Virtue Ethics Text PDF

## Aristotle's Ethics Let's step back from philosophy for a moment, and place ourselves in the world where we find ourselves most of the time. We have so far examined theories such as Kantian ethics, which tells us we have to use reason to create maxims that we can then use to test our decisions a...

## Aristotle's Ethics Let's step back from philosophy for a moment, and place ourselves in the world where we find ourselves most of the time. We have so far examined theories such as Kantian ethics, which tells us we have to use reason to create maxims that we can then use to test our decisions and intentions, and utilitarianism, which tells us we need to calculate all of our decisions to maximize pleasure and benefit. But is this the way we actually experience ethics and morality in our lives? Anyone who has observed young children around their parents or guardians has seen first-hand that human beings learn through observing and mimicking those around them, particularly role models and authority figures. When we first learn the difference between right and wrong, we don't do so through reason or through mathematics. Instead, we do so by emulating people whom we consider to be good. Here is an example that you, as someone several years removed from childhood, will likely be more familiar with. Picture your favourite action film (there is certainly no shortage of these-Hollywood and Bollywood both put out hundreds every year). Now, think about the hero in that film. Why is that person the hero? Is it because she possesses excellent reasoning power, and observes a consistent and universal series of maxims that allow her to make decisions that are therefore in accordance with appropriate categorical imperatives? Does the hero take out pencil and paper, and perform a hedonic calculus before each decision, to ensure that his actions create the greatest possible utility? While there is a small percentage of movies in which the hero follows one or the other of those two ethical theories, it is far more likely that the hero that you are watching doesn't need to justify or calculate his or her decisions. Instead, because that hero will possess certain character qualities, the actions that he or she carries out will be driven by those characteristics, and will therefore be admirable and praiseworthy. In fact, there is very little attention paid in films to the decision-making processes of heroes, and lots of time demonstrating that heroes are people who have good characteristics. After all, when was the last time you were watching a film with friends and turned to one of them to remark, “That Luke Skywalker sure makes good, sound decisions based on carefully considered rules,” or “I think Dominic Toretto saved more people than he killed when he caused that massive car pile-up on the highway. Well-calculated on his part"? Instead, when we watch a film, we are convinced by the characteristics of the heroes-we cheer for them and look up to them because they are more courageous, more compassionate, and wiser than the other characters in the film. This is the basic principle of the theory we are examining in this chapter. We will be looking at the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle's concept of virtue ethics, and considering the argument that, rather than being a set of specific rules or actions, ethics springs from the kind of person that you are. ### Aristotle versus Plato We have already discussed Plato in Chapter 1, where we pointed out what an important thinker he was to Western civilization. Just as Plato was a student of Socrates, Aristotle was a student of Plato. Impressively, one of Aristotle's students (Alexander the Great) would go on to conquer a large amount of the world. Therefore, we can see that this particular chain of teacher and student in the ancient Greek world is an extremely significant one for us to understand today. However, while Aristotle was a student and friend of Plato, he disagreed with him on many key points. The most significant disagreement between the two is visually represented in a painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael, titled The School of Athens. Find an image of this painting online, and notice the two figures in the very centre. The older man is Plato, and the younger is Aristotle. Plato has an arm pointing up toward the heavens, while Aristotle's palm faces down, gesturing toward the ground\. While it is always tricky to interpret art, it seems reasonably clear that this is meant to represent the two philosophers' very different views on knowledge and truth. Plato was a rationalist, and thought that the way to truth was not through the senses (which, after all, only give us inaccurate information about a world which is temporary, and flawed). Instead, the route to knowledge was through reason. Plato argued that there were eternal, perfect versions of all of our concepts, and he called these perfect versions the Forms.. If you tried to draw a "perfect" circle in the real world, for example, regardless of how careful you were, the circle would have tiny imperfections. Even if you were the most skilled circle artist in the world, there would be slight flaws in the pen, or the brush, or the canvas. A truly perfect circle can only exist in the abstract world of mathematics and geometry. Unlike the versions of things we encounter every day, the Forms were unchanging ideas that could only be understood through careful thought. This could be why, in Raphael's painting, Plato is pointing at the heavens. He believed that rather than being distracted by what we sense all around us, the path to truth requires us to escape the world of appearances and transcend to the world of pure idea. Aristotle, on the other hand, was an empiricist. To him, knowledge was something that could be derived via careful observation through the senses, rather than via abstract thought through the mind. As he gestures at the ground in the painting, imagine he is telling Plato that the world of the senses is much more real, and therefore a better path to truth than Plato's concept of the Forms. While it may seem strange that Plato's student would disagree with him on such a core concept, Aristotle addresses this difference in his work the Nicomachean Ethics, when he writes," the Forms have been introduced by friends of our own. Yet it would perhaps be thought better, indeed to be our duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy what touches us closely, especially as we are philosophers or lovers of wisdom; for, while both are dear, piety requires us to honour truth above our friends." Just as the figure of Aristotle in the painting is gesturing down at the earth, Aristotle the thinker believes that our attention needs to be focused on the things that we can perceive around us. As someone who is concerned with the everyday world, Aristotle dismisses concepts of the good that require some kind of supernatural explanation. Instead, he is interested in the way people actually act, and the characteristics behind those actions. In order to grasp Aristotle's concept of virtue, we first need to understand two of his other ideas: teleology and eudemonia. ### Teleology Let's start with a few rather uncontroversial observations: 1. A maple key is not a tree. 2. Maple keys turn into maple trees. 3. Maple keys do not turn into ferns, fish, or humans. We would agree with each of these statements, of course. But what do you mean when taken all together? Aristotle would argue that things have an end that they move toward (for example, a maple key's end is a maple tree). This doesn't mean that a maple key is the same as a maple tree, but that its purpose and perhaps its destiny is to become a maple tree (and not a fern, or a fish, or a human). The word *teleology* has its root in the Greek word *telos*, which is generally translated as “end.” As such, *teleology* is simply the philosophy that things have proper ends that they are moving toward, and you can judge the success of something by how well it has achieved its proper potential. A successful maple key is one that has managed to fall from its branch, land far enough from its parent tree to find its own space, take root in the soil, and grow into a tree itself. You may have experienced a teleological argument when you were younger, when someone (possibly a parent or a teacher) argued that you were not making of yourself everything that you could. From a teleological perspective, the "end" of a student is successful completion of her studies. A student who is not achieving good grades (like myself when I was young, to be honest) can be seen from this perspective to be incomplete, or not fulfilling his purpose. Although, looking back I could have made the argument that my failure as a student also indicated that my teachers were not fulfilling their purpose. Indeed, Aristotle comments on this in *Metaphysics*: ". . . teachers think they have achieved their end when they have exhibited the pupil at work. . . . " Figuring out the teleological success of maple keys is simple, as the process from seed to tree is very evident. Looking at the teleological success of teachers and students is also fairly straightforward, since schooling is a narrow slice of human existence that has an obvious purpose. However, what if we are trying to figure out the proper purpose of humans in general? How can we tell if a person is a success? To answer these questions, see *Case Study 8.1*, where we examine this concept in more detail. ### Case Study 8.1 Imagine you are on your deathbed, at the end of a long life. Your body is weak, but your brain is still working at full cognitive ability. As you look over the course of your life, how can you tell whether you led a successful existence? Would it be the amount of money and possessions you were able to accumulate, or the knowledge that you had learned? Would it be the prestige and fame you had earned in your society? Or perhaps you would value the relationships you had built with friends and family? Using the following list as a guide (but including anything else that you might think of that isn't included here), rank the following goals in the order of their importance to how you measure a well-lived life: * Earning large sums of money * Raising well-adjusted and happy children * Owning property * Becoming famous * Having good friendships * Having a large presence on social media platforms * Having many romantic encounters * Travelling the world * Gaining political power and influence * Mastering a skill or trade * Helping others Do you think everyone else would rank his or her list in a similar manner that you have? If so, does this say something about humans in general? If not, what does your list say about you in particular? Before we explore what Aristotle thinks is the proper end for humans, let's look at some of the commonly held opinions about proper human endeavors that Aristotle finds fault with. ### The Life of Pleasure As we have already seen in Chapter 6, pleasure has often been proposed as the ultimate human good. Hedonists such as Aristippus and Epicurus and utilitarianists such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill have different ways of evaluating and understanding pleasure, but they all agree that pleasure is the end toward which we should direct ourselves. As well, in ancient Greek literature there is the mythical figure of Sardanapallus, last king of Assyria, who was said to have devoted his life to the appetites of the body. In his search for pleasure, he was said to have indulged in every possible luxury, and to have sought no end other than self-gratification. In the *Nicomachean Ethics*, Aristotle addresses this hedonistic view: "To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment. Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts, but they get some ground for their view from the fact that many of those in high places share the tastes of Sardanapallus." It is clear from this passage that, while Aristotle admits that many people (including some in political office) do seem to think that pleasure is the proper end of the human animal, this is not actually the case. By throwing ourselves fully into the pursuit of pleasure, we make ourselves no better than any other animal. (As you might recall from Chapter 6, John Stuart Mill would revisit this idea years later when he argued that he would rather be Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied.) In Aristotle's view, we are set apart from other animals by our ability to live in a society and our capacity to reason\. Why, then, should we have the same base end as an unthinking brute? If reason sets us apart, he argued, then reason must play a role in our purpose. Simple survival, while it is crucial, is not unique to humans. Even plants grow and are nourished, but few people would say they lead a rich and full life. Being active and experiencing the world through sensations and perceptions is beyond the ability of plants, but it is still a quality shared by all animals. Surely, Aristotle argues, we must have a different purpose than lobsters and rats. Even the pleasures that are specific to human beings are not necessarily ends in themselves. As an example, Aristotle considers the life spent in the pursuit of wealth and possessions: "The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking, for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it is evident that not even these are ends . . . .” In other words, money is not, in itself, a worthy goal. After all, we just want money so that we can buy things with it-money has no intrinsic value, only instrumental value\. So then, can we say that the things that we buy with money are the true ends? In this passage, Aristotle argues that the things we buy with money, though we might claim to "love" those objects, are also incapable of being the end of human existence. Things wear out, or fall apart, or can be lost or stolen\. ### Honour and Power We live in an age of celebrity, in which many people are famous not for ability, or skill, or wit, or talent, but for no other reason than that they are famous. While this may seem strange, think of reality television stars and try to remember why we are familiar with them. Since fame is such a valuable currency in our society, it is one that bears a closer look, which we provide in *Case Study 8.2*. ### Case Study 8.2 In 2012, there was a study done on children aged 10-12 to see what was important to them. The children were asked to rank statements such as "The most important thing for your future will be to be really kind," "The most important thing will be to love and accept yourself," and "The most important thing will be to make a lot of money, to be rich." The most popular answer among the children was “The most important thing for your future is to be famous.” Would you agree with their choice? How important is fame in today's society? What does this say about the values of our society? Do you think that fame is the route to happiness? Can you think of any examples of people who would likely have been better off if they had never become famous? Fame was also a draw in Aristotle's day, as was the seduction of gaining political power and influence. According to Aristotle, the person who chases these ends rather than simple animal pleasures is still not aiming in the right direction. The reason is simple: power and glory do not reside within the person, but instead depend on other people to create and maintain them. "A consideration of the prominent types of life shows that people of superior refinement and of active disposition identify happiness with honour; for this is, roughly speaking, the end of political life. But it seems too superficial to be what we are looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who bestow honour rather than on him who receives it, but the good we divine to be something proper to a man and not easily taken from him." While writing this part of the book, I considered referencing specific famous people to use as examples. However, I realized that if I did that, I would need to be continually updating the references. Today's famous people, regardless of how famous they may be, generally turn into tomorrow's forgotten people. If I had written this chapter in 1995, for example, I might have mentioned Arsenio Hall, Liam Gallagher, or Courtney Love. If you read those names and thought to yourself, "Who are they?" then the point has been proven. For Aristotle, the true end of human existence must be something that does not rely on the favour of other people, or the whims of fashion, or the fleeting nature of glory. Instead, the end of human existence must be not only specific to the human animal but also self-sufficient and worthwhile. ### Eudemonia, Virtues, and Responsibility The Greek word *eudemonia* has no direct translation into English. It is often translated as "happiness"; however, given how Aristotle uses it, it is better translated as "flourishing," or "doing well." Aristotle believes this concept is the key to understanding how humans can find teleological success. At first, this concept might seem very familiar. It was as recent as Chapter 6 that we discussed Bentham's idea of utility, and how according to consequentialist philosophers this was the goal at which human action should aim. However, Aristotle's notion of flourishing differs from Bentham's idea of utility by being far less directed toward pleasure; instead, it locates happiness in living a life in accordance with virtues. Aristotle bases his entire ethical system on the aspect of human beings that, in his opinion, separates them from the other animals: rational thought. It is this capacity that allows humans to set themselves apart from animals. It is also this capacity that allows humans to carry out voluntary actions, those actions that are freely chosen by us and for which we must bear the consequences. Not all of our actions are voluntary; whether they are or not depends on their circumstances. For example, imagine you look into your backyard and see a trespasser. Is this person to blame for his action? At first, you may say “yes,” and throw the person out of your yard. However, what if the person was a hiker who had gotten lost and had simply stumbled upon your property as he was trying to find his bearings? In this case, you would be far less likely to assign blame to his actions. What if (and this is unlikely, but not impossible) he had been picked up by a small tornado and thrown into your backyard? It would be absurd in that situation to assign the person any blame at all. Aristotle argues that an action should not be considered voluntary if it is done out of ignorance (such as the example of the lost hiker) or out of compulsion (such as the person flung by the tornado). For example, we would consider murdering an innocent person to be a terrible act that the guilty party should be punished for. However, imagine this situation: you are invited over to a friend's house for dinner. During the dinner, your friend asks if you wouldn't mind turning on the light switch\. You get up to do so, and, instead of the light turning on, the sounds of sparks and screaming comes from the next room. Upon entering this room, you see that the light switch was actually hooked up to an electric chair, and you have killed the person who was strapped into it. Your friend (who has apparently arranged the whole setup beforehand) then comes into the room, and tells you that you are a murderer. While it's true that your actions directly caused the death of another person, you couldn't have been expected to have known that throwing what you thought was a light switch was actually the control for an electric chair. As such, you should not bear responsibility or blame for what happened. However, this perspective does not excuse an action if the person doing it is responsible for her own harmful ignorance. A person who has gotten herself too drunk to understand her actions and who then gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone is still responsible, even if she was too drunk to know what was going on. This is because it was a voluntary decision that person made to get that drunk, and when she made the decision to do that, she was still aware of her situation and therefore capable of voluntary action. Though there were no cars in ancient Greece, there were drunken people doing foolish things, and Aristotle addresses this in the *Nicomachean Ethics*: “Indeed, we punish a man for his very ignorance, if he is thought responsible for the ignorance; for the moving principle is in the man himself, since he had the power of not getting drunk and his getting drunk was the cause of his ignorance... we assume that it is in their power not to be ignorant, since they have the power of taking care." In the same way, a person who has gone out of his way to stay ignorant when he could have educated himself should be considered responsible for his ignorant actions. If an action is done in full knowledge, but not chosen freely, then we can also withhold blame for that action. As an example, Aristotle describes a situation in which some tyrant has taken your family hostage and orders you to do something morally objectionable or else your family will be killed. While you are still aware of the action you are choosing, your action must be understood relative to the situation, as it is not something you would normally do and you are only performing the action in order to save the lives of your family. This should also not be considered a truly voluntary action. However, as human beings are rational, the majority of their actions (other than those done out of ignorance or compulsion) can be considered voluntary. Because voluntary action based on rational thought is so specific to humans, Aristotle argues that it must be one of the most important and valuable actions we are capable of. Therefore, our flourishing must involve careful and rational consideration of our situations. And what does this careful and rational consideration show us? While the drives toward pleasure and power do not seem to increase happiness, Aristotle believes he has found the equation that we can use in order to guide our actions down the proper path to eudemonia. This equation is often referred to by philosophers as the “golden mean.” ## The Golden Mean Aristotle breaks down his ideas of virtues into two main categories: moral virtues and intellectual virtues. As an empiricist, it's not surprising that Aristotle includes among the virtues of the intellect a disposition toward scientific thought and rational deliberation. He also regards artistic ability as an intellectual virtue, although he concentrates more on the practical side of art, such as architecture. Other intellectual virtues include practical wisdom (the capacity to act in a way that promotes eudemonia), and political wisdom (the ability to make good decisions regarding the operations of the state). The moral virtues involve the manner in which we interact personally with the other people in our society, and concern everything from the way we react to fear and anger, to the way we spend our money, to our friendliness and wit. However, to be virtuous it is not enough to simply possess these qualities and attributes. Courage is a virtue, but an excess of it will not lead to happiness. Generosity is virtuous, but too much generosity can turn the person bestowing it into a pushover. Instead of trying to attain the greatest degree of all virtuous character traits, we must have the appropriate degree of each of them, neither too much nor too little. Imagine yourself at a buffet dinner. What is the best way to eat this meal? If you simply gorge yourself, eating as much as you can of as many different foods as you can, you will find yourself quite ill from becoming uncomfortably full. If you abstain from eating entirely, and simply have a glass of water, you will also find yourself ill with hunger. A wise diner knows how much he should eat, and which foods he should eat, and will avoid the stomach pains of the unwise diners who have eaten far too much, or the hunger pangs of those who have eaten not at all. In virtue ethics, this approach of finding the middle ground is called the "golden mean." As an equation, the golden mean is very different from Bentham's hedonic calculus, which we examined in Chapter 6. As a consequentialist, Bentham was uninterested in the motivations or character of the person performing an action; instead, he just wanted the actions chosen to produce the maximum degree of utility.. Aristotle looks at the idea of morality from an entirely different angle. Rather than rationally choosing any particular action, he argues, we should instead use reason to adopt the personal characteristics that are most likely to produce eudemonia, which is to say, we should become virtuous individuals. If we make ourselves good and virtuous, then it will be unnecessary to evaluate each one of our actions. Instead, our virtuous nature will ensure that any actions that we do choose will be good ones, coming as they will be from good character. In a nutshell, good people perform good actions. To get into this idea in more detail, see the thought experiment in *Case Study 8.3*. ### Case Study 8.3 Imagine for a moment that you are capable of designing your own character, drawing inspiration from the role models around you. First, what are the moral qualities that you would want to possess? Rank each of the following qualities (and any others that you might think of that aren't on this list) according to their order of importance to you: wisdom, courage, compassion, honesty, humility, integrity, self-control, patience, loyalty, generosity, cleverness, judgment, frugality, caution. Now, for the five most important qualities that you have chosen, whom would you try to emulate? It could be someone you know personally, someone famous, or even a fictional character. If you had all of these qualities to the degree of the people you have chosen, what kind of a person would you be? Is this an effective way of striving for virtue? While he is concerned with what we might call a person's "human nature," Aristotle doesn't mean that there are people who are naturally bad and people who are naturally good. Instead, he believes we are rational enough and self-aware enough to actively encourage ourselves to be virtuous people, and that through diligent practice we can shape our personalities into a collection of characteristics that will promote eudemonia in our lives. But we will be unable to do so until we have understood the vital importance that moderation plays in our attitudes. Aristotle's system is not as simple as choosing those characteristics that are considered praiseworthy and allowing them to guide our actions. For example, let's take a quality that most people would consider a virtue: bravery. Obviously, if someone suffers from a lack of bravery, we would not consider that person to be virtuous. Indeed, in the English language we have a long list of insults that all have to do with a person's perceived lack of bravery: coward, scaredy-cat, chicken, weakling, yellow-belly, and so on. However, Aristotle is not simply suggesting we be as brave as possible. While we congratulate people for their bravery and criticize them for their cowardice, what we call "cowardice" can often act as a kind of safeguard to make sure that we don't perform actions that are unnecessarily dangerous to our health. For example, it would be very brave of us to punch a sleeping bear in the nose, but it wouldn't be considered a very good idea, and it would likely lead to our being horribly mutilated. This is certainly no way to achieve eudemonia\. So, if a deficiency of bravery makes us cowards, and an excess of bravery makes us foolish, what are we to do? This is where Aristotle's concept of the golden mean comes in. We must find the middle path between possessing not enough of a quality and possessing too much of a quality. Somewhere between those two extremes lies the golden mean, a middle path that ensures that your character includes just the right amount of a quality to make you a virtuous person, and that your actions will therefore spring from a morally virtuous position. In the case of bravery, the middle path is clear. We should possess enough courage so that when courage is called for we do not back away in fear, but not so much courage that we actively seek out danger for no good purpose, or take unnecessary risks. As Aristotle puts it, "The man, then, who faces and who fears the right things and from the right motive, in the right way and at the right time, and who feels confidence under the corresponding conditions, is brave . . . but he would be a sort of madman or insensible person if he feared nothing, neither earthquakes nor the waves . . . . " This approach does not only apply to courage. As we will see, Aristotle sees this golden mean path as the way to navigate through all of the moral virtues, to ensure that our character is well suited to producing an end of eudemonia. ### Navigating the Virtues We have already mentioned the idea of the buffet, so let's begin our discussion of the virtues with pleasures of the flesh. When one leans toward the excess of these pleasures, the end result is not one of happiness, but of ill health and regret. Therefore, we must back away from a life that Aristotle would call “self-indulgent.” Aristotle argues that the opposite idea (that we should avoid sensual pleasures entirely) is so uncommon in humans that we don't even have a word for it, so he uses the phrase "insensible.” Those who refuse all earthly pleasures are also not setting themselves up for a life of flourishing, and in their quest for self-control might actually make themselves sick due to lack of nutrients and human interaction. The middle ground between these two extreme positions Aristotle calls “temperance"; we should enjoy these pleasures, he argues, but not revel in them. We should take enough food from the buffet that our hunger is satiated and our senses treated, but no more. Now, let's look at the way we behave with our money. One might argue that being frugal, or careful with one's money, is the virtuous attitude\. After all, we have many sayings to that effect ("a penny saved is a penny earned!”), as well as fables such as “The Grasshopper and the Ant,” in which the character that stores his money away carefully survives, while the free-spending character eventually freezes to death. Spending foolishly on self-indulgent passing fancies can leave individuals bankrupt and unable to afford the necessities of life or provide for themselves in their old age. However, think of Charles Dickens's character Ebenezer Scrooge\. He is a very rich man and is extremely careful with his money, but at the beginning of the story he would not be considered to be a particularly happy man. By hoarding his money, he robs himself of the joys of generosity\. He limits the amount of joy that he can receive from spending his money well, and he is unable to experience the happiness gained by helping others\. In addition, as Aristotle notes, the kinds of employment that a person who has an excess love of money is likely to pursue are not the kinds of employment that would be considered virtuous: "those who ply sordid trades, pimps, and all such people, and those who lend small sums and at high rates. For all of these take more than they ought and from wrong sources. What is common to them is evidently sordid love of gain; they all put up with a bad name for the sake of gain, and little gain at that." Moving from the currency of the economy to the currency of the soul, Aristotle argues that esteem or pride, like love of money, is something that we must possess in just the right amount if we want to be virtuous people. Too much, and we become cocky, or arrogant. Not enough, and we are too meek and humble. When it is earned, an appropriate degree of pride is healthy, and can inspire the person feeling it to try to achieve great feats that he or she may otherwise not have attempted. In addition, a person displaying an appropriate amount of pride for an accomplishment can inspire those around him or her to also aim for greatness. As this is such a key component of Aristotle's theory, it deserves a closer look; see *Case Study 8.4*. ### Case Study 8.4 You have likely heard of the Seven Deadly Sins. While they have changed over the years from the ones listed in the Bible, the modern version lists the sins as: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Even from the name given to these characteristics, you can assume that we are meant to avoid them at all costs, and to see them as sins that stain the character of anyone who succumbs to them. But what if these are not sins? What if Aristotle is correct, and the problem isn't one of quality but quantity? Test the hypothesis that each of the Deadly Sins is actually an excess of a quality that, if held in a more moderate degree, would actually be a virtue that would contribute to a person's flourishing. For each sin, try to describe how, if a person kept more closely to the golden mean, the sins could actually be turned into virtues. What would happen if someone went too far in the other direction, and tried to eliminate these qualities from his or her life entirely? Would this contribute to, or detract from, this person's chances of achieving eudemonia? Here is a modern example that illustrates the dangers of an excess of emotion: In July 2008 on Highway 401 in Southern Ontario, a man in an SUV cut off a man driving a little coupe. The man in the coupe, flushed with anger, immediately pulled back in front of the man in the SUV and slammed on his brakes. The SUV lost control, flipped over, and rolled several times. The driver was killed. The entire incident was unnecessary, and only occurred because the driver of the coupe allowed his anger to get the better of him. If he had waited even a few seconds before he reacted, this would likely have prevented the crash and the subsequent death and legal action. Two thousand years before the invention of cars, Aristotle warned of the dangers of anger, and categorized the different forms of angry people he saw around him. A person such as the man who was driving the coupe could be considered a "hot-tempered" person: "Now hot-tempered people get angry quickly and with the wrong persons and at the wrong things and more than is right, but their anger ceases quickly which is the best point about them. This happens to them because they do not restrain their anger but retaliate openly owing to their quickness of temper, and then their anger ceases." We all know someone who doesn't explode with anger but instead files away his grievances and behaves in a passive-aggressive fashion-pretending not to be angry, while all the time taking small acts of revenge on the subjects of his rage. Aristotle referred to this kind of person as "sulky," and noted that such people are able to hold on to their anger for a much greater length of time than hot-tempered people, as their wrath is like a candle that burns low but long. While there are different varieties of anger, they share in common the destructive excess of this emotion. Of course, keeping to the principle of the golden mean, Aristotle would not argue for the elimination of anger from one's personality either. As he notes, the complete deficiency of anger is not a helpful character trait: “For those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools, and so are those who are not angry in the right way, at the right time, or with the right persons; for such a man is thought not to feel things not be pained by them, and since he does not get angry, he is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish.” There are some situations in which (controlled) anger is a reasonable response. Without any anger at all, a person would inevitably turn into a pushover, and would not have the motivation to rise up against injustice or insults. The secret to eudemonia is to use your reason to guide your anger, making sure that you respond appropriately to the situation, refraining from flying into hot-headed rages while not allowing yourself to become a passive doormat. While it is clear that an excess of anger is not helpful to a flourishing life, it may seem strange at first that Aristotle applies the same rule to anger's opposite—friendliness. But, just as an excess of anger can interfere with eudemonia, so too can an excess of friendliness: “In gatherings of men, in social life and the interchange of words and deeds, some men are thought to be obsequious ... those who to give pleasure praise everyone and never oppose, but think it their duty "to give no pain to the people they meet” ".... . . . " In this passage, Aristotle uses the word *obsequious* to describe a person who is trying too hard to please others. Such a person cannot be trusted, as he will lie right to another person's face in order to tell that person what she wants to hear, rather than telling the truth. The opposite of this excess would be a deficit of friendliness, and would result in the person not caring at all what anyone else thought or felt. This person would completely lack tact, and would be considered rude and churlish. It might seem difficult to navigate between the two extremes to find the appropriate path. Read *Case Study 8.5* to apply this idea to a hypothetical situation. ### Case Study 8.5 Imagine the following situation. A friend comes to you, having just returned from the hair salon. He has just gotten himself an expensive perm, and wants your opinion on how it looks. Needless to say, it looks terrible. In addition, because of the chemicals used in the perming process, his head also smells of strange chemicals. What should you do in this situation? From a Kantian perspective, of course, it is wrong to lie, so you should therefore tell your friend the truth about his terrible hair. From a utilitarian perspective, you need to base your answer on the pleasure or pain that would be caused. Lying might make your friend feel good now (and thereby generate utility) but when he finds out later that his hair looks (and smells) terrible, that will only hurt him more and cause greater disutility\. You would have to do the math before deciding how to answer. How would Aristotle's virtue ethics suggest you behave in this situation? Too much honesty tips you over into the realm of rudeness (not a good quality in a friend). Not enough honesty makes you a liar (also not a good quality in a friend). What is the middle path in this situation? How would you apply the doctrine of the golden mean? ### A Categorical, Empirical Approach to Friendship The virtue of friendliness is one of the most important ones, as the social nature of human beings means that much