Aristotle 3-2 The Golden Mean Analysis

3-2 the Golden Mean The golden mean is one of the virtue in ethics. According to Aristotle, the greatest good is the mean. Both extreme and deficiency are bad. Moderation which is the middle of too much and too little is important to be the happiness. For instance, we should not be afraid and should not despite. The bravery is the middle. The golden mean means when we need to judge, we always should not be partial. The virtue of the golden mean has some variation, but the best virtue is an activity of intelligence. For the social life, protecting the moderation connects to justice.

3-3 the Better Person Aristotle defines good people. Passions Choice Actions

Better characteristics Good Good Good

Strong will Bad Good Good

Weak Will Bad Good Bad

Kant and Aristotle have different ideas of virtue because they have different questions. Aristotle’s main question is what kind of character is good for people to live with happiness while Kant’s question is what kind of character is most deserving of moral character. Since they pose different questions, they are virtue is different. They are ideas seem to conflict each other, but they try to answer different question, so we cannot see whether they are really conflicted each other or not. Aristotle explains that a virtuous person is who can modulate passions and consideration. Aristotle thinks two kinds of virtue; virtue as consideration and virtue as characteristics. We cannot learn the virtue as characteristics by studying. Also, we cannot be virtuous naturally. Therefore, we all can be virtuous by learning from others and preparing. According to Aristotle, virtuous people are better than continent person because he defines that moral virtue is the middle of too much and too little. In contrast to Aristotle, Kant believes that continent people are virtuous and moral worth. Kant thinks that a virtuous person is continent because a continent person can manage their passion and have priority on consideration. It is important to use reason to be a morally good person for Kant as he said there are two tasks of reason; to know moral law and to change a wild will to a good

For instance, there are four types of people; (1) a person who know he/she needs to study but do not study because of his/her passion, (2) a person who wants to slack off but do study, (3) a person who do not really wants to slack off by one’s nature and study hard, (4) a person who study hard by nature and study hard because he/she needs to study. In this examples, (2) and (4) are similar from a perspective of rationality. For Aristotle, a person who can do good thing by nature rather than by learning and training is not worthy of the virtue. Also, for Kant, a person who naturally do good things is not deserving of moral worth, but a person who do good thing based on the practical reason is. The difference between Kant and Aristotle in the example also can be seen. Kant thinks there is no difference between example (2) and (4) because for him, the moral worth is approved when there are practice reason and good will. Compared to Kant, Aristotle thinks that only (2) is considered as a virtuous person because according to Aristotle’s view, it is important to bring out the power of passions in accord with the rationality. In other words, Kant does not care whether an action is rightness as the result or not and whether we will be able to have right passion while Aristotle requires that we should do right thing with right reason and right feelings.

5 Kant vs Aristotle: the