Great video series. A nit pick at around 18:00 - foolhardiness doesn’t seem to be “having too much courage.” Can’t say “courage” is the mean between two extremes of not having enough and having too much. Seems like there’s a third factor- say, risk taking. And one can be so risk averse that, combined with fear, one is then a coward. And at the other extreme, one is too much of a risk taker , perhaps lacking fear or reasonable restraint, thus being foolhardy. If courage is a virtue then you can’t have “too much” of it. For having too much of what it is you have too much of, means you aren’t virtuous with respect to that trait. Right? So courage would be the right combination of risk taking in relation to fear and perhaps an understanding or tactfulness of when it’s appropriate to take the risk.
The most ancient of philosophers such as Aristotle actually make the most intuitive sense to me so far. I consider virtue ethics among the most practical for application, although a somewhat "low-resolution" view from my consequentialist mindset (yet I often think that's the best we can do absent very nuanced information to inform our decisions). For example, if I were to raise a child, I would want to begin by encouraging virtuous actions above all else before delving into far more complex and nuanced ethical scenarios. I also like how virtue ethics acknowledge our tendencies towards habits and draw the distinction between a lone action and a habitual one while finding the value in practicing productive ones and overcoming counter-productive ones. The one thing I'm curious about with the Golden Mean is what Aristotle might think about the lone bystander who heroically risks his life, absent a moment's hesitation, on behalf of another. I consider that among the most virtuous and legendary qualities of humanity, although I'm wondering if that would be considered in the realm of excess courage and thus foolhardy vs. the more contemplative one who pauses to think about the best course of action at the risk of failing to act quickly enough. Perhaps what would be in the realm of excess vs. moderation is in proportion to the time available to make an effective decision? The difference from the phalanx leader analogy he provides in my opinion is that the above scenario involves a lone person solely risking his own life on behalf of another. The phalanx leader who charges in headstrong is not only risking his life but those of all his hoplites. I consider it lacking in virtue to gamble in such a headstrong way with other people's lives, but not always solely one's own.
HI D.E. I think you're probably right about all that. My concern with the eudaimonistic approach to morality is that unlike Aristotle (and Sokrates and Plato as well), we don't have a coherent and generally accepted standard of virtue. For those in the Classical world, it was just that accepted set of five or so dispositions that would be desirable in a good citizen: you had to be courageous, and self-controlled, and just, and pious, and wise. But once we move from the polis to the cosmopolis (as happened in the Hellenistic period) it was much more problematic as to what virtue actually entailed. Our world is even more pluralistic so coming to consensus on what virtue entails is more complicated still. So ultimately, the Virtue approach only seems plausible once we've established a clear understanding of the "good" so we're back to either a teleological approach (which you seem to favor) or a deontological one.
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy It always seems to recurse back to what "good/moral" even means which irritates me to no end! 😀 I favor a heuristic consequentialist approach but one which only favors taking into account "higher-resolution" information when we can find enough samples of similar scenarios historically at that resolution level. Only with sufficient samples can we start to confidently conclude from them that the possible consequences of a particular action in the present but similar scenario are weighted towards good and whatever risks acceptable. In most complex situations, I usually lack enough samples of sufficiently similar scenarios taking into account all the nuanced details, so I frequently dial down the "resolution" to using something like virtue or benevolent intent to guide my actions with the hope that it suffices to produce a desirable outcome and minimize risk of the worst possible ones. I never considered rules to be much of a guiding force for morality. I do find them valuable information to factor into account, but hardly related to my notions of right and wrong, as a rule could still be morally counter-productive; I just have to now factor into the pursuit of goodness the risks of breaking or bending such rules. They're an "envirommental factor" as I see it but not a "moral factor".
