Ethics

1. learned the mean point of virtue that everyone should pursue was the hardest to determine compared to vices. Aristotle defined vices as “excess and deficiency” (Aristotle, 3) and that both would destroy a person. This was very definite- whatever destroys a standard is considered as a vice. However, the virtues, which he calls “the mean state between two vices, one excess and one defect” (Aristotle, 8), but its character “has no name, and the dispositions of the persons are also unnamed” (Aristotle, 10). My take away based on the quotes was that it is very easy to notice flaws, be punished because of them, and be disliked due to the practices. Meanwhile, the more virtuous a person represents, the less it is noticeable to the public; the closer to the balance, the less it is cared because they could not be punished.
2. I also discovered that the idea of pleasure could be portraited differently, and it could be good, not good, or bad. This was definitely caused by bias created by men; Aristotle said that “men are salve of their pleasures, so they have a bias towards it” (Aristotle, 17). Aristotle confirmed that, such bias must “be driven in the opposite direction in order to arrive at the due mean” (Aristotle, 17). However, he presented three different ideas, one being that “pleasure is good if it is attached to another good” (Aristotle, 18); meanwhile, he also mentioned that “pleasure was indefinite and good was not” (Aristotle, 18) as a refutation to pleasure and good being the same; lastly, he also proposed that “pleasure is not the good due to desire, and that not every pleasure is desirable” (Aristotle, 21). I think it is important to judge pleasure and desire based on situation, and differentiate them from modern interpretation of greedy, like most people do.

1. Aristotle mentioned that virtue and vices were relative, and comparisons must be made “between three dispositions- two vices, one of excess and ne of defect, and one virtue which is the observance of the mean” (Aristotle,12). In some cases, a vice could be defect bur “in others the excess” (Aristotle, 12). If the scale is relative and different to people, when a defect could be an excess, or a vice could become a virtue, then how could a person practice their virtue if the judgement or feedbacks were given so differently? I think virtue is best learned when you interact with different groups of people of different class, but Aristotle failed to mention how we could practice virtue in such system. Is it still possible?
2. Aristotle focused strongly on the idea of the affect of pleasure and that “we make progress in their favorite pursuit because they like it” (Aristotle, 24). He mentioned how we were always distracted and forced to choose between one or the other, then slowly, “we can hardly do anything else and if we could find a thing only mildly agreeable, we turn to some other occupation” (Aristotle, 24). As a person who was introduced to modern ideas of “growth mindset”, is there a way to not choose between focusing on one thing or the other? We can also cross- apply that can we be virtuous by mastering one particular mean and give up on everything else. I think it is hard to connect the idea of virtuous to pleasure in the lens of trading offs.

1. Should our goal in anything we do in life to display others our virtuousness? If we display happiness, does that create jealousy and chaos, and be viewed as a vice?
2. If pleasure determines a person’s activities, while knowing that people are lazy and selfish, then why is something like love not mutually exclusive?