CHAPTER V

VIRTUE ETHICS

Chapter Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
➢ 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.

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 a series of consultations with various
stakeholders to address the issue of exposure of children to TV violence. They also implemented the rules and
guidelines for viewing safety and created a television violence rating code to be applied in all TV programs.
Lastly, they also set 15% of television airtime for shows conducive to children.

Luistro's claim seems to be based on a particular vision of childhood development. Children at a young
age have not yet achieved full personal growth and mental development. This situation makes them particularly
vulnerable to possible undesirable effects of seeing violent images presented on television. When they see
violence on television on a regular basis, they may consider such violent acts as "normal" and part of the daily
occurrences in life. Much worse is that they might tend to believe that such acts, since committed by adults, are
permissible. In these situations, the saying "Life imitates art" unfortunately becomes uncomfortably true.

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 are aware that it is vital for children to go through the process of building their
personality, identity, or character. How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect the
character that children develop? Is it possible that constant watching of violence on television results in
aggression among children? What is the role of the child's environment in her capacity to develop into a good
individual? These questions are real concerns that society needs to address. Perhaps, it is best to look closely at
how good moral character is developed among individuals. What elements are involved in order to achieve this?
One theory that can possibly provide a comprehensive understanding of how an individual can develop moral
character is virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the good as a matter of
developing the virtuous character of a person. Previous chapters emphasized different aspects of ethics:
consequences of an act for utilitarianism, natural inclinations for natural law, and autonomy for deontology.
Virtue ethics, on the other hand, focuses on the formation of one's character brought about by determining and
doing virtuous acts. The two major thinkers of Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle, had discourses concerning
virtue. But Aristotle's book entitled Nicomachean Ethics is the first comprehensive and programmatic study of
virtue ethics.

Aristotle's discourse of ethics departs from the Platonic understanding of reality and conception of the
good. Both Plato and Aristotle affirm rationality as the 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 turn, results in their contrasting stand on what the ethical principle should be.

For Plato, the real is outside the realm of any human sensory experience but can somehow be grasped
by one's intellect. The truth and, ultimately, the good are in the sphere of forms or ideas transcending daily
human condition. On the other hand, for Aristotle, the real is found within our everyday encounter with objects
in the world. What makes nature intelligible is its character of having both form and matter. Therefore, the truth
and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not independent of our experience.

When one speaks of the truth, for example, how beautiful Juan Luna's Spoliarium is, she cannot discuss
its beauty separately from the particular painting itself. Same is true with understanding the good: the particular
act of goodness that one does in the world is more important than any conception of the good that is outside
and beyond the realm of experience. One sees the ethical theory of Aristotle as engaging the good in our day-
to-day living.

Happiness And Ultimate Purpose

Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act that a person does is directed toward
a particular purpose, aim, or what the Greeks called telos. There is a purpose why one does something, and for
Aristotle, a person's action manifests a good that she aspires for. Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a
good. One eats for the purpose of the good that it gives sustenance to the body. A person pursues a chosen
career, aiming for a good, that is, to provide a better future for her family. A person will not do anything which
is not beneficial to her. Even a drug user "thinks" that substance abuse will cause her good. This does not
necessarily mean that using drugs is good but a "drug addict" would want to believe that such act is good.
Therefore, for Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to achieve.

One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits in life and correspondingly each of
these activities has different aims. Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a particular
purpose but also believes such purpose can be utilized for a higher goal or activity, which then can be used to
achieve an even higher purpose and so on. In other words, the different goods that one pursues form a hierarchy
of teloi (plural form of telos).

Aristotle says:
... But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from
the activities that produce them. Where there are ends apart from the actions, it is the nature of the
products to be better than the activities. Now, as there are many actions, arts, and sciences, their
ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy
victory, that of economics wealth. But where such arts fall under a single capacity-as bridle-making
and the other arts concerned with the equipment of horses fall under the art of riding, and this and
every military action under strategy, in the same way other arts fall under yet others-in all of these,
the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of
the former that the latter is pursued.

When one diligently writes down notes while listening to a lecture given by the teacher, she does this
for the purpose of being able to remember the lessons of the course. This purpose of remembering, in turn,
becomes an act to achieve a higher aim which is to pass the examinations given by the teacher, which then
becomes a product that can help the person attain the goal of having a passing mark in the course. It is important
for Aristotle that one becomes clear of the hierarchy of goals that the different acts produce in order for a
person to distinguish which actions are higher than the other.

With the condition that there is a hierarchy of telos, Aristotle then asks about the highest purpose, which
is the ultimate good of a human being. Aristotle discusses the general criteria in order for one to recognize the
highest good of man. First, the highest good of a person must be final. As a final end, it is no longer utilized for
the sake of arriving at a much higher end. In our example above, the purpose of remembering the lessons in the
course, that is why one writes down notes, is not the final end because it is clear that such purpose is aimed at
achieving a much higher goal. Second, the ultimate telos of a person must be self-sufficient. Satisfaction in life
is arrived at once this highest good is attained. Nothing else is sought after and desired, once this self-sufficient
goal is achieved, since this is already considered as the best possible good in life. Again, in the example given
above, the goal of remembering the lessons in the course is not yet the best possible good because a person
can still seek for other more satisfying goals in her life.

So, what is the highest goal for Aristotle? What goal is both final and self-sufficient? It is interesting to
note that for Aristotle, the question can only be adequately answered by older individuals because they have
gone through enormous and challenging life experiences which helped them gain a wealth of knowledge on
what the ultimate purpose of a person is. According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the highest
purpose and the ultimate good of man is happiness, or for the Greeks, eudaimonia. Aristotle says:

Now, such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself
and never for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose
indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but
we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy.
Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything
other than itself.

One can therefore say that happiness seems to fit the first criterion of being the final end of a human
being. For it is clear that conditions for having wealth, power, and pleasures are not chosen for themselves but
for the sake of being a means to achieve happiness. 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 pleasures. But all of
these ends are ultimately for the sake of the final end which is happiness. In itself, happiness seems to be the
final end and the highest good of a person since no other superior end is still being desired for.

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 can be more fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness. One can imagine a life of being
wealthy, powerful, and experiencing pleasurable feelings and yet, such life is still not satisfying without
happiness. Once happiness is achieved, things such as wealth, power, and pleasurable feelings just give value-
added benefits in life. The true measure of well-being for Aristotle is not by means of richness or fame but by
the condition of having attained a happy life.

Even though older individuals agree that happiness is the highest end and good that humans aspire for,
there are various opinions on what specifically is the nature of the ultimate telos of a person. One is that
happiness is attached with having wealth and power. Others associate happiness with feelings that are
pleasurable. Some take nobler things like honor and other ideals as constitutive of happiness. For Aristotle,
arguing for or against every opinion proves to be a futile attempt to arrive at the nature of happiness. Instead,
Aristotle shows that one can arrive at the ultimate good by doing one's function well.
 How does a person arrive at her highest good? According to Aristotle, if an individual's action can achieve
the highest good, then one must investigate how she functions which enables her to achieve her ultimate
purpose. If she performs her function well, then she is capable of arriving at happiness. Aristotle then proceeds
with discussing the function of human beings to distinguish one person's activity from other beings. How does
a human being function which sets her apart from the rest?

For Aristotle, what defines human beings is her function or activity of reason. This function makes her
different from the rest of beings. Aristotle expresses this clearly:
... What then can this be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what
is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be a
life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There
remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle; of this, one part has such a
principle in the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and
exercising thought.

If the function of a human being is simply to do the act of taking in food in order to sustain her life and
continue living, then what makes her different from plants? Also, if the function of a human being is to do the
act of perceiving things, then what makes her different from animals?

What defines a person therefore is her function or activity of reason. A person's action to be considered
as truly human must be an act that is always in accordance to reason. The function of a human being is to act
following the dictates of her reason. Any person for that matter utilizes her reason but Aristotle further says
that a person cannot only perform her function but she can also perform it well. A dancer, for example, becomes
different from a chef because of her function to dance while the chef's is to cook. Any dancer can dance but
what makes her distinct from an excellent dancer is that the latter dances very well. The same principle applies
to human beings. What distinguishes a good person from other human beings is her rational activity that is
performed well or excellently. A good 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, for
example, a lyre player and a good lyre player, and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in
respect of goodness being added to the name of the function (for the function of a lyre player is to
play the lyre, and that of a good lyre player is to do so well): if this is the case, (and we state the
function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a
rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these,
and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate
excellence: if this is the case) human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance to virtue, and
if there is more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.
 The local saying "Madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao" can be understood in the light of
Aristotle's thoughts on the function of a good person. Any human being 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 arete by the
Greeks. Aristotle is quick to add that virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not become an
excellent person overnight: "For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day,
or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy..." This means that being virtuous cannot be
accomplished by a single act. It is commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a whistle-blower,
exposing all the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But one should be careful in judgment of calling
immediately that individual as being a "person of virtue." Being an excellent individual works on doing well in
her day-to-day existence.

What exactly makes a human being excellent? Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human
soul and therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a person's soul which must be directed by
her rational activity in an excellent way. For Aristotle, the human soul is divided into two parts: the irrational
element and the rational faculty. The irrational element of man consists of the vegetative and appetitive aspects.
The vegetative aspect functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of physical growth in a person. As
an irrational element, this part of man is not in the realm where virtue is exercised because, as the term suggests,
it cannot be dictated by reason. The vegetative aspect of the soul follows the natural processes involved in the
physical activities and growth of a person. Whereas, the appetitive aspect works as a desiring faculty of man.
The act of desiring in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time refuses to
go along with reason. Thus, this aspect belongs to the irrational part of the soul. Sexual impulse, for example, is
so strong in a person that one tends to ignore reasonable demands to control such impulse. However, unlike
the vegetative aspect, the desiring faculty of man can be subjected to reason.

Aristotle says,
“... Now, even this seems to have a share in the rational principle, as we said; at any rate in the
continent man, it obeys the rational principle ... "

Desires are subject to reason even though these do not arise from the rational part of the soul.

In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercises excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply the
use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided into two aspects: moral, which concerns the act of doing,
and intellectual, which concerns the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the function of
reason is exercised.
 One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul. As
stated by Aristotle, this excellence is attained through teaching. Through time, one learns from the vast
experiences in life where she gains knowledge on these things. One learns and gains wisdom by being taught or
by learning. There are two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence: philosophic and practical.
Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths that govern
the 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.

It seems that for Socrates, moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual excellence. Knowing
the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having intellectual
excellence does not necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good. Knowing the good
that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to accomplish.

Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two kinds of virtue: moral
and intellectual. In discussing moral virtue, Aristotle says that it is attained by means of habit. A morally virtuous
man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good and does the right actions. Moral virtue is
acquired through habit. Being morally good is a process of getting used to doing the proper act. The saying
“practice makes perfect" can be applied to this aspect of a person.
Therefore, for Aristotle, a person is not initially good by nature:
Again, of all the things that come to us, by nature, we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit
the activity (this is plain in the case of the senses; for it was not by often seeing or often hearing that
we got these senses, but on the contrary, we had them before we used them, and did not come to
have them by using them); but the virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the
case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing
them...

Any craft that one does can be perfected by habitually doing the right action necessary to be good in a
particular craft. Being a good basketball player, for example, involves constant training and endless hours of
shooting and dribbling the ball in the right 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 does
good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing the good that a person is able to form her character.
It is through one's character that others know a person. Character then becomes the identification mark of the
person. For instance, when one habitually opts to be courteous to others and regularly shows politeness in the
way she relates to others, others would start recognizing her as a well-mannered person. On the other hand,
when one habitually chooses to be rude to others and repeatedly demonstrates vulgar and foul acts, she
develops an image of an ill-mannered person. The Filipino term pag-uugali precisely reflects the meaning of
moral character. One can have mabuting paguugali (good character) or masamang pag-uugali (bad character).

How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect the kind of character that children
will develop? One can surmise that if we rely on the above-mentioned study, children tend to mimic the violence
they watch on television and such habit could develop into a character that can tolerate behaviors that are
hostile in nature.

MORAL VIRTUE AND MESOTES

As stated by Aristotle, developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences. Knowledge is
not inherent to a person. Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not easy. One
needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life. In attaining
practical wisdom, she may initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular moral choice or action.
But through these mistakes, she will be able to sustain practical wisdom to help steer another's ability to know
morally right choices and actions. In other words, she is able to mature and grow in her capacity of knowing
what to do and living a morally upright life.

This is why when it comes to life choices, one can seek the advice of elders in the community, those who
gained rich life experiences and practical wisdom, because they would be able to assist someone's moral
deliberation. Parents can advise their children how to behave in front of family members and relatives. Senior
members of the community like priests, counselors, and leaders may also guide the young members on how
relationships with others are fostered.

Bro. Armin Luistro, with his practical wisdom and experience, has observed the possible effect of
television violence on the young so he issued guidelines on television viewing for children. He says that good
values instilled on children are "sometimes removed from the consciousness of young people” because of
television violence. As former Secretary of the Department of Education, he possibly learned so much about the
consequence of such situation on the young.

However, when practical wisdom guides the conduct of making morally right choices and actions, what
does it identify as the proper and right thing to do? As maintained by Aristotle, it is the middle, intermediate, or
mesotes for the Greeks that is aimed at by a morally virtuous person. Determining the middle becomes the
proper tool by which one can arrive at the proper way of doing things.
Aristotle says:
In everything that is continuous and divisible, it is possible to take more, less, or an equal amount,
and that either in terms of the thing itself or relative to us; and the equal is an intermediate between
excess and defect. By the intermediate in the object, I mean that which is equidistant from each of
the extremes, which is one and the same for all men, by the intermediate relatively to us that which
is neither too much nor too little-and this is not one, nor the same for all. For instance, if ten Is many
and two is few, six is the intermediate, taken in terms of the object; for it exceeds and is exceeded
by an equal amount; this intermediate according to arithmetical proportion. But the intermediate
relatively to us is not to be taken so; if ten pounds are too much for a particular person to eat and
two too little, it does not follow that the trainer will order six pounds; for this also perhaps too much
for the person who is to take it, or too little-too little for Milo [a famous Greek athlete], too much for
the beginner in athletic exercises. The same is true of running and wrestling. Thus, a master of any
art avoids excess and defect, but seeks the intermediate and chooses this-the intermediate not in
the object but relatively to us.

Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her appropriate action in a
manner that is neither excessive nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary point in
between extremes. One has to function in a state that her personality manifests the right amount of feelings,
passions, and ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and passions are neutral which means that, in
themselves, they are neither morally right nor wrong. When one shows a feeling of anger, we cannot
immediately construe it as morally wrong act. But the rightness or wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities
lies in the degree of their application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an offensive remark but it is
not right to get angry at everyone just because you were offended by someone. One can be excessive in the
manner by which she manifests these feelings, passions, and abilities. But one can also be deficient in the way
she expresses these. For example, she may be outraged at the attacks of terrorists and yet may be insensitive
because she is not directly affected.
 A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the task of targeting the mean is always
difficult because every situation is different from one another. Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving
depending on the circumstance where she is in. The mean is not the same for all individuals. As pointed out by
Aristotle, the mean is simply an arithmetical proportion. Therefore, the task of being moral involves seriously
looking into and understanding a situation and assessing properly every particular detail relevant to the
determination of the mean. One can be angry with someone, but the degree and state of anger depends
accordingly with the nature of the person she is angry with. The aid of reason dictates how humans should show
different anger toward a child and a mature individual. Mesotes determines whether the act applied is not
excessive or deficient. Likewise, an individual cannot be good at doing something haphazardly but reason
demands a continuous habituation of a skill to perfect an act. Targeting the middle entails being immersed in a
moral circumstance, understanding the experience, and eventually, developing the knowledge of identifying the
proper way or the mean to address a particular situation.

In relation to the news article, the government and its agencies responsible for protecting and assisting
the young on their personal development should act in view of the middle measure. The government could have
dismissed the issue or could have banned television shows portraying violence. But such extremes censure the
citizen's freedom of expression and artistic independence, which can result in another issue. Wisely, the
government acted on the side of the middle measure by going through a series of consultations to address the
issue of television violence-implementing the rules and guidelines for viewing safety, dedicating 15% of
television airtime for child-friendly shows, and enforcing a television violence rating code that took into account
the "sensibilities of children." It seems that the government acted in a manner that is not deficient and excessive.

Aristotle's discussion ultimately leads to defining what exactly moral virtue is "a state of character
concerned with choice, lying in a mean, that is, the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational
principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it."

Moral virtue is firstly the condition arrived at by a person who has a character identified out of her
habitual exercise of particular actions. One's character is seen as a growth in terms of the continuous preference
for the good. Secondly, in moral virtue, the action done that normally manifests feelings and passions is chosen
because it is the middle. The middle does not fall short or is excessive of the proper proportion by which these
feelings or passions should be expressed. Aristotle adds that the middle is relative to us. This does not imply
that mesotes totally depends on what the person identifies as the middle. Such case would signify that Aristotle
adheres to relativism. But Aristotle's middle is not relative to the person but to the situation and the
circumstance that one is in. This means that in choosing the middle, one is looking at the situation and not at
oneself in identifying the proper way that feelings and passions should be dispensed.

Thirdly, the rational faculty that serves as a guide for the proper identification of the middle is practical
wisdom. The virtuous person learns from her experiences and therefore develops the capacity to know the
proper way of carrying out her feelings, passions, and actions. The rational faculties of this person, specifically
practical wisdom, aid in making a virtuous person develop this habit of doing the good. A moral person in this
sense is also someone who is wise. Habit is not simply borne out repetitive and non-thought-of activities in a
person. Habits for Aristotle are products of the constant application of reason in the person's actions. One sees
Aristotle's attempt to establish a union between the person's moral action and knowledge that enables him to
achieve man's function.

Aristotle clarifies further that not all feelings, passions, and actions have a middle point. When a mean
is sought, it is in the context of being able to identify the good act in a given situation. However, when what is
involved is seen as a bad feeling, passion, or action, the middle is non-existent because there is no good
(mesotes) in something that is already considered a bad act. When one murders someone, there is nothing
excessive or deficient in the act: murder is still murder. Further, there is no intermediary for Aristotle in the act
because there is no proper way that such act can be committed.
Aristotle states:
But not every action nor every passion admits of a mean; for some have names that already imply
badness, e.g., spite, shamelessness, envy, and in the case of actions, adultery, theft, murder; for all
of these and suchlike things imply by their names that they are themselves bad, and not the excesses
or deficiencies of them. It is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard to them; one must always
be wrong. Nor does goodness or badness with regard to such things depend on committing adultery
with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right way, but simply to do any of them is to go
wrong. It would be equally absurd, then, to expect that in unjust, cowardly, and voluptuous action
there should be a mean, an excess and a deficiency; for at that rate there would be a mean of excess
and of deficiency, an excess of excess, and a deficiency of deficiency...

In the study mentioned wherein children are beginning to consider violence as "a way to solve problems,
"it seems apparent that they would like to think that there is somehow a "good" in an unjust act since it can
become a problem-solver. If violence becomes a tool by which difficult situations are addressed, then it can be
construed by children of bearing some positive value. Aristotle's view is contrary to this. As an act, violence, in
itself, is bad. A person cannot employ violence as if it were a virtue or a middle measure in between vices of
being "deficient" in violence or being "excessive" of the same act. There is something terribly wrong in such
demonstration.

Aristotle also provides examples of particular virtues and the corresponding excesses and deficiencies of
these. This table shows some of the virtues and their vices:

EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY

Impulsiveness Self-Control Indecisiveness
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
Prodigality Liberality Meanness

In the table, Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in between the vices of being coward
and reckless. Cowardice is a deficiency in terms of feelings and passions. This means that one lacks the capacity
to muster enough bravery of carrying herself appropriately in a given situation. Recklessness, on the other hand,
is an excess in terms of one's feelings and passions. In this regard, one acts with a surplus of guts that she
overdoes an act in such rashness and without any deliberation. The virtue of having courage is being able to act
daringly enough but able to weigh up possible implications of such act that she proceeds with caution.
 It is only through the middle that a person is able to manifest her feelings, passions, and actions
virtuously. For Aristotle, being superfluous with regard to manifesting a virtue is no longer an ethical act because
one has gone beyond the middle. Being overly courageous (or "super courageous") for instance does not make
someone more virtuous because precisely in this condition, she has gone beyond the middle and therefore has
"moved out" from the state that is virtuous. Therefore, one can always be excessive in her action but an act that
is virtuous cannot go beyond the middle. Filipinos have the penchant of using superlative words like "over"
"super" "to the max," and "sobra" in describing a particular act that they normally identify as virtuous. Perhaps,
Aristotle's view on virtue is prescribing a clearer way by which Filipinos can better understand it.