Chapter 5

VIRTUE ETHICS

I. 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.

According to the news article, the Department of Education held as 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 (strength, viciousness) 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 (weak)
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 a “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.

There have been numerous studies on the effects of television violence on

children. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, for instance,
enumerated the harmful effects of television violence such as being insensitive to
the possible ill consequences brought about by watching violent show. The study
also suggests that children exposed to television violence begin to “imitate
what they observ” and consider violence as “a way to solve problems.”

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 (anger) 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 individual. 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. (Good qualities of Principles)

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 inclination (feeling, liking) 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 Platonic understanding of reality

and conception of the good. Both Plato and Aristotle affirm (support) rationality as
the highest faculty (capacity) of a person and having such characteristic enables a
person to realize the very purpose of her existence. But at the 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 (territory) of any human sensory
experience but can somehow be grasped by one’s intellect. The truth and,
ultimately, the good are in the sphere (scope) of forms or ideas transcending
(exceeding) 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 (territory) of experience. One sees the
ethical theory of Aristotle as engaging the good in our day-to-day living.

II. LEARNING OUTCOMES ( Week 13-14-15)

 Discuss the meaning and basic principles of virtue ethics;

 Distinguish virtuous acts from non-virtuous acts; and
 Apply Aristotle’s ethics in understanding the Filipino character
III. CONTENT

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 from 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 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 latter is
pursued.

When one diligently writes downs 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 become 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 means
to achieve happiness. If once accumulates wealth, for example, she would want to
have not just richness but also 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 ends is still being desired for.

Aristotle continues in saying that happiness is also the self-sufficient and. He

says:
 … 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 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 (purpose, aim) of a person.One is that happiness is
attached with having wealth and power. Others associate happiness with
feelings that are pleasurable (enjoyable, satisfying). Some take nobler (moral,
principled) things like honor and other ideals (models, standards) as
constitutive (represent) of happiness. For Aristotle, arguing for or against every
opinion proves to be a futile (useless) attempt to arrive at the nature of happiness.
Instead, Aristotle, shows that one can arrive at the ultimate (final, last) 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 being. 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 (abnormal) 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 (purpose, role, task, role, use) 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, if the function of a human
being is to do the act of perceiving (seeing, observing)recognizing) 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 later dances very well. The
sample principle applies to human beings. What distinguishes a good person
from other human beings is her rational (balanced, normal) activity that is
performed well or excellently. A good individual 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, or example, a lyre player and a good lyre player,
and so without qualification in all cases, eminence (fame) 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 (suggesting, involving) a rational (normal, balanced) principle, and
the function of a good man to be the good and noble (moral, principled) 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 (asset, quality,
good points), in accordance with the best and most complete.

The local saying “madaling maging tao, mahirap magpaka tao” can be
understood in the light of Aristotle’s thoughts on the function of a good person. Any
human being can 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 arête by the Greeks. Aristotle is
quick to add that virtue is something that one strives for in time. Once does not
become an excellent person overnight: “For one swallow does not make a summer,
or 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 (good, righteous) cannot be
accomplished by a single act. It is commendable (admirable) if a minor
participant in a crime becomes ac whistle-blower, exposing all the graves acts
that were committed by his cohorts (groups, supporters). 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 (dominion, jurisdiction) where virtue is
exercise 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 (capacity) of man. The act of desiring in itself is an impulse (desire)
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 (desire) 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 (capacity) 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 (land) 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 (huge)
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 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.

In 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 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 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 way 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.

The same is true with moral virtue. A moral person habitually chooses the
good and consistently goes 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
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 tern 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 (conclude) that if we rely on
the above-mentioned study, children tend to mimic (imitate) the violence they watch
on television and such habit could develop into a character that can tolerate
behaviors that are hostile (unfriendly, harsh) in nature.

IV. QUIZ

1. Virtue ethics is concerned primarily with the task of developing a good

character. Explain this statement.

2. Aristotle’s virtue ethics starts with recognizing that happiness is the ultimate
purpose of a person. As the ultimate purpose, happiness is considered as the
final and self-sufficient end of a person. Do you agree or disagree with this
statement? Justify your answer.

3. Differentiate in your own understanding virtuous acts from non-virtuous acts.

Give 2 examples of each acts.
 III. CONTENT

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 (capacity) 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 (direct) another’s ability to know morally right
choices and actions. In other words, she is able to mature and grow her capacity
of knowing what to do and living a morally upright life.

This is why when it come to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in
the community, those who gained rich life experiences and practical wisdom,
because they 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, pastors, counselors, and leaders may
also guide young members on how relationships with other are fostered
(nurtured, promoted, adopted).

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
equidistant (middle) 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 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.

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
(excesses, limits).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 shoes a feeling of anger, we cannot immediately
construe (interpret, understand) 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 (mad) at the attacks of terrorists and yet may be
insensitive because she is not directly affected.

A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes (middle, intermediate). For

Aristotle, the task of targeting the mean (average, middle) 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 Aristote, 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 human 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 and
doing something haphazardly (irregularly, carelessly, unsystematically) but reason
demands a continuous habituation (adjustment, adaptation) of a skill to perfect an
act. Targetting the middle entails (require, needs) being immersed (submerged) 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 of viewing safety, dedicating 15% of television
airtime for childe friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating code tat
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 rational principle, and by that
principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.”

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 manifest 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 (belief). 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 persons 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 dense 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 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 (searched), 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 on murders
someone, there is nothing excessive or deficient in the act: murder is still murder.
Furthermore, 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…

In the study mentioned wherein children are beginning to consider violence as

“a way to solve problems,” it seems apparent (clear) 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 (understood) by children of bearing some positive value.
Aristotle’s view is contrary to this. An act of violence (fighting, sadism), 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” (wanting) 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

excessive and deficiencies of these. This table shows some of the virtues and
their vices (sub, secondary):

EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness

(irresponsibility)

Recklessness
 (carelessness) Courage Cowardice

Prodigality Liberality Meanness

(extravagant, wasteful) (unkind)

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 (gather)
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 (boldly, bravely) enough but able to weigh up possible implications
(claims, accusations) of such act that she proceeds with caution (carefulness).

It is only through the middle that a person is able to manifest her feelings,
passions (enthusiasms), and actions virtuously. For Aristotle, being superfluous
(excessive) 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
(desire, like) 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.

IV. ACTIVITY

1. Moral virtue, according to Aristotle, is a “state of character” which habitually

acts according to the middle measure that practical wisdom identifies as the
moral choice that should be acted upon, given the actual situation that presents
to the person. The goal of virtue ethics is to promote the maturity of the character
of the person. Building a good character is a task and responsibility of every
person. Do you agree with his statement? Explain your answer.

2. How will you apply Aristotle’s ethics in your life?