The important lesson to draw from Aristotle’s Doctrine
of the Mean is that virtue consists of finding an appropriate middle ground
between two extremes. As such, each virtue has not one opposite
but two. The opposite of courage is both cowardice and rashness,
for example. This idea that there are two opposites for every virtue
goes against much of the received wisdom of Aristotle’s time, including
Plato’s writings on virtue. It also emphasizes the importance of
moderation: we achieve virtue by finding a middle ground, not by
aiming for an extreme. Where exactly this middle ground lies, however,
is less obvious. Aristotle repeats a number of times that his table
presents only a rough approximation and that virtues lie closer
to one vice than another to different extents for different people.
The Table of Virtues just presented is not intended as a set of
exact rules. On the contrary, Aristotle argues that a truly virtuous
person will naturally be inclined to behave appropriately and will
have no need of rules.
Aristotle is clear that we arrive at moral virtue primarily
through practice and that the value of studying ethical texts such
as the one he has written is limited. This view makes sense when
we consider that moral virtue is not essentially different from
other forms of excellence as far as the Greeks are concerned. If
we want to achieve excellence in rock climbing, for instance, it
helps to study texts that show us how to improve our technique,
but we can’t make any significant improvements except by getting
on a rock wall and practicing. Analogously, it helps to read texts
like the Nicomachean Ethics to get a clearer understanding
of moral virtue, but the only way to become more virtuous is through
practice. We can only become more courageous by making a point of
facing down our fears, and we can only become more patient by making
a habit of controlling our anger. Since practice, not study, is
the key to becoming virtuous, Aristotle takes a strong interest
in the education of the young. He perceives that there is only so
much we can do to improve a nasty adult, and we can more easily
mold virtuous youths by instilling the proper habits in them from
a young age.
Aristotle calls happiness an “activity,” which distinguishes
his conception of happiness both from our modern conception of happiness
and from virtue, which Aristotle calls a “disposition.” We tend
to think of happiness as an emotional state and hence as something
we are, rather than as something we do. The
Greek word generally translated as “happiness” is eudaimonia, and
it can equally be rendered as “success” or “flourishing.” People
who are eudaimon are not in a particular emotional
state so much as they are living successfully. While happiness is
the activity of living well, virtue represents the potential to
live well. Excelling in all the moral virtues is fine and good,
but it doesn’t ensure our happiness unless we exercise those virtues.
Courageous people who never test their courage by facing down fear
have virtue, but they are not happy. Aristotle illustrates this
distinction between happiness and virtue by saying that the best
athletes only win at the Olympic Games if they compete. A virtuous
person who does not exercise virtue is like an athlete who sits
on the sideline and watches. Aristotle has a proactive conception of
the good life: happiness waits only for those who go out and seize it.
