(An excerpt from the book “Ethics” by Pasco, M.O.

et al, 2018, with some minor modifications and discussions

by the teacher for the purpose of simplifying ideas for the students)

G. THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS

1. Gawi and Gawa and Habituation

These Filipino languages; Gawi and Gawa can give us a sense of what the philosophers mean by ethical action.
These are actions perform with knowledge freedom and intention – human acts as distinguished from
thoughtless, instinctive mannerisms and reflexes which can be equated with actions performed without
knowledge, freedom and intention – acts of man. Gawa and Gawi are different from mere bodily processes and
functions.
Freedom figures closely into action and inclination.
Freedom is not only the ability to act freely.
Freedom does not only mean free from outside influence.
Freedom is not only the independence from the impediments to one’s wishes.
Freedom is the willful act and decision that give form and shape to the actions and inclinations of people.
Freedom is oriented toward the where for (para asa), the what for (para unsa) and the whom for (para kang kinsa)
of the doings of people.
The common aspects of human action that we understand as action and inclination is the fact that free human
acts are governed by reflection and are freely decided such that they are not determined by internal or external
forces. Internal forces like our feelings or emotions and external forces like a threat from somebody in authority
and is powerful can determine one’s freedom.

2. DISTINCTION BETWEEN Gawa and Gawi

a. Gawa – It refers to the free action that is oriented toward a particular end. A worker for example uses
his/her free imagination and will to bring about services and products that are beneficial to the society. As
a creative worker who is governed by free decision making, he/she will embrace all information he/she
can gather in order to effectively achieve his/her desired end or purpose. As a creative worker, he/she has
to make some discernment.

For instance, the creative worker is a carpenter, he/she must learn many details about wood: its feel; its
hardness and pliability; as well as its strength. He/she should know about the qualities that will help
him/her in accomplishing efficiently the task of carpentry. Included in this knowledge is the knowledge
about the movements of the body in doing the tasks. The carpenter should study how heavy or light the
hand should move over certain kinds of wood; what tools to use so that the wood will yield the best
piece. For example; a stool, a table, a closet or cabinet.

The carpenter who produces for the society different kinds of furniture will be judged as skilled or
unskilled carpenter depending on the quality of the pieces of furniture that he/she produces. But the
carpentry works and the particular end products of his/her works have nothing to do with what he/she
will become as a moral person. In other words, his/her Gawa will not make him/her a good or bad
person.

b. Gawi - It refers to a free kind of work but unlike Gawa it is not focused on a particular end, a particular
product or fulfillment. Gawi refers to the kind of acts that people are used to accomplish.
It does not only refer to a particular act of a person.

The Kagawian or habitual action of a person reveals truth about himself/herself. A person will be judge
good or evil, right or wrong based on kagawian or habituation. The Filipino term, kagawian is equivalent
to the Greek word “ethos” and mos or moris in Latin.

For instance, it is your kagawian to give, sooner or later you will be known of being generous. So being
generous is a positive value. But if your kagawian is to steal, sooner or later you will known as a thief.
Being a thief is a negative moral image of a person.

3. Ethics and Ethos

The term, Ethics is from the Geek word, ‘ethos’ which means custom, a characteristic, or habitual way of doing
things. It is an action that is properly derived from one’s character. The Latin equivalent for the Greek word,
‘ethos’ is the word, ‘mos’ or ‘moris’, (in singular form) and ‘mores’ (in plural form). It is in this Latin word where
we derived the English word, ‘moral’. So, etymologically ethical and moral are synonymous; and ethics and
morality may only be a simple description of the Latin word, ‘mores’ or way of behaving whether of the human
person in general or of a particular population. Etymologically, ethics is just a survey of patterns of behavior that
is done by human being in general or a society in particular.

Looking closely however, human action ought to be understood clearly in a very strict sense. As we have
considered earlier human action has to do with human movements that are ruled by one’s freedom. Given that
freedom is not only the independence from what could hinder but also a consideration of the goal of action,
ethics as a field of study is not limited to pure description. And since goals are inherently directional, they imply
normativity. Therefore, Ethics as a field of study is normative. By normative we mean, it provides guidelines of
human actions.

4. Aristotle’s differentiation between “praxis” and “to poiein”

(a) “To poiein” of Aristotle is equivalent to our Filipino language, ‘Gawa’. What is important for the human
agent who engages in “to poiein” or “gawa” is to successfully complete a particular work be it artistic or
technical. For example: in the making of a chair; the chair’s legs are balanced. Here, the human person
himself/herself is significant only in considering the result in matters of “to poiein” or gawa. However,
Ethics is not only concerned about the end product of the actions. This will lead us to the discussion of
the “praxis” of Aristotle.

(b) “Praxis” is equivalent to the Filipino language, ‘Gawi’. ‘’Praxis” focusses on the human agent that is
revealed through his/her actions. Ethics is normative when it is regarded as a practical science. Ethics
does not only limit itself to the description of human actions but Ethics also aims to guide them. So
students, who study ethics are not to stop at the pure description of human actions, (conducts or
behavior) but they are ushered into a disciplined science that guides them in judging and rectifying human
patterns of behavior. Ethics proposes guidelines, considerations and norms to provide advice and rules in
order to clarify the way of right living and its practice.

Ethics for the students is philosophy of human action that allows them to learn the art of living. It is an art
that enables them to be reconciled with their freedom and to be reconciled to that which is expected of
them by others and by themselves. Thus, ethics for them can be a way to find happiness.

Ethics also considers that which is worthy of a human being. This means that living rightly is not only
about searching for happiness but living as one ought to live as a human being. In living rightly, one
experiences contentment and receives approval both from others and from himself/herself. In living
wrongly, he/she experiences the blame from others and from himself/herself.

Such an ethics is not only serving as a path to happiness but also the fullness of reflection for that action
which is an obligation for a human being. The gravity of such an ethical consideration is given voice in the
Filipino saying, “madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao. The effort in living rightly, though a task,
need not exclude the promise of the gift of happiness. We can make this presupposition that a life that is
consistent with what the human person ought to do will be lead to happiness.

The student is therefore invited to outgrow, “kung saan ka masaya suportahan kita” and get to, “sa
dapat mong gawin talaga kang sasaya”.

5. Plato’s Insight into the Good

Ethics being a discipline of study in universities that falls under the umbrella of philosophy, can trace its roots
back to Plato as the systematic thinker who grappled with the question of that which is good. The context of the
life of Plato is not totally unfamiliar with students of today. Athens and Greece went through an expansion of
trade around 600 BCE. This “global” awakening on the part of the Greeks like Plato plunged him to an experience
of social, political and intellectual challenge. Given the exchange of different experiences between Greece and its
neighboring countries around Mediterranean Sea, Plato was interrogated by different points of view.

Plato and the students of today share this “global” challenge; it leads to questions of truth and inquiry into
what is good. Given this pluralism of perspective, is it valid to ask “what is truly good?” A serious claim that
confronted Plato was that of Protagoras (481?-411? BCE.) that said “man is the measure of all things”. The
implication of this claim of Protagoras gain adherence by people who easily let go of the validity of the traditional
“mores” and “ethos” (customs) and they are lead to a conclusion that is relativistic. This easy relativism holds that
man, being the measure of all things, can only hold on to beliefs and truths that are for himself/herself or his/her
society only. It denies the possibility of ever arriving at truth that can be shared by all, a truth that is universal.
Man as the measure od all things, came to be understood simplistically based on the concept that “to each his
own”. (Kun sa mga Bol-anon pa ni “ija ija, aho aho”.)

Socrates (470-399BCE) taught Plato about the difficulty of coming to a knowledge of the truth. This difficulty
however did not mean impossibility for Socrates. He instilled this rigorous questioning to his students and did not
shy away from interrogating even the traditional leaders of Athens. This resulted in his death in 399 BCE on
charges of impiety and of misleading the youth with his ideas. However Plato immortalized Socrates in his
writings as the intelligent and courageous teacher who leads his hearers nearer to the truth.

This confrontation between Socratic inquiry and easy lack of thought is portrayed in the allegory of the cave
that is found in Plato’s “The Republic”. Glaucon’s story in the dialogue best introduces the allegory that is told by
Socrates. These two stories are occasioned by the question about the good and the task of the human person to
inquire about the good. Glaucon proposes the story of the Gyges’ ring (The Republic, Book II, 359-360)

According to Glaucon, a terrible earthquake later resulted in a break in the land and the finding of a metallic
horse that contained a skeleton. A ring was said to be worn by that skeleton. The man who found the skeleton
then took the ring and found out that it had the power to render him invisible. A simple inward turn would make
the man invisible and another turn outward would allow others to see him again. Free from fear of shame and
capture, Glaucon concludes his story by saying that the man who found the ring would eventually become evil.

Glaucon’s point about the good may not be as crude as the simple claim that each one is left to determine the
good for himself/herself. It is nonetheless sinister in its simplistic presentation of the relationship between the
human person and that which is claimed as good. Glaucon dismisses the topic of the good altogether and
proposes to explain the human person’s ethical actions as the result of fear. It simply is the evasion of shame,
incarceration, or retaliation that spells itself out in “good behavior” of man in society.

Responding to Glaucon’s story, Plato, through the character of Socrates, later proposed the “Allegory of the
Cave” (The Republic, Book VII, 514a-520a). A group of people are said to have lived chained facing a wall where
shadows are projected from objects passing before a fire behind them. The shadows are thought of by these
people as the most real things. Once, a man is dragged out of the cave and made to see reality as it is enlightened
by the sun. The freed man has to accustom his eyes first to things as illuminated at night, then sees what is
illuminated during the day as reflected on small pockets of water. He later on sees the sun itself as the source of
light that gives definition to reality. Having perceived true reality, itself as enlightened by the sun, the man then
ventures to go back to the cave to free the other prisoners. They, however, resist him, choosing to recognize the
reality they are accustomed to. The man who knows the truth ends up crucified with burnt eyes.

Plato then has Socrates explain to Glaucon that the sun represents the good. Once it is seen and recognized by
any man who has gone beyond the shadows, that good is followed and lived even at the cost of one’s life. This, of
course, is a direct negation of Glaucon’s aforementioned claim that the actions of humans are only directed by the
avoidance of shame or retribution. Plato directs humanity to the nobility that is reachable through the knowledge
of the good. His confidence in knowing the good as acting upon it reaches out to every age that grapples with
question of what is proper human action.

This confidence in the human person’s ability to know the good and act in accordance with it started the
academic history of ethics. Plato’s claim is, however, not only made in the past as they are recorded in dated
documents that survived history. Plato continues to address us today and his voice builds confidence in our own
ability to know the good and act ethically.

Each age, however, has a particular way of interrogating Plato’s assertions and further give nuance to what is
known and how to act. Thinkers who come after him, for example, will challenge a necessity that seems to have
been so confidently lodged between knowledge and action. Does knowing the good automatically lead to acting
on it? The wonderful thing about a course in ethics is that the voices of thinkers who spent time researching such
questions are still heard and understood up tp our present time and to challenge what we know about the good
and how we act pursuant to it.

MODULE II VIRTUE ETHICS: Aristotle

Learning Outcomes: At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:

(1) Recognize the meaning of “Eudaimonia” or “happiness” and its relation to ethics;
(2) Differentiate the parts of the soul in relation to their respective functions;
(3) Appreciate and articulate the role of virtue in crafting an ethical life;
 (4) Determine the role of habit in the formation of a virtuous character; and
(5) Articulate the difference between philosophical knowledge and practical wisdom.

A. Introduction

1. Character traits
People are often most remembered by their most significant character traits. These character traits are
the products of consistent display of a particular behavior. For example: some people are known to be
courageous, some as quick-witted while others are remembered for their diligence and work ethics. To a
certain extent, a person is defined (at least in the mind of others) by what he/she does and how he/she
lives his/her life. (Kana siya seryoso kayo na siya sa iyang kinabuhi; Ah kanang usa pariwara na sa iyang
kinabuhi.)

On one hand, character traits such as thoughtfulness, temperance and respectfulness are often seen in a
positive light. On the other hand: cowardice, laziness and shamelessness are often seen as negative and
are frowned upon by most people. One’s behavior in various situations gains a peculiar identity that
somehow determines how others perceive him/her as a person. For example:
 Relaxed ra kayo na siya
 Calmado kaayo na siya nga tawo
 Dalidalion na siya (aggressive)
 Kana siya morag wala lang (indifferent)
 Kana siya over-reactive
 Kining usa abtik kaayo ni siya, action ka agad.

Question: How we build our character?

We build our character through how we make choices in different situations we face in our lives. In
meeting and speaking to different people, facing various problems and handling different day-to-day
tasks, we develop a certain way of being, a unique (way of being) style of being a person.

Example: maayo nga tigpaminaw

Good listener
Pacifier
Problem solver
Good counselor
2. Understanding of the Good
Being a certain way or having a particular personality implies a certain understanding of the good.
For example: You consider justice as the good. So, you have to be just in all situation of your life. You
always practice fairness in your dealings with other people. This will lead you to become a just man
(makiangayon).

Personality or character is an approach or a way of reckoning (response) the different situations that
one faces in his/her life – a way of navigating one’s way towards his/her flourishing as a human
person. Character is not merely a theoretical construct but a product of action in the world – a
constant doing or way of being that is made apparent by the possession and actualization of
particular virtues or vices.
For example:
Virtue is manifested by the person when he attains certain degree of maturity and responsibility.
Vice will be manifested when the person is unable to face the consequences of his action. He
becomes an escapist.

3. Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE.)

Nicomachean Ethics is the title of the book that was written by Aristotle dedicated to to his son
Necomachus. Aristotle shares with his teacher, Plato the fundamental assumption that what radically
distinguishes the human person from the rest of beings or other forms of being is his/her possession of
reason (logos). The ultimate purpose of man’s existence can not be fully understood without
understanding the place of reason in putting order to one’s life.

However, if Plato firmly believes that ignorance is the only reason for committing immoral acts, thinking
that once one truly knows the good, one will inevitably do the good, Aristotle believes otherwise. For
 Aristotle, morality is not merely a matter of knowing the good but actually doing or practicing the good
habitually. We become what we are by what we do and not merely by what we know. For Aristotle, we
can only fully actualize our potential as human beings once we understand what being human essentially
aims to and do the necessary things to fulfill our function (ergon) in the most excellent way possible.

The Ethics of Aristotle is grounded in the formation of one’s character – way of being and living in
harmony with the human person’s proper end. Other things have specific function and end so also with
human beings, we have a purpose. To fulfill this function in the most excellent way possible is to live
ethically – that is to achieve a way of flourishing suited to us.

B. Ethics as the Art of Living Well

1. Eudaimonia

Aristotle assumes that any activity practical or theoretical, aims towards some end or good. However,
these ends are still provisional goals to another goal. All ends are not ends in themselves but mere
conduits (or channels) for further or deeper end. For example: Wealth is an end but it is suit for another
end of possessing things such as houses or cars. Another example: Fame and Honor are ends in
themselves but they are sought not for their own sake but as instruments for deeding one’s ego, a servant
of pride.

Aristotle is not simply interested in finding out the different ends or purposes for human life. He wants to
find out what our chief end is. He is interested in finding out what all our lives essentially and ultimately
aim to. The chief good for the human person must not be something one aims at for the sake of
something else. Aristotle names the chief good for the human person as happiness or “Eudamonia”. For
him, happiness is the self-sufficient, final, and attainable goal of human life. Self sufficient because to
have it makes human life complete. Final because it is desired for itself and not for the sake of something
else. It is attainable because it is not a mere theoretical construct but something that one actually does
practically.

“Eudaimonia” is sought for its own sake. All other ends, such as health, wealth and power are sought
because they are seen as instrumental in one’s flourishing. “Eudaimonia” as the proper end of man is not
some kind of inactive state but is actually something that one does. It is not something we merely
possess but something that we continually actualize (in practice). It is an activity of the soul in accordance
with virtue. It is not achieved by one grand act or one big decision, it is something one constantly strives
for.

Happiness is a life long activity. It is not a mere self-indulgence or pleasure seeking. It denotes an activity
that essentially corresponds to the proper nature of the human being. At this point it is crucial to
understand how Aristotle comprehends the nature of human person so that the precise meaning of
happiness may be explained.

2. The Soul

The soul is the part of the human being that animates the body. The body and the soul are inseparable.
The soul is composed of two elements: rational and irrational elements. The rational part is further
subdivided in to two sub-parts. The irrational part is also further subdivided into two sub-parts.

a. The Two Sub-parts of the Rational Part of the Soul

(1) Speculative – The speculative part is responsible for knowledge. It is concerned with the pure
thought and is essentially the base of contemplation.

(2) Practical – The practical sub-part is responsible for choice and action. The practical sub-part or
the practical intellect is in charge of action and the practical determination of the proper means
to attain a specific end.

b. The Two Sub-parts of the Irrational Part of the Soul

(1) Vegetative – The vegetative is in-charge of the nutrition and growth of the human being. It takes
care of all the involuntary functions of the body, from breathing to digestion and the like. This
 part of the soul is not relevant in discussing happiness or virtue. It is not distinct to the human
person since it is also found in any other living being – plants and animals.

(2) Appetitive – The appetitive shares in the rational element in the soul. It cannot reason, but it
does share in the rational element so that it can be influenced by the rational element of the soul.
For example, our passions: sexual desire, desire for wealth, desire for recognition – they are quite
difficult to control. It is the task of the rational part of the soul to reign in such passionate
demands that seek fulfillment oftentimes without any rational and practical consideration of all
factors involved in its desire for satisfaction.

There is a need to check these passionate demands by our practical reason which determines the
proper thing to do in a given situation. Giving in to raw and unchecked appetites is often times
the reason a person commits immoral acts. Our biological and psychological desires blind us from
the implications of what we do to the fulfillment of our end, which is happiness. Passions are
constitutive part of our soul but we need to put them under the control of reason.

According to Aristotle, moral virtue is necessary in making sure that desires do not control the
behavior.

3. Virtue, the Mean, and Practical Wisdom

a. Virtue – “Arête” is the Greek word for virtue which means excellence. By excellence, the Greek
thought of how a thing fulfill its function (ergon) in accordance with its nature. For example, a knife
cuts excellently, is sharp, durable and dependable for different tasks, then it may be said that it is an
excellent knife – it does what it is supposed to do in the best way possible. It fulfills its essence as a
tool for cutting and slicing. It may then be called a virtuous knife.

To be virtuous, in other words, is to exhibit one’s capacity to fulfill one’s essence or purpose in such a
way that one’s potentiality as a particular being may be said to be actualized in the most excellent
way.

Two Kinds of Virtues

(1) Intellectual virtues – Intellectual virtues have to do with one’s capacity to harness reason’s
contemplative capacity for arriving at knowledge. It owes its existence and development to
teaching. Both the coming-into-being and increase of intellectual virtue result mostly from
teaching- hence, it requires experience and time.

(2) Moral virtue – Moral virtue has to do with excellence in the performance of decisions relating to
moral and practical activity. It arises from habitual practice (ethos). Moral virtue got its name
[êthikê] by a slight alteration of the term habit [ethos]. Neither by nature nor contrary to nature
are the moral virtues present; they are instead present in us who are of such nature to receive
them and who are completed through habit.

Aristotle emphasizes the role of practice and habit in the formation of moral virtue. No person is
born morally virtuous. However, all persons have the latent potentiality to be so, if only they
habitually do excellent deeds. It is only in practice that we come to know that we truly know how
to do something. It is only in running that we come to know how fast we can actually run and
gain the right to call ourselves runners.

Analogously, Aristotle declares that we become morally virtuous by doing morally virtuous acts.
We become just by doing just acts. We become temperate by doing temperate acts. We become
courageous in doing courageous acts. Aristotle emphasizes an action and habituation as the
ground of moral virtue.

b. The Mean (mesotes)

For Aristotle, moral virtue are states of character that enable a person to fulfill his/her proper
function as a human being. These states of character are aimed at a intermediary point between
excess and deficiency – in a mean (mesotes) that can be considered as the appropriate response to
the demands of different situations.

Virtue is a state of character of fulfilling his/her end (telos) as a human person. By state of character,
Aristotle emphasizes a certain consistency or constancy in one’s character in facing different
situations.

Consistency is not stagnancy. Aristotle is not saying that a virtuous person is incapable of adjusting to
various situations. On the contrary, consistency is precisely the person’s capacity to read situations
that makes him/her virtuous.

In reading situations, the virtuous person is able to arrive at a decision or perform an action that may
be considered as an intermediate between deficiency and excess, which he calls the mean or
“mesotes”. The mean that Aristotle was talking about is not the mathematical mean; like six that
would be the mean in a scale of one and ten. It is a mean that is relative to the person facing a moral
choice. By relative, he means that depending on the particular circumstances of a person. The mean
would correspond to the most appropriate response given the demands of the situation.

For example, if you and a friend decide at around 10:00 a.m. to meet in a mall to watch a movie at
2:00 p.m., several things have to be considered when you try and decide how much time you will give
yourself to prepare to avoid being late and show respect for your friend’s time:
(1) The travel time from your house to the mall
(2) How much time it usually takes you to take a shower and get clothed
(3) Other appointments you might have to attend to before going to the mall
(4) The mode of transportation you will use to get to the mall
(5) The location of the cinema relative to the entrance door of the mall
(6) If you are typically slow and sluggish in making preparations
(7) If there are other shops you plan to visit before meeting your friend
(8) If you have a physical disability which would make challenging
(9) Your mood on that day

Many other things may be added to this list. The point, though, is that it is not merely a matter of
finding the mathematical mean between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. which would then be 12 o’clock
that determines the time you should allot for your self to prepare for your meeting without being
late. A virtuous person neither prepares too early nor too late, not only in terms of the actual time –
the time of preparation is actually determined by his /her reckoning (or evaluation) of the demands of
the situation and his/her relative standing to it as an individual.

The mean is not a fixed point but rather a moving target. So, applied to the previous example, if you
are planning to meet your friend at the mall at 2:00 p.m., you have to take into account not just
logistical matters, but perhaps, more importantly, your knowledge and experience of yourself in
dealing with such matters. It is actually your ability to adjust yourself to the situation which
determines whether you may be considered virtuous or not in that situation. If you agree to meet
with your friend without taking into consideration all of those things that we have mentioned you
might appear to inconsiderate to the situation of your friend. If you are too early leading to your over
punctuality still it might lead to strain your relationship especially when you would expect your friend
to do the same forgetting that your friend is a different person. He cannot be you and you cannot be
him.

Hence to act in certain ways that are neither deficient nor excessive relative to oneself and to the
given situation is a state of character that recognizes the mean. To be morally virtuous, a person
must be able to respond to a situation not just with correct feeling and action but in the proper
degree, at the right time, towards the right people, and for the right reasons. In the example, if you
arrive considerably early for your meeting, would it be considered virtuous for you to call your friend
and command him/her to come immediately because you are not good at waiting? Should you be
angry towards your friend if he/she arrives 30 minutes late because the jeepney he/she was riding in
broke down? Would it not be considered excessive if you take his/her lateness against him/her?

All these questions point to a more fundamental issue:

How does one become a good or virtuous friend?
 In other words, what is the proper disposition necessary in being friends with another person? How
does one make demands to the other properly?
How does one show concern for the other’s welfare?
It is clear that for Aristotle, the answer is disclosed in actual practice. One’s theoretical knowledge of
the meaning of friendship does not guarantee that he/she can be a good friend. Virtue is developed
in practice.

Aristotle defines virtue as follows:

Virtue, therefore, is a characteristic marked by choice residing in the mean relative to us,
A characteristic defined by reason; a characteristic defined by a prudent person.
Virtue is also a mean with respect to two vices, the one vice related to excess, the other vice
is related to deficiency; and further,
Virtue is a mean because some vices fall short of what should be the case and the other vices
exceed of what should be the case in both passions and actions, whereas virtue discovers and
chooses the middle term.
Thus with respect to its being and the definition that states what it is, virtue is a mean; but with
respect to what is best and the doing of something well, it is an extreme (Nicomachean Ethics, 35).

c. Practical wisdom

For Aristotle, virtue is a state of one’s character that is the result of choice. This choice is governed by
prudence or practical wisdom (phronêsis). Phronêsis is the human person’s instrument in dealing
with moral choices. It is a kind of knowledge that deals with practical matters and not just with ideas
or concepts.

Practical wisdom participates in the capacity of the rational part of the soul to reckon situations
without easily giving in to the push and pull of the various desires which emanate from the appetitive
part of the soul (human passions). Phronêsis is the intellectual virtue responsible for bringing the
human person closer to his/her chief good in the realm of morality. In other words, practical wisdom
aids one in being happy. It is comprised both of knowledge and action. One’s capacity for choice and
action must be guided by the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom or phronesis in pursuit of the
mean or mesotes so that one will be able to call himself/herself morally virtuous. It may be said that
prudent actions are actions that are guided by reason and not just driven by passion. These actions
and decisions exhibit one’s state of character – whether one truly courageous, temperate, friendly or
just.

Practical wisdom guides the human person in choosing the mean between the extremes of excess and
deficiency. It constantly adjusts its evaluation based on the shifting conditions that permeate a
specific situation relative to oneself.

Hence, it may be said that if “mesotes” (mean) is a moving target, Phronêsis (practical wisdom) would
correspond to the excellence of an archer in hitting this target in various situations, akin to Hawkeye
in the movies of “the avengers”. If one can recall, Hawkeye has an arsenal of different arrows
adapted to hit various targets. Phronêsis (practical wisdom) would correspond to his rational
reckoning (or evaluation) of the various conditions that may or may not affect his marksmanship, like
the number of enemies he has to hit, the speed and agility (the power of moving quickly and easily) of
his enemies, and his position and distance relative to them. He also understands his own limitations
(since he has no superpowers like Thor or the Hulk), and, therefore, assesses his role in the Avengers
accordingly. He is then rightly assigned the role of archer in the team because he is an expert,
someone who is excellent in the craft of archery.

Aristotle is somehow saying that for one to attain chief good, the person must continually bring
himself/herself to situations where his/her mettle (ability to cope well in difficult situation) and skills
may be tested. Surely, even an archer as excellent as Hawkeye was not born an expert archer; he
became an expert archer through constant practice until he developed the necessary skill set for
carrying out his function as an archer.

In the realm of morality, for instance, one becomes courageous only through practice. Courage is a
learned intellectual and practical skill. Reason guides the person in calibrating the right degree of
courage in facing, for example, a situation where the person’s life is being threaten by an attacker.
After assessing the various factors (such as the attacker’s level of aggression, the weapon used, the
amount of money and valuables at stake, the presence of others in the vicinity), one asks
himself/herself the prudent thing to do. Does one simply hand over one’s belongings and hope that
the attacker will soon leave? Does one resist given the he/she had martial arts training in his/her
teenage years? Does one try to reason with the attacker hoping that he/she can convince the
attacker to not go through with what he is about to do. Or does one simply run away and scream for
help? What is the prudent thing to do?

For Aristotle, there is not one universally correct response to this situation that may apply for
everyone in all situations. Sometimes, it may be more prudent to retreat than to move forward.
Courage is not always bold and brazen (without shame). Courage is a thinking person’s virtue. There
is not one way of being courageous. Courage is not haphazardly fighting the attacker without regard
for one’s life (for this seems to imply that one’s belongings are worth more than one’s life) nor is it
freezing in total fear where one gives up the capacity to deliberate upon one’s options. Courage is the
mean between rashness and cowardice.

However, it still depends upon the person to choose the appropriate response to the situation. In
other words, it is up to the person facing the situation to essentially define the meaning of courage as
it applies to him/her at the moment. Since the mean is a moving target, phronesis (practical wisdom)
is necessary in skillfully making the right decision. To choose either an excess or deficiency constitute
a vice for Aristotle. It is to miss the mark as it were. It is to under-perform or over-perform with
respect to one’ function (ergon) as a human being. It is to act in opposition to one’s ultimate goal
which is “eudaimonia”.

The Principal Virtues and Vices

Excess (vice) Mean (virtue) Deficiency (vice)
Rashness Courage Cowardice
 inconsiderate or  strength in the face of  Lack of bravery
presumptuous haste pain or grief.
Self-indulgence Moderation Insensibility
 Excessive or unrestrained  the avoidance of excess or  Lack of awareness or
gratification of one’s own extremes, especially in concern; indifference
appetites, desires or whims one's behavior
Prodigality Liberality Meanness
 Extravagance, lavishness,  Big heartedness,  Unkindness, spitefulness,
excessive or wasteful generosity, unselfishness unfairness, revengeful
spending
Vulgarity Magnificence Paltriness
 Grossness, lack of  Splendor, resplendence,  Utterly absolutely
refinement, harshness, grandeur, greatness, worthless, ridiculously or
rudeness, crudity or gloriousness, nobility, insultingly small, or
indecency brilliance, awe inspiring insignificance
Vanity Proper Pride Smallness of soul
 Excessive pride in or  A person is proud if he  Claiming less than one is
admiration of one’s own both is and thinks himself worth; pusillanimity
appearance or to be worthy of great
achievement, self-loved or things; greatness of soul
conceitedness
Ambitiousness Proper Ambition Lack of Ambition
 Too much ambition beyond  Ambition commensurate  Idleness, indolence,
one’s reach to one’s capacities and laziness, lethargy,
capabilities shiftlessness
Irascibility Good Temper Lack of Spirit
 Easily provoked to anger,  Not easily irritated or  Show no enthusiasm,
very irritable, characterized made angry heartless, devoid of
by anger. courage
Boastfulness Truthfulness Self-depreciation
 To talk or write about  Being honest in your  Modesty about or criticism
oneself or something words and action; You of oneself; putting yourself
related to oneself in a don’t tell lies even to down; belittling oneself
proud or self-admiring defend yourself
way; braggart
Buffoonery Wittiness Boorishness
 Behavior that is ridiculous  Demonstrating wit in  Coarse, rudeness, uncouth,
 but amusing; foolish or expression, especially in rude, discourteous,
playful behavior or practice speech or writing; clever impolite, ungentlemanly,
and humorous unladylike, ill-mannered
Obsequiousness Friendliness Surliness
 Servile, ingratiating,  The quality of being  Arrogant, haughty and
sycophantic, fawning, friendly; affability superior
toadying, oily, greasy,
exaggerated flattery,
having or showing an
excessive willingness to
serve or please others.
Bashfulness Modesty Shamelessness
 Socially shy or timid;  Moderation; fairness; the  Brazen; barefaced, brash;
diffident; self-conscious quality of being impudent; unblushing
unassuming or moderate
in the estimation of one’s
abilities;
unpretentiousness
Envy Proper Indignation Malice
 A feeling of discontented  Feeling or showing anger  The intention or desire to
or resentful longing because of something do evil; ill will; malevolence
aroused by someone else’s unjust or unworthy
possessions

Exercise 1 (on virtue) Wait for the final instruction in the google class room.

A truly virtuous action is performed by someone who is not compelled to do so. A person does a
virtuous act and choose to act in such a way for the sake of being virtuous. This comes from a certain
firmness of character that is not easily swayed by one’s passions or influenced by certain factors in a
given situation. A virtuous person who has been so used to acting virtuously that it becomes
tremendously difficult for anything or anyone to convince him/her to act otherwise. To a certain
degree, vices are no longer an option for a truly virtuous person. Such a person actively keeps
himself/herself disposed towards the mean by way of habituation (ethos). Only a virtuous person can
perform truly virtuous actions because he/she is initially predisposed towards virtue.

It should be noted that certain actions admit no middle point or mean (mesotes). Some actions are
simply bad, and so there is no “virtuous” way of performing them. Acts like adultery, theft, and
murder are bad in themselves and cannot be deemed virtuous in any situation. There is no right way
of committing adultery, with the right person, at the right time. Adultery is simply wrong. The mean
only applies to actions and dispositions that are not bad in and of themselves.

4. Contemplation and Philosophical Knowledge

For Aristotle, the main functions of the intellectual virtues, namely, Phronêsis (or practical wisdom) and
Sophia (or wisdom), are to aid human persons in matters concerning moral choice and in matters
concerning the attainment of knowledge of first principles or eternal truths, respectively. If practical
wisdom serves as a guide for action in everyday life, the act of contemplation is a pursuit of philosophical
wisdom. Aristotle subordinates practical wisdom to contemplation because he believes that it is the kind
of activity most proper to human persons considering the fact that reason is human’s most defining
attribute.

Philosophizing according to Aristotle, is the most pleasant of virtuous activities because it does not rely on
anything on anything else for its fulfillment other than the desire to do it. It does not require a particular
situation that demands for its performance. It can be done anytime and anywhere. It is the most self-
sufficient act. Practical virtues such as courage and temperance need specific conditions to be attained.
In the case of courage, it will be called upon when there is the condition of danger that one has to face;
temperance when there is the strong impulse and desire for pleasure, while philosophizing is something a
person can do by himself/herself anytime.

For Aristotle, contemplation or philosophizing is an act that can be loved for its own sake because it has
no other aim than to reveal the most fundamental truths of existence.
“Here are a few examples of first principles: I will always prioritize autonomy and growth in my
career. I will spare no expense when it comes to taking care of my health. I will only maintain
 relationships that have a positive impact on my life. I will make an effort to always be learning new
things. Having such principles not only gives you guidance, but helps hold you accountable to
yourself at a much deeper level. Most importantly, your principles should be a reflection of who
you are and what you value. They shouldn’t change often, but then they aren’t set in stone either.
Principles change as your understanding changes, but they should be mostly static to effectively
work as a mental model for your life. And that is the ultimate goal. After all, as Aristotle said,
“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” First principles are the stepping stones to that
knowledge”. (https://medium.com/swlh/aristotle-and-the-importance-of-first-principles-
9431aa60a7d1, Oct. 6,2020, time: 10:00 pm.)

No person may be considered happier than a person who has the time and the leisurely disposition for
contemplation. However, it must be remembered that human life is not exclusively devoted to thought; it
is most of the time engaged in action and practical matters. Thus, Phronêsis (practical wisdom) still plays a
crucial role in the attainment of one’s chief good, which is the Eudaimonia. For Aristotle, the
contemplative knowledge of the good does not automatically translate to its performance. Being virtuous
in the practical sense is still cultivated through practice and habit (ethos). Living well means having the
complementary disposition of intelligent conduct and a thirst for philosophical wisdom.

CONCLUSION

Ethics is a matter of living well through the habitual practice of virtue which essentially translate into
having a virtuous or excellent character. Happiness being the chief good of the human person, is attainable
through the proper exercise of reason, both morally and intellectually. Eudaimonia is an activity of the soul
that purposively attempts to choose the mean between two extremes in the realm of morality. As the
saying goes, “You can’t put a good man down.” This seems to resonate with Aristotelian ethics. For
Aristotle, a good man, a person who has cultivated the proper virtues and has imbibed these in his/her
thoughts and deeds, will always flourish. A person of virtuous character always finds a way to stay intact
even in dire times. That person does not compromise the dictates of reason in exchange for the immediate
fulfillment of his/her passions. In other words, in being habituated to choose the mean, he/she remains
virtuous and, therefore, happy in every circumstance. It is the person’s ability to adapt while remaining
true to himself/herself as a rational human being which allows him/her to flourish in various environments.

For example, according to Aristotle, a person who has cultivated the virtue of honesty throughout his/her
life will not be influenced by a corrupt system. In fact, it would not even occur to the person that taking
bribes or signing dubious contracts are an option because he/she has been so habituated to always
choosing neither excess nor deficiency, but always the mean – which is the choice proper to a person that
stays true to himself/herself as a rational being.

Aristotle teaches us that character is the most essential component of ethics. A virtuous character is the
result of the proper combination of practical wisdom (phronesis) and habituation (ethos) in the pursuit of
the mean (mesotes). Being ethical is all about being excellent in being human, which is, being excellent in
fulfilling one’s essence as a rational being that has cultivated an excellent character and is, therefore,
capable of making the most prudent decisions in all circumstances.

The next Module discusses St. Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law Ethics. Similarities between Thomistic and
Aristotelian Ethics can be noted because St. Thomas Aquinas is known as the thinker who “Christianized”
Aristotle. The two philosophers emphasize the role of reason in guiding moral conduct, but Aquinas
believes that the attainment of virtues is not an end in itself but only a way for attaining the final end of
man. The final end of man is God Himself. Aquinas believes that by virtue of reason, human beings
possess the innate capacity to intuit (know) and distinguish right from wrong through conscience.

Exercise 2 (How can you apply Aristotle’s ethics in improving the current state of our country?) Wait for
the final instruction in the google class room.