Aristotle's Ethical Theory - Virtue Ethics, Eudaimonia & The Golden Mean 

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe Ethics eBook available on Amazon: US: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088Q85GPK UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088Q85GPK Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088Q85GPK India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088Q85GPK Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088Q85GPK Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088Q85GPK The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology, Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R

"Yes I get it" The enthusiasm is through the roof.

I do not agree with the last bit of counterargument that Virtue Ethic is a selfish theory because it solely focuses on how one can become the best version of oneself. As is mentioned in Aristotle's theory, one can learn to become virtuous by watching other virtuous persons. In reverse, when one become virtuous, he/she will become watched by other people and help them become virtuous. Becoming virtuous is therefore influential, when you become virtuous you influence others to become virtuous too. Saying virtue ethic is a selfish theory is for me nothing but shortsightedness.

I think virtue ethics is the best way because we do not become virtuous for the sake of happiness but happiness is the result of being virtuos. Secondly, when each of us becomes virtous the world will really become a better place to live and there won't be selfish attitude as such.

Thank you for this! I've been reading our modules for hours only for me to understand little information. I'm so glad I came across this video. It helped me understand our topic better. It was a tremendous help!

Well done, guys! This was clearly very helpful to a lot of people. Aristotle would definitely have endorsed your channel. :) Good luck for the future.

Due to corona, our university courses got swapped for weekly assigments, where we have to singlehandely read the passages of prominent philosophers and answer questions. However, without any guidance like usual, it was way to hard for many to succeed. After failing the tasks needed for my credit points, I know have to take a test to prove my understanding of said philosophers. Your videos help IMMENSELY. Theyre not just straight up monologues - the style of your presentation; a dialog or rather a legitimate debate leaves me without any questions after watching the video. Absolutely excellent and probably the first time it actually makes me follow up to purchase further content from someone!

I love that you're still making videos. This is a good one. I haven't watched your channel in a while but your videos were always one of the best

good point there on the fact that fact that aristotalian ethics focuses on attaining eudaimonia, which may be considered selfish, but understand that such a state makes you of ultimate help for the good of all, because the wisdom will posses will always be used to solve the problems of otherd

very clear and I love the fact that there are 2 people arguing with each other and makes the video more understandable.

Doctrine of Means is similar to Hegel's dialectics as well. Opposite extremes being thesis and antithesis. And middle ground being synthesis.

This was so well planned and delivered. The dialogue format really works. The questions raised at the end really made the whole thing crystal clear. Thank you for posting. Great video.

Okay! I was about to study this topic . Glad you posted this video . 😂 Thank you so much ❤️

I never skip any of your videos you are One of my favourite Channels on youtube , Keep it up , Greetings from Egypt ❤️❤️

Man am I lovin' this channel! The model for explanations with the back and forths is WONDERFUL! Thank you for this AMAZING work!

Thanks! Your videos are always so helpful and informative!

When I first discovered your video,I was really upset and at the same time exited too,because it put my Ethical grounding to test and made me realised that I've been holding on to a really fragile Ethical approach.I really love the last minutes of each videos where a compelling philosophical ideas were always rendered to some falsity.

I think for the adultery thing, being a faithful partner is the virtue, committing adultery is one vice and the other is being "faithful" in the sense that you give too much of yourself to your partner that it becomes unhealthy for yourself, even if it makes your partner absolutely happy. It's like the donating example.

I love all your video soooooo much. I major in philosophy , these help me find outline so fast. Good Thank you

Great video I've been learning a lot from your channel!

What an explanation!!! Superb 😍 i feel lucky i came across this channel. Your videos helped me a lot to grasp my lectures Keep up the good work 👏👌

You discuss it more way better than my prof thank you

Brilliant demonstration ! Very helpful lessons that go right to the point. Already do I feel less stupid ; thank you.

Thank you for this video, now i understand what virtue ethics really is as part of our human existence

LOVE the end. Great questions.

this really helped me for my ethics class. Thanks!

This is a life saver for my ethics quiz! Thank you so much!

Thank you so much for all these great videos. I felt so stagnant lately and it’s amazing to listen in on your philosophical discussions. Please keep it up

Thanks for this, needed this for my ethics class.

This is a useful video. It really helped me with my assignment.

this was super helpful!! thank you

Thank you! This was engaging and well explained.

Thank you! This was very helpful with my revision.

12:25 "to be a virtuous person really means to be a selfish person" is an interesting conclusion. Thanks for discussing the objections to Virtue Ethics in comparison to the other theories. Very helpful!

Really helpful and well explained! Thank you😁

As a college instructor of philosophy, I suggest to my students that we need the wisdom of all the moral theories to live well and to act well in the myriad moral situations we face day to day. I would say that Aristotle's Virtue Ethics provides an essential basis from which to build a moral life and that the other theories, including Care Ethics and Stoicism, help us figure out how to develop civic virtues and a social ethos. Each of the theories aid our insight into how to respond to moral problems, and to build policies for a healthy and thriving community. I agree that on its own Aristotle's ethics could be selfish, but the Stoics foresaw that and developed the sense of responsibility for our communities. Thank you for your video.

Your animation is kind of funny and creepy at the same time. I think it is awsome!😀 Topic suggestions.... 1.Brain in a vat 2.Problem of universals 3.Anything about Hegel 4.Kants critique of pure reason 5.Hillary putnamd twin earth... Thank you very much!

that was outstanding

I would say that one advantage to using the means table is because it strives for a middle ground, it can ultimately find some of the short comings for deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics. For the former, it is too stringent, and for the latter, it is too lenient. As such, I think it could possible for Virtue ethics to act as a bridge between the competing theories, in a very Rossian manner.

as for answering some of the problems that Aristotle introduced: -The golden mean is not an essential core part of virtue but rather an observation from Aristotle that the characteristics of some attributes of a person can fit into this analogy of lack and excess, it is a tool for decision-making and *self* reflection but not THE tool. -As for convincing people about the value of Aristotelian virtues, that is the point, people are not born with all the means to become a virtuous person, it is up to the circumstances and social education of the individual to recognize which people are truly happy with their lives and which of their attributes they should imitate. -Fundamentally, Virtue Ethics is purely individualistic, but modern virtue ethicists are almost unrecognizable from Utilitarians, as most find selfishness and being apolitical as being a vice, cooperation and helping society is more of an after effect of building virtue.

Thank you so, so much!

any type of ethics cannot encompass the whole of human behavior or what he ought to do. It is still a system on how man should lived, and even that is a loaded statement. That was a very good presentation, including the comments at the end.

wowww, well-explained! great!

11:24 - 11:46 : Answering this inquiry from a standpoint of being a virtue ethicist, one has to understand that Aristotle like most of the ancient scholars and philosophers were all essentialists not existentialists. The kind of reasoning that we see that has happened since modernity and just before in pre-modernity constraints a person to certain linguistic functions that prevents one from understanding what's a person in Aristotle's day was thinking, it's colloquially rare to see individuals talking with syntactical grammar that suggest they're virtue ethicists, in fact they might seem odd given the fact that aretaic logic isn't common unless in a naturalistic or materialistic context (like you guys were showing throughout the eudaimonia section with why ultimately it's for a quality of living that one does good actions) , because deontic logic leads an individual to extreme ideologies for its categorical imperatives making things a 'must' rather than an 'ought' , 'should' , 'might one consider' , 'likely would result' etc. Short digression : Indeed naturalistic and materialistic principles like what the outcomes or ends also deal with can be extreme for quantifying human lives under-values individuals or who might even be saved in a larger group. Issues can be shown demonstrably with history, but I like the scene in batman the dark knight when two boats had likely similar quantities of people in them, one boat with prisoners and one boat with civilians. Who should be saved? Convicts are likely to do crimes again. This isn't easily answered as the consequentialist might figure a few guards and a ton of convicts are better to lose than those wealthier economic classes of people. And statistically that's true but deontologically speaking this is simply terrible, but even the consequentialist ought to admit that they don't know among all who ended up surviving who would have contributed the best medical advances or been a major asset in preventing a future war, if that person were on the boat full of convicts and they were sacrificed maybe the office job people on the yacht actually had a wealthy terrorist who continued to liv just to kill even more. Now to get out of the deontic and aretaic logic debate and remind a person that the virtue ethicists know these infinitely nuanced dynamics are impossible for any rational human to act like they absolutely know, so instead the goal for them is to use practical wisdom and overcome the situation to the best they believe they may arrive at, basically to conservatively chase perfection might they arrive at excellence. Aristotle's theory of virtue ethics wasn't ever a theory to convince the skeptics necessarily but to inform them of his kind of rationality. And it's a good theory because it's fairly practical and people can generally see the fruits of such a labor as well as even intellectually understand why it's plausible because by in large most people have a sense of right and wrong, either by a nature or Spirit (God or gods) given conscience. If you would like to see an article I've edited about philosophical liberalism versus philosophical conservatism (not to be confused with the political theories and their many developments, although in cases there's overlap) one can quickly tell that Aristotle was being philosophically conservative, by the definitions of the article, with his admission of this work. I too am philosophically conservative. Indeed in the next section I will make it more possible for one to understand that it is based in egoism and individualism, but an individualistic form of altruism not a collectivistic altruism like some theories of consequentialism or even an economic focused collectivism like utilitarianism. 11:47 - 12:30 : Obviously, eudaimonia, is beyond oneself though, as one who is successful is an example of success and also has economic wealth or equity that as long as there's currency of that wealth to the local community even others profit. This is like the theory of capitalism, that as long as it isn't in the form of abuse like a monopoly or the other form of misuse, non-generative, the capitalistic environment tends to lift many people up to invent new devices for everybody, that of which indeed might they have unintended consequences, and unlike Aristotle's 11 fixed virtues, I tend to add grace and forgiveness as one because it's subtextually written throughout his work with the exceptions when retribution would be either considerable, or when he just had a hard time reconciling that maybe one ought to be forgiven instead of charged. And that's not to say Aristotle's theory is perfect or that other virtue ethics theories cannot be compared. Obviously one ought to refine and dialectically challenge all things, as natural law theory is another variety by Aquinas and as is Dante's vices and virtues. Anyway. And people in an environment where one controls only the extent of their person and their own properties that consequentially tends to help others grow somewhat conventionally as well for so many countless industries and institutions that they invest into. So I hope that democratic and collectivistic abstractions don't continue to undermine the value of individualism and rational egoism, because virtue ethics does have altruistic sacrifices but sparingly as to remain a stoic person that has work to do here doesn't want to excessively or in some rash manner abandon all family, spouse, work ventures, etcetera just to die a reputable hero or martyr, that's something people do only if it's the best they think they can arrive at. So indeed with certain frameworks one can be a fairly thorough apologist for this theory if enough considerations of our language are corresponded to the actual outlined theory. - Your Quality Apologist

Thank you!

this explained the topic so well. and i specially love the ending the part. really makes u think.

this videos makes interpreting what's in written more easier for me.

Hi thanks thanks thanks alot you just saved a life .i have an exam tomorrow and this really helped. Thanks sooooooooo much. Very well explained 😍

well said 👏👏

Fabulous explanation....very much thankful....plz share more videos like this on Analytic philosophy also

thank you so much

Awesome !!!

Amazing teacher thanks a million guys

I loved this

Profound!!

Nice! keep it up

best philo channel!

Wow, this was a very good examination of Aristotle's ethics and some very good rebuttals. I have to say I greatly appreciate your all of your videos, but this one was my favorite yet.

Very good!

Been watching your videos for a while and cant seem to ignore the fact that the beardless dude is always the critic 😂. Better switch it up next.

Beautiful

I love Virtues ethics.it can leads to happy life

Thanks for saving my ethics exam!

Thanks

What might be noteworthy to add, is that contemporary virtue ethics has made a lot of connections to psychology as well. G. E. M. Anscombe made famous contributions in her essay Modern moral philosophy, and tried taking it back to it's Aristotelian roots, meanwhile criticizing consequentialism. I think she makes a noteworthy distinction since she also criticizes Aristotle and adds layers that take into account human nature which Virtue ethics fortunately does. In addition, in contemporary works virtue ethics is being polished with virtues being added with proper justification, which means that Virtue ethics is now layered to a degree in which there is scientific explanation for it's virtues. If you take into account the foundationless-ness of consequentialism, and Nietzsche's critique in the genealogy of morals in which he essentially takes us back to Aristotle, I believe picking up where contemporary virtue ethics is for me is a virtuous thing to do;)

selfish in a sense of growing one's self and reaching one's telos. thank you for this informative video

Thanku ❤❤❤

It's one person that recites the dialogue between George and John, right?

I really like the part when you defended the Theory

I have an exam in a few hours, Thank you.

thank uuuu

I love the Golden Mean

i agree , you dont selfish and ego in journey .

that crease in the carpet is driving me crazy

I have been studying for a universtity course in which we went a bit deeper and have to say I feel like that some aspects of Aristotles virtue ethics are portrayed incorrectly in this video. Firstly, I think you mixed up "telos" and "ergon". While telos is the goal a certain action is striving towards, what you described concerning the whole idea of "the point of a knife is to cut, so a knife that cuts well is a good knife" is considering the characteristic function of an object, which Aristotle calls its "ergon". The ergon of humans is the "activity of the soul in the way of reason" (I'm studying this in German so I'm a bit unsure about some of the translations so please be kind, but do let me know if there is a more fitting description). We fullfilling our ergon means living a virtuos life (the whole thing about the Golden Mean and so on, I agree with your explanation of this). The other point I noticed is that you described eudaimonia as "the ultimate goal of being alive" and so on, but it seems improtant to note, that according to Aristotle, eudaimonia is not a state you can archieve but rather an activity to pursue. For a more detailed and in my opinion fitting explanation of this concept you can check out th Crash Course video on virtue theory ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PrvtOWEXDIQ.html&ab_channel=CrashCourse. This is still a nice overview and in general well done though and I appreciate the effort of trying to share knowledge online :)

Make a video on objectivism the philosophy of Ayn Rand

Can virtue theory really be considered selfish? Even when one of its core dimensions is generosity?

Who came first Aristole or Zeno? What are the differences?

I love virtue ethics

We need another Aristotle.

Video Ideas: A priori vs A posteriori Analytic vs Continental Thanks :)

This "selfishness" is more aptly considered "rational self-interest"; which tends to favor voluntary cooperation with others (hardly "selfish").

♥️

I can't believe I am listening to philosophy with concentration

At the end he says it's selfish that you seek eudimonia for yourself, but if you achieve it by selfish means then you haven't really achieved is as doing so would violate 2 of the 11 virtues. Things like duty, and maximizing pleasure are bad because they are not vague enough to allow for an individual. Many of us are looking at ethics wrong. It needs looked on from the individuals perspective up not societiew perspective down. Buddhism and Aristotle Nicomachean ethics share allot of similarities in fact both have 11 virtues and only truly disagree on 3 of them.

Be good and happy person is helping good and happy world more than anything , as more individuals are like that better world, so to say its selfish is not intelligent

virtuos is not about self in a selfish way it is to realize that by benefiting yourself by stealing cheating causing conflict etc. that your setting a poor example for others and eventually you will have those around you doing the same and nobody wins. however if you focus on the benefit of other around you and are kind and friendly to those around you eventually the whole community will follow your trend of such living but mainly only if you are happy in doing so. usually people at they're core value being liked and so they are happy living minimalist stoic lifestyles because then others show gratitude and appreciation for it and appreciation reciprocating endlessly improving the lives of all those around via our happiness and in this everyone is living the best of all lives possible no matter how far advanced everything is because everyone respects and appreciates eachother. it also breeds the seeds of great leaders because a leader is not someone that strives to lead over a society of people but who's main goal is to live a life that others will look up to and that sets a great example for others regardless of the hardships they are put through. successfully living the lifestyle that others respect love and look up to brings followers and followers makes a person a great leader. leaders don't command they're people they're people look to the leaders for answers.

Any BSIT-1B hereee?

That walnut does not walnut very properly if it turns into a flower.........

The idea that bliss is a goal of individuals is a perverse invention of the solipsism of the those with power, who would envision using their power to overcome life's endless travails by putting those burdens onto others, reserving eudaimonia for themselves at other's expense. No realistic person of average power would claim bliss attainable in fact. This is in practice true even for the powerful, adding insult to the injury created by their pursuit of their nonsense goal. "Practical wisdom" would deem bliss illusory and deceptive.

Virtue ethics isnt solely selfish... Here is why.... Virtue ethics depends on the assumption that Everybody's goal is to be happy So if anyone wants to be happy, he has to make other people feel happy. cause upsetting other by stealing their stuff or killing their relatives will prolly get you some response from them. Which is gonna gonna be at odds with your happiness. So in a nutshell, the ultimate goal of life, which is happiness is the basis for everything Would love to get some objections

Does virtue ethics demand to much to us?

I have a criticism of the theory of causation. What if something was created with an evil purpose? This would create a contradiction between the theory of causation and the purpose of the evil thing. Under this theory, if a thing had a purpose of being evil, and it fulfilled its purpose of being evil, then it would be good. This obviously and self evidently can not be true. Something that was created to be evil can not become good by fulfilling its purpose to be evil.

10:55

Aristotle's Doctrine of Means is similar to Buddha's Middle Way.

Golden mean virtue theory

Facing the challeging questions arisen at the end, I think Aristotle would defend himself showing all his outward (and very humanistic!) approach and emphasizing his steadfast concernements about social and political life. Aristotle´ ethics doesn´t seem a "selfish" approach. Ethics, for him (at least in my understanding) is all about human relationships - and the golden mean is for the sake of the whole society. I think that even "eudaimonia", for Aristotle, can only exists insofar as individuals are subordinated to values held to be right and fair by others. The individual can only flourish if the things he or she does are good or beneficial to others as well. It´s not by chance that in "The Nicomachean Ethics" Aristotle is all the time considering the role of laws and governments in the development of virtues in our society. Sincerely, this outward approach doesn´t sound me like a "selfish" one. It´s true that decisions are up to individuals to make - and this is one of the most important assumptions stated by Aristotle. But a right decision, for him, is not just a self-centered one - on the contrary, it is made taking into account the interest of others. Apart from that, the explanation is perfect! Thanks for posting!

I love the left guy

I am striving to get paper read but I can't afford the purchase. Sorry. Poverty is issue for where I live. If ethics was applicable to all the world would be a monastery. 🥲

This sounds really circular 😅