on the head. If you will remember I changed my comment from a good murder to a good killer, as in the story Nancy told of the police sharpshooter. He came, through training and experience, to perfect his sharp shooting skills.
Granted. Killing generically speaking is one thing. Murder is another category. Yet killing another human, even when legally permitted is a morally corrosive activity. Would you rather be a good sniper or a good farmer?