=======================================================================

Unit V– Virtue Ethics

=======================================================================

We now come to the discussion of the last ethical theory in this book which is called virtue
ethics. 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.

This study of virtue ethics will focus on understanding the highest purpose and good that man
needs to achieve in life, as well as the kind of actions necessary to obtain these. It is hoped that
through studying virtue ethics, one develops the skill of giving rational accounting of one’s own
action in relation to the other person. One can develop a personal character that is consistent with the
teachings of virtue ethics.

Indicative Contents (Weeks 14-15)

 LESSON 1: Preliminary: A Case on the Effects of TV Violence on Children

 LESSON 2: Aristotle: Happiness as the Ultimate Purpose of Man
 LESSON 3: The Highest End and Good is Achieved by Doing One’s Function Will
 LESSON 4: Moral Virtue
 LESSON 5: Moral Virtue Is the Middle in Between Vices

========================================================
=

1
========================================================
=
LESSON 1

Preliminary: A Case on the Effects of TV Violence on Children

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. identify the problem of TV violence on children;

2. discuss effects of TV violence and its effects on childhood development, and
3. recognize violence on other forms of media and its effects on one's character.
An online news account speaks of key officials from both the legislative and executive
branches of government voicing out their concern on the possible in effects of too much violence
seen by children on television. The news estimates that by the time children reach 18 years old they
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 to promote more child-friendly programs.
Ultimately, to regulate television programs for Bro. Luistro would help to “influence children's
values as they grow up." It is important to discuss the kinds of programs being watched by children
on television because of the possible effects of these to their development.

THINK

Below are some key points stressed in the mentioned online news article concerning the effects of
TV violence on children. Let us see what are your thoughts about the issues being raised by the
news:

A. Children on the average watch on television a thousand of violent murder scenes per year.
Thus, because of this the Department of Education (DepEd and Movie and Television
Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) issued rules and guidelines for viewing
safety of children.

B. The Children's Television Act of 1997 demands that TV networks allot 15% of airtime to
shows which are more suitable to children and other programs should advise viewers of
the violence rating code prescribed by MTRCB.

C. It is hoped that the new TV guidelines would promote a culture that could assist children
in their self-development as members of the community Media has a great role in shaping
the sense of self of 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

2
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 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."

Mature individuals know that it is vital for children to go through the process of building
what may be called their "personality," "identity," or "character." How does the continuous exposure
to violence on television affect the kind of character that children will develop? Is it possible that
nonstop watching of violence on television results into a feeling of 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
precisely how good moral character is developed among individuals and what elements are involved
in order to achieve this.

EXPERIENCE
Try to remember a television programs that depicted some form of violence and recall if there
were violent scenes that affected the way you interacted with another person.

ASSESS (5PTS)
Enumerate five possible consequences of watching continuously violent programs on television on
one's personality or character. Write down your answer in the space provided.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

CHALLENGE
Identify the forms of violence in the other kinds of media that you utilize and research on the
possible implications of these to the development of your character.

HARNESS
Find an institution (private organization, nongovernmental organization, people's
organization, or government office) within your locality which has an advocacy against violence on
different forms of media and identify possible areas of engagement that you can participate in their
work.

3
========================================================
=
LESSON 2

Aristotle: Happiness as the Ultimate Purpose of Man

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. define what is happiness for Aristotle;

2. distinguish the difference between the ethical frameworks of Plato and Aristotle; and
3. discuss the general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man.

One theory that can possibly provide a comprehensive understanding of how an individual developed
moral character is virtue ethics. The two major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle, are
considered to have discourses concerning virtue. But it is in Aristotle’s Nicsomachean Ethics that
one can find the first comprehensive and programmatic study of this kind of ethics.

THINK

Aristote (384-322 B.C.E.) 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 was also known to be the tutor
of Alexander the Great who tried to conquer
the world. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is
his major work in moral philosophy

One can clearly see in Aristotle's discourse of ethics how he departs from the Platonic
understanding of reality and conception of the good. Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the
highest faculty 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 tum results in their contrasting stand on what the ethical principle should be.

4
 For Plato, the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience but can somehow be
grasped by our intellect. The truth and ultimately the good are in the sphere of forms or ideas
transcending our 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, one
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.

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 call telos. There is a purpose why one
does something, and for Aristotle, a person's action manifests of a kind of good that she aspires for.
Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good. One eats for the purpose of a good which is that
of giving sustenance of the body. A person pursues a chosen career, aiming for a good which is that
of providing a comfortable future for her family. A person will not do anything which is thought of
not giving her any good. Even an addict who uses dangerous drugs "thinks" that such act will give
some kind of good to her. This does not necessarily mean that using drugs is good but an 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 so many actions and pursuits in life and
correspondingly each of these activities have different aims. Aristotle is aware that one does an act
not only to achieve a particular purpose but such purpose is sought because it 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).

When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the teacher, she
does this for the purpose 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.

If there is a hierarchy of telos, Aristotle then proceeds to ask what the highest purpose which
is the ultimate good as well of a human being is. Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for
one to recognize the highest good of man. First Aristotle states that the highest good of man must be
something that is final. As a final end it is no longer utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher
end. In our example, the purpose of remembering the lessons in the course, that is why one at in
order to achieve a much higher goal. Secondly, the ultimate telos of man must be something that is
self-sufficient. Satisfaction in life is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is
sought and desired for once this self-sufficient goal is achieved since this is already considered as
best possible good in life. Again in the given example, 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 goal 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
5
them gain a wealth of knowledge on what the ultimate purpose of a person is, For 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 example of having wealth, power, and pleasurable
feelings are not chosen for themselves but for the sake of being means to achieve happiness. If one
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 pleasurable feelings. 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 man since no other superior end is still being desired for.

Aristotle continues in saying that happiness is also the self-sufficient end. 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 for example can be more fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness.
One can imagine a life for example of being wealthy, powerful, and experiencing pleasurable
feelings and yet such life still is 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.

EXPERIENCE
When was the last time that I experienced true happiness? Why do I say so?

ASSESS
Identify.
1. What is the Greek term for happiness? ______________________.
2. What are the two general criteria in order for one to recognize the highest good of man for
Aristotle? _________________ and _______________________.
3. Give two things (other than those mentioned in Lesson 2) that people aspire for that do not
necessarily end in the condition of happiness. _______________ and
_________________.

CHALLENGE
Identify a person within your circles of relationships that seems to manifest the condition of
happiness. Discuss why.
6
HARNESS
Research on the work, actions, and contributions to their communities by world-renowned
personalities which seem to suggest that their purpose is closer to true happiness.

========================================================
=
LESSON 3

The Highest End and Good is Achieved by Doing

One’s Function Well
Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. define what is man’s activity of reason;

2. explain that happiness is achieved by doing well the activity of reason; and
3. discuss virtue as excellence.

Even though older individuals are in agreement that happiness is the highest good that
humans can aspire for, there are various opinions on what specifically is the nature of this ultimate
telos of man. One can insist and immediately attach happiness with having wealth and power. Others
would continue associating happiness with feelings that are pleasurable. Some would take into
account nobler things like honor and other ideals as constitutive of happiness. For Aristotle arguing
for or against every particular opinion might prove to be a futile attempt to arrive at the nature of
happiness. Instead, Aristotle goes on to show that one arrives at the ultimate good by way of doing
one's function well.

THINK

How does a person arrive at her highest good? For Aristote, an individual's action can
achieve the highest good, then one must investigate how the person functions which makes her able
to achieve her ultimate purpose. This is because she performs her function well, then she is capable
of arriving at happiness. Aristote then proceeds with discussing the function of human beings in
order to distinguish
the person's activity from other beings. How does a human being function which sets him 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. the function of a human being is simply to do the act of
taking in food in order to sustain her life and continue iving, then what makes her different from
plants? Also, if the function of a human being is to do the act of perceiving things, then what makes
her different from animals?

7
 What defines a person therefore for Aristotle 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 would further say that a person not only can perform her
function but she can perform well. What makes a dancer, for example, different from a chef is her
function which is to dance while the chef's function is to cook. Any dancer for that matter can dance
but what separates a dancer from an excellent dancer is that the latter dances well. Same is true with
human beings: what distinguishes a good person from other human beings is her rational activity
being performed well or in an excellent way. 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 it 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 are more than one virtue,
in accordance with the best and most complete.

The Filipino 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 can perform the
activity of reason, thus, being human can easily be realized. A good human being, however, strives
hard in doing the said activity in an excellent way, thus, the task of being human becomes more
difficult because doing such activity well takes more effort on the part of the person.

Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns able to function according to
reason and further being able to perform this activity well or with a degree of excellence. This
excellent way of doing things is what 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. He says, "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 her 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.

EXPERIENCE
"Madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao." When did this saying become real in my life?

ASSESS (5pts)
True or False. Write your answers in the space provided.

___________ 1. For Aristotle, the capacity to reason makes a human being different from other
beings.
8
___________ 2. For Aristotle, a single heroic act for others makes one virtuous.
___________ 3. When a golfer plays in an excellent way, he can be called a man of virtue.
___________ 4. A man of virtue arrives closer to happiness.
___________ 5. “Madaling magpakatao, mahirap maging tao.”

CHALLENGE
How can you become a person possessing virtue in your particular field of study? Give a
particular concrete example.
HARNESS
If you become a public servant, how will you develop yourself to become a virtuous person?
Research on the best practices in government agencies that help you answer this.

========================================================
=
LESSON 4

Moral Virtue
Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. discuss virtue as excellence the rational element of the soul;

2. distinguish between moral virtue and intellectual virtue; and
3. explain how one develops her character.

It is in the rational faculty of man that the exercise of excellence can take place. One can
rightly or wrongly apply the use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided into two
aspects: moral, which is the aspect concerning the act of doing, and intellectual, which is the aspect
concerning the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the function of reason is
exercised.

THINK

What exactly makes a human being excellent? Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of
the human soul and therefore one need 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 simply 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 simply follows the natural processes involved in the physical
activities and growth of the person.

On the other hand, the appetitive aspect works as a desiring faculty of man. The act of desiring in
itself for Aristotle simply is but an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time
refuses to go along with reason. Thus, this aspect still belongs to the irrational part of the soul.
Sexual impulses, for example, are so strong in a person that one tends to simply ignore reasonable
9
demands control such impulses. 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

One rational aspect where man can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul.
For 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. For Aristotle, there are two ways by which one can attain intellectual
excellence: philosophic and practical. Philosophic wisdom is concerned with attaining knowledge
about the fundamental principles and truths that govern the universe. One can learn, for example,
general theories on the origins of things. Philosophic wisdom helps one to 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, for Aristotle, 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 being a morally good individual. However,
Aristotle seems to suggest that although the rational functions of man (moral and intellectual) are
distinct from each other, it is necessary for man to have attained 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 towards 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 necessarily has to
achieve the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to perform the task of being moral. This
distinction of Aristotle draws a sharp contrast between his understanding of the dynamics of
knowledge and action from that of Socrates' 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.... 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.

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 needs to be done is different from doing the good that one
needs to accomplish.

Therefore, rational faculty of man tells us that man 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
man. Therefore, for Aristotle, man is not initially by nature good."
10
 Any craft that one does can be perfected by habitually doing the right action necessary for
him or her 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 one properly plays basketball consistently that one is recognized as a good basketball player.

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 one is known by others. Character then
becomes the identification mark of the person. When one, for example, habitually opts to be
courteous to others and would regularly show politeness in the way she relates to others, others
would start recognizing her as having a well-mannered character. On the other hand, when one
habitually chooses to be rude to others and repeatedly demonstrates vulgar and foul acts, she
develops an ill-mannered character. The Filipino term pag-uugali precisely reflects the meaning of
moral character. One can have a mabuting pag-uugali (a good character) or masamang pag-uugali (a
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 that children
tend to mimic the violence they watch on television, then such habitual copying of antagonistic acts
potentially could develop into a character that can tolerate, without any difficulty, behaviors that are
hostile in nature.

EXPERIENCE
What do I think are the character traits, habits, and pag-uugali that I am known for?

ASSESS
Multiple choice. Choose the best answer and write the letter in the space provided.

___________ 1. What aspect of the soul does excellence not happen?

A. Intellectual
B. Appetitive
C. Moral
___________ 2. What kind of wisdom is needed to be morally excellent?
A Philosophic wisdom
B. Technical wisdom
C. Practical wisdom
___________ 3. Moral character is not developed though ___________.
A Habit
B. Practice
C. Desiring
___________ 4. A person who has practical wisdom is already ___________.
A. Morally excellent
B. Intellectually excellent
C. Neither moral nor intellectually excellent
___________ 5. Having virtuous character is ___________.
A Hereditary
B. Dictated by reason
C. A product of one's surroundings

CHALLENGE 11
Upon reflection, what are the positive and negative traits that I habitually do?
HARNESS (5pts)
As a citizen of the Philippines, what kinds of character must develop actively participate in
the call for nation-building? Why are these important?

========================================================
=
LESSON 5

Moral Virtue Is the Middle Between Vices

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. discuss what is mesotes;

2. distinguish virtue from vice, and
3. define moral virtue

One needs to develop practical wisdom by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her
daily life. In attaining practical wisdom, one might Initially make mistakes on how reason is applied
to a particular moral choice of action but it is precisely in experiences that one is able to sustain
practical wisdom for to help steer someone's ability to know morally right choices and actions. In
other words, one is able to mature and grow in her capacity of knowing what to do and living a
morally upright life.

THINK

For Aristotle, developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences Knowledge
is not inherent to the person. Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not
easy. This is why when it comes to life choices one can seek the advice of elders within one's
community, those who have gained so many life experiences and, thus, hopefully have developed
practical wisdom because chances are they would be able to assist in someone's moral deliberation
Parents, for example, can offer an advice on how to conduct oneself in front of family members and
relatives. Senior members of the community like priests, counselors, and leaders might be able to
guide the young members on how relationships with others are fostered.

Perhaps one might understand Bro. Armin Luistro's action of issuing guidelines on television
viewing for children during his government stint because he could have observed the possible effect
of television violence on the young. He says that whatever good values that are instilled on children
are sometimes removed from the consciousness of young people because of television violence. As a
former secretary of the Department of Education, he possibly has learned so much about the

12
consequence of such situation on the young, Practical wisdom may have guided him from acting in
that way.

But when practical wisdom guides the conduct of making morally right choices and actions,
what does wisdom precisely identify as the proper and right thing to do? What does one determine
and constitute as the moral way of doing things? For 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; Il 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.

For 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 number of feelings, passions, and ability for a particular act. Generally, for Aristotle,
feelings and passions are neutral, which means that in themselves they are neither morally right nor
wrong. When one, for example, shows a feeling of anger or the ability to feel anger, these
manifestations of personality are not immediately construed as morally wrong acts. But the rightness
or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lie in the degree of their application in a given
situation. It is but right for one to get angry, for example, with a person who has offended her but it is
not right to get angry at everyone just because she has been 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 he or she expresses these. One, for example, might already need to show
outrage because of the acts of lawlessness done by terrorist groups and yet show insensitivity
because she is not directly affected by these acts.

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 one is in. The mean is not the same for all individuals.
As pointed out by Aristotle, the mean is by no means simply an arithmetical proportion. Therefore,
the task of being moral involves seriously looking and understanding a situation and assessing
properly every particular detail relevant to the determination of the mean.

One can simply be angry with someone, but the degree and state of it depends accordingly
with the nature of the person she is angry with For Aristotle, with the aid of reason, one is able to see
how man should show angriness at a child must be different from showing the same feeling to a
mature individual Mesotes is the state which one knows that the act applied is not excessive or
deficient. Therefore, just like any craft, one cannot be good by doing it haphazardly, but instead,
reason demands a continuous habituation in the skill needed to perfect the act Targeting the middle
13
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.

Going back to the news article on the possible effects of television violence on children, we
can see that the government and its fine agencies responsible for protecting and assisting the young
on their personal development could have acted with the view of the middle measure. The
government could have dismissed the issue and simply not acted on it at all since violence sadly is
seen as a part of life. Bro. Luistro states that they could not simply be reactive when the possible ill
effects of violence on television are already patent on the young. The government could have also
taken the other extreme action of totally taking out on television all possible portrayals of violence.
Such move creates an absolute censure to the citizen's freedom of expression and artistic
independence which can result to
another gamut of problems in our life as sovereign individuals. But 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, dedicate 15% of television
airtime for child-friendly shows, and enforcing television violence rating code that takes 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 "Virtue, then,
is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e., 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. 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 actions done which
normally manifest feelings and passions are 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 of 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 she is in. This means that in choosing the middle, one is looking at the situation
and not at herself in identifying the proper way that feelings and passions should be dispensed.

Thirdly, the rational faculty that would serve 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 carrying out one's feelings, passions, and actions. The rational
faculties of the 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 not well-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 which enables her 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
nonexistent because there is no good (mesotes) in something that is already considered a bad act.
When one murders someone, for example, 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.

In the previously mentioned study 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
14
"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 us with examples of particular virtues and the corresponding excesses
and deficiencies of these. One can make a table showing some of the virtues and their vices:

Excess Middle Deficiency

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberality Meanness

In the abovementioned table, Aristotle has identified, for example, the virtue of courage as
the middle in between the vices of being coward and reckless. Cowardice S a deficiency in terms of
feelings and passions. This means that one lacks the capacity to muster enough bravery of carrying
himself or 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 though 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
he or she has gone beyond the middle and therefore has 'move out from the state that is virtuous.
One, therefore, can always be excessive in his action but an act that is virtuous cannot go beyond the
middle. Filipinos have the penchant, for example, of using superlative words like "over," "super," "to
the max' in describing a particular act which they normally identify as virtuous. Perhaps Aristotle's
view on virtue is prescribing a clearer way by which Filipinos can better understand it

EXPERIENCE
What situations in the past that I clearly acted or respected in excess or deficient of mesotes?

ASSESS
Matching type. Match column A with column B. Write the letter of the correct answer in the
space provided.

_____ 1. The mean in between vice A. experience

_____ 2. Where practical wisdom is learned B. situation
_____ 3. Action that has no mesotes C. mesotes
_____ 4. The middle is relative to this D. habits
_____ 5. Product of constant application of reason E. bad acts
in actions

15
 CHALLENGE
What are the three most important virtues for me? Complete the table by providing the virtues
and their corresponding vices.

Excess Middle Deficiency

HARNESS
What is the career path that you aspire for when you graduate? Research on three most
important virtues necessary to be a moral person in your preferred career. Also, what are the vices
that you need to be mindful of?

16