Virtue Ethics PDF

**CHAPTER V** **VIRTUE ETHICS** **Chapter Objectives** **After** reading this chapter, you should be able to: 1\. discuss the meaning and basic principles of virtue ethics; 2\. distinguish virtuous acts from non-virtuous **acts**; and **3** apply Aristotle\'s ethics in understanding the Filip...

**CHAPTER V** **VIRTUE ETHICS** **Chapter Objectives** **After** reading this chapter, you should be able to: 1\. discuss the meaning and basic principles of virtue ethics; 2\. distinguish virtuous acts from non-virtuous **acts**; and **3** apply Aristotle\'s ethics in understanding the Filipino character. **INTRODUCTION** An online news account narrates key officials from both the legislative and executive branches of the government voicing out their concern on the possible ill effects of too much violence seen by children on television. The news estimates that by the time children reach 18 years old, they will have watched around 18,000 simulated murder scenes. This prompted then-Department of Education Secretary Bro. Armin Luistro to launch the implementing guidelines of the Children\'s Television Act of 1997 in order to regulate television shows and promote more child-friendly programs. Ultimately, for Bro. Luistro**, to** regulate television programs would help in the development of children\'s values.1 According to the news article, the Department **of** Education held **a series of** consultations with various stakeholders to address the issue of exposure of children to TV violence. They also implemented the rules and guidelines for viewing safety and created a television violence rating code to be applied in all TV programs. Lastly, they also set 15% of television airtime for shows conducive to children. Luistro\'s claim seems to be based on a particular vision of childhood development. Children at a young age have *not* yet achieved full personal growth and mental development. **This** situation makes them particularly vulnerable to possible undesirable effects of seeing violent images presented on television. When they see violence on television on a regular basis, they may consider such violent acts as \"normal\" and part of the daily occurrences in life. Much **worse** is that they might tend to believe that such acts, since committed by adults, are permissible. In these situations, the saying \"Life imitates art\" unfortunately becomes uncomfortably true. **Chapter** V Virtue **Ethics** children. There have been numerous studies on the effects of television violence on The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, for instance, enumerated the harmful effects of television violence such as being insensitive to the possible consequences brought about by watching violent shows. The study also suggests that children exposed to television violence begin to \"imitate what they observe\" and consider violence as \"a way to solve problems.\"2 Mature individuals are aware that it is vital for children *to* go through the process of building their personality, identity, or character. How does the *continuous* exposure to violence on television affect the character that children develop? Is it possible that constant watching of violence on television results in aggression among children? What is the role of the child\'s environment in her capacity to develop into a good individual? These questions **are** real concerns that society needs to address. Perhaps, it is best to look closely at how good moral character is developed among individuals. What elements are involved in order to achieve this? One theory that can possibly provide a comprehensive understanding of **how** an individual can develop moral character is *virtue ethics*. Aristotle was born in Macedonia and studied philosophy under Plato in Athens. He was considered to be the brightest among Plato\'s students in the former\'s school, the Academy. He later founded his own school, Lyceum**,** where he became a very productive intellectual, **having** written numerous works on different topics such **as** the theoretical and practical sciences, and logic. He Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a person. Previous chapters emphasized different aspects of ethics: consequences of an act for utilitarianism, natural inclinations for natural law, and autonomy for deontology. Virtue ethics, on the other hand, focuses on the formation of one\'s character brought about by determining and doing virtuous acts. The **two** major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle, had discourses concerning virtue. But Aristotle\'s book entitled *Nicomachean Ethics* is the first comprehensive and programmatic study of virtue ethics. Aristotle\'s discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and conception of the good. Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the was also known to be the tutor of Alexander the Great highest faculty of a person and having such who tried to conquer the world. Aristotle\'s *Nicomachean* Ethics **is** his major work in moral philosophy. characteristic enables a person to realize the very purpose of her existence. But *at* the **Ethics:** Foundations of Moral Valuation end, they differ in their appreciation of reality and nature, which, in turn, results in their contrasting stand on what the ethical principle should be. For Plato, the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience but can somehow be grasped by one\'s intellect. The truth and, ultimately, the good are in the sphere of forms or ideas transcending daily human condition. On the other hand, for Aristotle, the real is found within our everyday encounter with objects in the world. What makes nature intelligible **is** its character of having both form and matter. Therefore, the truth and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not independent of our experience. When one speaks of the truth, for example, how beautiful Juan Luna\'s Spoliarium **is,** she cannot discuss its beauty separately from the particular painting itself. Same is true **with** understanding the good: the particular act of goodness that one does in the world is more important than any conception of the good that is outside and beyond the realm of experience. One sees the ethical theory **of** Aristotle as engaging the good in *our* day-to-day living. **HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE** Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act that a person does is directed **toward** a particular purpose, aim**,** or what the Greeks called *telos*. There is a purpose **why** one does something, and for Aristotle, a person\'s action manifests a good that she aspires for. Every pursuit of a person hopes **to** achieve a good. One **eats** for the purpose of **the** good that **it** gives sustenance to the body. A person pursues a chosen career, aiming **for a good**, that **is,** to provide a better future for her family. A person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her. Even a drug user \"thinks\" that substance abuse will cause her good. **This** does not necessarily mean that using drugs is good but a \"drug addict\" would **want** to believe that such act is good. Therefore, for Aristotle, the good is considered to be the *telos* or purpose for which all **acts** seek to achieve. One **must** understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and correspondingly each of these activities has different aims. Aristotle is aware that one does **an act** not only to achieve a particular purpose but also believes such purpose can be utilized for a higher goal or activity, which then can be used to achieve an even higher purpose and so on. In other words, the different goods that one pursues form a hierarchy of *teloi* (plural **form** of *telos*). Aristotle says: **\... But a certain difference is found among ends**; some **are** activities, others are products **apart from the activities that produce them**. Where there are ends apart from the actions, **it is the nature of the products to be better than the** activities. Now, as there are many **actions, arts, and sciences**, their **ends** also are many; **the** end of the medical **art** is **health**, that *of* **shipbuilding** a **vessel,** that **of strategy victory**, that **of** economics wealth. But where **such arts fall under a single capacity-**as **bridle**-making **and the** other **arts** concerned with **tor** *V:* Virtue Ethics 83 the equipment of horses fall under the art of riding, **and** this **and every** military **action** under strategy, in the same way other arts fall under **yet** others-**in all of these,** the **ends of** the master arts are to be preferred **to** all the **subordinate ends; for it** is **for the** sake **of the** former that the latter is pursued**.\"** When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the teacher, she does this for the purpose of being able to remember the *lessons* of the course. This purpose of remembering, in turn, becomes an act to achieve a higher aim which is to pass the examinations given by the teacher, which then becomes a product that can help the person attain the goal of having a passing mark in the course. It is important for Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that the different acts produce in order for a person to distinguish which actions are higher than the **other**. With the condition that there is a hierarchy of *telos,* Aristotle then asks about the highest purpose, which is the ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man. First, the highest good of a person must be final. As a final end, **it is no** longer utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher end. In our example above, the purpose of remembering the lessons in the course, that is why one writes down notes, **is** not the final end because it **is** clear that such purpose is aimed at achieving a much higher goal. Second, the ultimate *telos* of a person must be self-sufficient. Satisfaction in life is arrived **at** once **this** highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought after and desired, once **this self-sufficient** goal **is** achieved, since this is already considered as the best possible good in life**. Again,** in the example given above, the goal of remembering the lessons in the **course is not yet** the best possible good because a person can still seek for other more **satisfying goals in** her life. So what is the highest goal for Aristotle? **What goal** is both **final** and self-sufficient? It is interesting to note that for Aristotle, the question can **only** be adequately answered by older individuals because they have gone through enormous and challenging life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of knowledge on what the ultimate purpose of a person is. According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the highest purpose and the ultimate good of man is happiness**,** or for the Greeks*, eudaimonia*. Aristotle says: Now, such a thing **happiness, above all else,** is **held to be; for this** we **choose always** for itself and never for **the** sake of **something else, but honor**, **pleasure, reason, and** every virtue we choose indeed for **themselves (**for **if nothing resulted from them we** should still choose each of them)**,** but we choose **them also for the sake of happiness**, judging that by means of them we shall **be happy. Happiness, on the other hand,** no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for **anything other than itself**. One can therefore say that happiness seems **to fit the first** criterion of being the final end of a human being. For it is clear that conditions for having wealth, power, and pleasures are not chosen for themselves but for the sake of being a means to achieve happiness. one accumulates wealth, for example, **she** would want to have not just richness but also If 84 Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation power and other desirable things as well, such as honor and pleasures. But all of these ends are ultimately for the sake of the final end which is happiness. In itself, happiness seems **to** be the final end and the highest good of a person since no other superior end is still being desired for. \... **Let** us **examine** this question, **however**, **on** another occasion; the self-sufficient we **now** define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we **think happiness to be**; **and** further we **think it** most desirable of all things, without **being** counted **as** one good thing among others\--**if it** were so counted, it would clearly be made **more** desirable **by the** addition **of even the** least **of** goods; for that which is added becomes **s added** beco **an** excess **of** goods, and of goods, the greater is always more desirable.\" Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can aspire for. No amount of wealth or power can be more fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness. One can imagine a life of being wealthy, powerful, and experiencing pleasurable feelings and yet, such life is **still** not satisfying without happiness. Once happiness is achieved, things such **as** wealth, power, and pleasurable feelings **just** give value-added benefits in life. The true measure of well-being for Aristotle is not by means of richness or fame but by the condition of having attained a happy life. Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end and good **that humans** aspire for, there are various opinions on what specifically is the nature of the ultimate *telos* of a person. One **is** that happiness **is** attached with having wealth and power. Others associate happiness with feelings that are pleasurable. Some take nobler things like honor and other ideals **as** constitutive of happiness**.** For Aristotle, arguing for or against every opinion proves to be **a** futile attempt to arrive at the nature of happiness. Instead, **Aristotle** shows that **one** can arrive at the ultimate good by doing one\'s function well. **How** does **a** person arrive **at** her highest good? According to Aristotle, if an individual\'s action can achieve the highest good, then one must investigate how she functions which enables her **to** achieve her ultimate purpose. If she performs her function well, then she is capable of arriving at happiness. Aristotle then proceeds with discussing the function of human beings to distinguish one person\'s activity from other beings. How does a human being function which **sets** her apart from the rest? For Aristotle, what defines human beings is her function or activity of reason. This function makes her different from the rest of beings. Aristotle expresses this clearly: \...What **then** can **this be?** Life **seems to be common** even **to** plants, but we are seeking what is **peculiar** to man. Let us **exclude**, therefore**, the** life of nutrition and growth. Next there **would be** a life **of perception, but** it also **seems to be common** even to the horse, the ox, and every **animal**. **There remains**, **then**, **an** active life of **the** element that has a rational principle; **of this,** one **part** has **such a principle** in the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the **sense** of possessing **one and exercising** thought.\" **If** the function of a human being is simply to do the act of taking in food in order **to** sustain her life and continue living, then what makes her different from plants? Also, the function of a human being is to do the act of perceiving things, then what makes her different from animals? What defines a person therefore is her function or activity of reason. A person\'s action to be considered as truly human must be an act that is always in accordance to reason. The function of a human being is to act following the dictates of her reason. Any person for that matter utilizes her reason but Aristotle further says that a person cannot only perform her function but she can also perform **it** well. A dancer, for example, becomes different from a chef because of her function to dance while the chef\'s **is** to cook. Any dancer can dance but what makes her distinct from an excellent dancer is that the latter dances very well The same principle applies **to** human beings. **What** distinguishes **a** good person from other human beings is her rational **activity** that **is** performed well or excellently. **A** good individua therefore stands closer **to** meeting the conditions **of** happiness because her actions are of a higher purpose. Aristotle says: \...**Now,** if **the** function of **man is an activity of the soul which follows** or **implies a rational principle, and** if we **say \"a so-and-**so**\" and \"a good so-and-so\" have a** function which is the **same** in **kind, for example**, **a lyre player and a good lyre player, and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name of the** function (for the function **of a lyre player is to play the lyre, and that of** a good **lyre player** is **to** do so well**)**: if **this** is **the case, (and** we **state the function of man to be a certain** kind **of** life, **and this** to be **an activity or actions of the** soul **implying a rational** principle**, and the** function **of a** good **man** to **be** the good **and noble** performance of **these, and** if **any** action is well performed when it is **performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence**: if this is **the** case) **human** good **turns out** to **be activity of soul in accordance to virtue, and if** there is more **than** one **virtue**, in accordance **with the best and most complete.**\' The local saying *\"Madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao\"* can be understood in the light of Aristotle\'s thoughts on the function of a good person. Any human being cam perform the activity of reason; thus, being human is achievable. However, a good human being strives hard in doing an activity in an excellent way. Therefore, the task of being human becomes more difficult because doing such activity well takes more effort on the part of the person, **VIRTUE AS EXCELLENCE** Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function according to reason and to perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is called *virtue* or *arete* by the Greeks. Aristotle is quick to add that virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not become an excellent person overnight: \"For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy\...\" This means that being virtuous cannot be accomplished by a single act. It is commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a whistle-blower, exposing all the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But one should be careful in judgment of calling immediately that individual as being a \"person of virtue.\" Being an excellent individual works on doing well in her day-to-day existence. What exactly makes a human being excellent? Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human soul and therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a person\'s soul which must be directed by her rational activity in an excellent way. For Aristotle, the human soul is divided into two parts: the irrational element and the rational faculty. The irrational element of man consists of the vegetative and appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of physical **growth** in a person. As an irrational element, this part of man is not in the realm where virtue is exercised because, as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason. The vegetative aspect of the soul follows the natural processes involved in the physical activities and growth of a person. Whereas, the appetitive aspect works as a desiring faculty of man. The act of desiring in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time refuses to go along with reason. Thus, this aspect belongs to the irrational part of the soul. Sexual impulse, for example, **is so** strong in a person that one tends to ignore reasonable demands to control such impulse. However, unlike the vegetative aspect, the desiring faculty of man can be subjected to reason. Aristotle says, \"\...Now, even this seems to have a share in the rational principle, as we said; at any rate in the continent man it obeys the rational principle\...*\"* Desires are subject to reason even though these do not arise from the rational part of the soul. In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercises excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply the use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided into two aspects: moral, which concerns the act of doing, and intellectual, which concerns the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the function of reason is exercised. One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul. As stated by Aristotle, this excellence is attained through teaching. Through time, one learns from the vast experiences in life where she gains knowledge on these things. One learns and gains wisdom by being taught or by learning. There are two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence: philosophic and practical. *Philosophic* wisdom deals **with** attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths that govern the Chanter V*:* Virtue Ethics 87 universe (e.g., general theory on the origins **of things)**. It helps one understand in general the meaning of life. *Practical wisdom,* on the other hand, **is** an excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying out a particular **act**. In other words**, one** can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how to behave in our daily lives. Although the condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual aspect of the soul, this situation does not make her into a morally good individual. However, **Aristotle** suggests **that** although the rational functions of a person **(moral** and intellectual**) are distinct from** each other**, it is necessary for** humans to **attain** the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order **to** accomplish **a** morally virtuous act. In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of practical wisdom **in** steering the self toward the right choices and actions. Aristotle **is** careful in making **a** sharp distinction between moral and intellectual virtue. In **itself**, having practical wisdom **or** the excellence in knowing what to act upon does not make someone already morally virtuous. Knowing the good is different from determining and acting on what is good. But a morally good person has **to** achieve the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom to perform the **task** of being **moral**. This distinction draws **a** sharp contrast between Aristotle\'s understanding **of** the dynamics of knowledge and action from that of Socrates\'s view that knowledge already contains the ability of choice or action. Aristotle says: **\...This** is why some **say that** all the **virtues are** forms **of practical wisdom and why** Socrates, in **one respect, was on the right track** while in another, **he went astray;** in **thinking** that all **the virtues were forms of practical wisdom,** he **was** wrong, **but in saying** they implied practical **wisdom,** he was **right**. This **is confirmed by** the **fact that even now,** all men, when they define virtue, **after** naming the **state** of **character** and **its objects, add** \"that (state) which is **in accordance** with **the right rule\"; now the right rule is that** which is **in** accordance **with** practical wisdom. All men, **then,** seem somehow **to divine that** this **kind** of state is virtue, **viz., that** which is in **accordance** with **practical** wisdom.1 **It** seems that for Socrates**,** moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual excellence. Knowing the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having intellectual excellence does not necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good. Knowing the good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to accomplish. Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two kinds of virtue: moral and intellectual. In discussing moral virtue, Aristotle says that it is attained by means of habit. A morally virtuous man for Aristotle **is** someone who habitually determines the good and does the right actions. Moral virtue is acquired through habit. **Being** morally good is a process of getting used to doing the proper act. The saying \"practice makes perfect\" can be applied to this aspect of a person. Therefore, for Aristotle, a person is not initially good by nature: Again, of all the things that come **to us**, by nature, we first acquire the potentiality **and** later exhibit the **activity** (this is **plain** in the case of the senses; for it was not by often seeing or often hearing that **we** got these senses, but **on** the contrary we had them before we used them, **and did** not come **to** have them **by** using them); **but** the virtues we get by first exercising them, as also **happens** in the case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them**,** we learn by doing them\...\" Any craft that one does can be perfected by habitually doing the right action necessary to be good in a particular craft. Being a good basketball player, for example, involves constant training and endless hours of shooting and dribbling the ball in the right until one habitually does the right stroke in shooting the ball and the right tempo in dribbling the ball. It is only when she properly plays basketball consistently that she will be recognized as a good basketball player. **way** The same is true with moral virtue. A moral person habitually chooses the good and consistently does good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing the good that a person is able to form her character. It is through one\'s character that others know a person. Character then becomes the identification mark of the person. For instance, when one habitually opts to be courteous to others and regularly shows politeness in **the** way she relates to others, others would start recognizing her as a well-mannered person. On the other hand, when one habitually chooses to be rude to others and repeatedly demonstrates vulgar and foul acts, she develops an image of an ill-mannered person. The Filipino term pag-*uugali* precisely reflects the meaning of moral character. One can have *mabuting* pag- *uugali* (good character) or *masamang pag-uugali* (bad character). How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect the kind of character that children will develop? One can surmise that if we rely on the above-mentioned study, children tend *to* mimic the violence they watch on television and such habit could develop into a character that can tolerate behaviors that are hostile in nature. **MORAL VIRTUE AND MESOTES** As stated by Aristotle, developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences. Knowledge is not inherent to a person. Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy. One needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life. In attaining practical wisdom, she may initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular moral choice or action. But through these mistakes, she will be able to sustain practical wisdom to help steer another\'s ability to know morally right choices and actions. In other words, she is able to mature and grow in her capacity of knowing what to do and living a morally upright life. This is why when it comes to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the community, those who gained rich life experiences and practical wisdom, because they Chapter V: Virtue Ethics would be able to assist someone\'s moral deliberation. Parents can advice their children how to behave in front of family members and relatives. Senior members of the community like priests, counselors, and leaders may also guide the young members on how relationships with others are fostered. Bro. Armin Luistro, with his practical wisdom and experience, has observed the possible effect of television violence on the young so he issued guidelines on television viewing for children. He says that good values instilled on children are \"sometimes removed from the consciousness of young people\" because of television violence. As former Secretary of the Department of Education, he possibly learned so much about the consequence of such situation on the young. However, when practical wisdom guides the conduct of making morally right choices and actions, what does it identify as the proper and right thing to do? As maintained by Aristotle, it is the middle, intermediate, or *mesotes* for the Greeks that is aimed at by a morally virtuous person. Determining the middle becomes the proper tool by which one can arrive at the proper way of doing things. Aristotle says: In everything **that** is continuous and divisible**,** it is possible to take more, less, or an equal **amount,** and that either in terms of the thing itself or relative to us; and the equal is an intermediate between excess and defect**.** By the intermediate in the object, I mean that which is equidistant from each of the extremes, which is one and the same for all men, by the intermediate relatively to us that which is neither too much nor too little**-**and this is **not** one, nor the same for all. **For** instance, if **ten** is many **and** two is few, six is the intermediate, taken in terms of the object; for it exceeds and is exceeded by an equal amount; this intermediate according **to** arithmetical proportion. But **the** intermediate relatively to us is not to be taken so; if ten pounds are too much for a particular person to eat and two too little, it does not follow that the trainer will order six pounds; for this also perhaps too much for the person who is to take it**,** or too **little-**too little for Milo \[a famous Greek athlete\], too much for the beginner in athletic exercises. The **same** is **true** of running and wrestling. Thus, a master of any art avoids excess and defect**,** but seeks the intermediate and chooses this-the intermediate not in the object but relatively to us. 12 Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her appropriate action in a manner that is neither excessive nor deficient. In other words virtue is the middle or the intermediary point in between extremes. One has to function in a state that her personality manifests the right amount of feelings, passions, and ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and passions are neutral which means that, in themselves, they are neither morally right nor wrong. When one shows a feeling of anger we cannot immediately construe it as morally wrong act. But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the degree of their application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an offensive remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you were offended by someone. One can be excessive in the manner by which she manifests these feelings, passions, and abilities. But one can also be deficient in the way she expresses these. For example, she may be outraged at the attacks of terrorists and yet may be insensitive because she is not directly affected. A morally virtuous person targets the *mesotes*. For Aristotle, the task of targeting the mean is always difficult because every situation is different from one another. Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving depending on the circumstance where she is in. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed out by Aristotle, the mean is simply an arithmetical proportion. Therefore, the task of being moral involves seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing properly every particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean. One can be angry with someone, but the degree and **state** of anger depends accordingly with the nature of the person she is angry with. The aid **of** reason dictates how humans should show different anger toward a child and a mature individual. *Mesotes* determines whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient. Likewise, **an** individual cannot be good at doing something haphazardly but reason demands **a** continuous habituation of **a skill** to perfect an act. Targeting the middle entails being immersed in **a moral** circumstance, understanding the experience, and eventually, developing the knowledge of identifying the proper way or the mean to address a particular situation. **In relation** to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible for protecting **and assisting** the young on their personal development should act in **view** of the middle measure**.** The government could have dismissed the issue or could have banned television **shows** portraying violence. But such extremes censure the citizen\'s freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can result in another issue. Wisely, the government acted **on** the side of the middle measure by going through a series of consultations **to** address the issue of television violence-implementing the rules and guidelines for viewing safety**,** dedicating 15% of television airtime for child-friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating code that took into account the \"sensibilities of children.**\"**It seems that the government acted in a manner that is not deficient and excessive. Aristotle\'s discussion ultimately leads to defining what exactly moral virtue is---\"a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, that is, the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.\"13 Moral virtue is firstly the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified out of her habitual exercise of particular actions. One\'s character is seen as a growth in terms of the continuous preference for the good. Secondly, in moral virtue, the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen because it is the middle. The middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which these feelings or passions should be expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle is relative to us. *This* does not imply that *mesotes* totally depends *on* what the person identifies as the middle. Such case would signify that Aristotle adheres to relativism. But Aristotle\'s middle is not relative to the person but to the situation and the circumstance that one is in. This means that in choosing the middle, one is looking at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the proper way that feelings and passions should be dispensed. Thirdly, the rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the middle is practical wisdom. The virtuous person learns from her experiences and therefore develops the capacity to know the proper way of carrying out her feelings, passions, and actions. The rational faculties of this person, specifically practical wisdom, aid in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good. A moral person in this sense is also someone who is wise. Habit **is not** simply borne out repetitive and non-thought-of activities in a person. Habits for Aristotle are products **of** the **constant** application of reason in the person\'s actions. One sees Aristotle\'s attempt to establish a union between the person\'s moral action and knowledge that enables him to achieve man\'s function. Aristotle clarifies further that not all feelings, passions, and actions have a middle point. When a mean is sought, **it** is in the context of being able to identify the good act in a given situation. However, when what **is** involved is seen **as** a bad feeling, passion, or action, the middle is non-existent because there is no good *(mesotes*) in something that is already considered a bad act. When one murders someone, there **is** nothing excessive or deficient in the act: murder is **still** murder. Further, there is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act because there is no proper **way** that such act can be committed. Aristotle states: 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\...**14 In the study mentioned wherein children are beginning to consider violence as \"a way to solve problems,\" it seems apparent that they would like to think that there is somehow a \"good\" in an unjust act since it can become a problem-solver. If violence becomes a tool by which difficult situations are addressed, then it can be construed by children of bearing some positive value. Aristotle\'s view is contrary to this. As an act, violence, in itself, is bad. A person cannot employ violence as **if it** were **a** virtue or a middle measure in between vices of being \"deficient\" in violence or being \"excessive\" of the same act. There is something terribly wrong in such demonstration. Aristotle also provides examples of particular virtues and the corresponding excesses and deficiencies of these. This table shows some of the virtues and their vices:15 **Excess** Impulsiveness Self-control Recklessness Courage Prodigality **Deficiency** Indecisiveness Cowardice Meanness In the table, Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between the vices of being coward and reckless. Cowardice is a deficiency in terms of feelings and passions. This means that one lacks the capacity to muster enough bravery of carrying herself appropriately in a given situation. Recklessness, on the other hand, is an excess in terms of one\'s feelings and passions. In this regard, one acts with a surplus of guts that she overdoes an act in such rashness and without any deliberation. The virtue of having courage is being able to act daringly enough but able to weigh up possible implications of such act that she proceeds with caution. It **is** only through the middle that a person is able to manifest her feelings, passions, and actions virtuously. For Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to manifesting a virtue is no longer an ethical act because one has gone beyond the middle. Being overly courageous (**or** \"super courageous\") for instance does not make someone more virtuous because precisely in this condition, she has gone beyond the middle and therefore has \"moved out\" from the state that is virtuous. Therefore, one can always be excessive in her action but an act that **is** virtuous cannot go beyond the middle. Filipinos have the penchant of using superlative words like \"over,\" **\"**super,\" \"to the max,\" and *\"sobra\"* in describing a particular act that they normally identify as virtuous. Perhaps, Aristotle\'s view on virtue is prescribing a clearer way by which Filipinos can better understand it.