The Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote that:
“Excellence, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.”
(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics)
In his masterpiece, The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops a theory of human excellence. Aristotle was famous for arguing that human excellence consists in choosing the action which occupies the “mean” or “middle” between two extremes. This was his famous “Doctrine of the Mean”.
Aristotle’s doctrine can be very helpful in figuring out what to do in everyday moral situations. But in order to see why, it is important to understand exactly what Aristotle meant. What does it mean to choose the mean? And why did Aristotle think that excellence, which is a superlative, is to be found in choosing that which is in the middle of two extremes?
Aristotle thought that for every choice we make, and every action, it is possible for us to either over react or under react to the circumstances we find ourselves in. For example, if someone insults your friend, you might think it is appropriate to react with anger. Traditionally, anger is viewed as a kind of extreme reaction. But for Aristotle, anger can constitute the mean or appropriate response depending on the circumstances.
In certain situations, anger stands between two extremes. On the one hand, we could respond by doing and feeling nothing. Depending on the insult, this may make us blameworthy for not standing up for our friend. On the other hand, murdering someone for insulting our friend would be an over reaction. In this way, Aristotle thought that a firm and angry response could not only be the “mean”, but also a kind of excellence. For Aristotle, excellent action involves being able to not only determine what is appropriate in each situation, but to become the sort of person who reacts to things in the emotionally appropriate way.
Thanks for writing. Seems to me trying to find the mean is the same thing as finding the solution and therefore the proposition doesn’t add anything useful. The mean doesn’t only depend on the spectrum of actions but the spectrum of outcomes. Choosing an excellent outcome and choosing an excellent path are two different problems. Does he say anything about this?