Maria Reich

PHL 4420.01
Fall 2008
Assignment 2.1 & 2.2
2.1
A)
(i) Disposition is defined as tendency, inclination and natural attitude toward
things (among others) by merriam-webster.com. Aristotles sense of
disposition is the natural drive or urge to do something or act in a
particular way. He sees them as instinctive reactions (Robinson, p. 58), that
are not instinctive as in being there when someone is born, but as in
someone has learned that these reactions are appropriate and uses them
instinctively without consciously contemplating about whether to use a
particular reaction or not. The disposition for excellence or virtue of
character is an acquired through learning and acculturation.
(ii) The disposition involved in virtue of character is a tendency to react
appropriately to certain situation or actions that someone can be confronted
with. That means, that this disposition is such that it can give the person a
natural feeling for how to react in a certain situation (e.g. to feel compassion
when another person got hurt).
The specific factors that complete the definition of virtue of character are:
1. The disposition lets the human being be good at being a human being and
makes it perform its function well (which is activity of soul in accordance
with reason).
2. The disposition should choose the intermediate on a scale of possible
actions which is between the minimum and the maximum extent for the
particular situation (*+ and this is not one thing, nor is it the same for all
*+, Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, 1106a31).
3. The disposition should be defining the intermediate based on rationality:
*} this being determined by rational prescription *+ (Aristotle:
Nicomachean Ethics, 1107a1 1107a2).
B) Aristotle described the doctrine of mean (Urmson, p. 28) not as a guideline to use
always the middle way, but as a guideline that follows the naturally disposition to
act in compliance with the virtues of character. That means, that we do not always
have to show the mean reaction to an event (that means the middle between the
maximum and minimum), but we need to show the appropriate reaction (which is a
mean between the possible extremes).
Aristotle writes, Excellence, then, is a disposition issuing in decisions, depending on
intermediacy of the kind relative to us, this being determined by rational
prescription and in the way the wise person would determine it. (Nicomachean
Ethics, 1106b36 1107a2). That means that excellence is then shown when the
reaction to a particular situation shows intermediacy as perceived by the rational,
wise mind. He shows earlier that we should take the subjective perspective when
determining the intermediate for a particular situation: [The] intermediate, that is,
not in the object, but relative to us (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1106b7
1106b8).
Urmson writes, It would be foreign to Aristotles teleological view of nature to allow
that we are naturally endowed with emotions that should never be exhibited or felt
(Urmson, p. 32). This clearly is an argument against S. He states that Aristotle
thought that if naturally we are able to become angry, then there is no reason
why we should not. Urmson goes on: What we still need is some further
clarification of the notion of propriety *+ (Urmson, p. 32). The idea of the doctrine
of the mean then is NOT to never show emotions such as anger, but to show them
in the RIGHT moment at the RIGHT degree towards the RIGHT people.
C)
(i) S1 could be seen as wrong because of the words used to express the
subjectivity of the determination of the mean: *+ on the basis of his or her
own personal feelings. Aristotle did not say that one should base their
decision on what is the appropriate mean of an action on feelings as he
writes in the Nicomachean Ethics *+ this being determined by rational
prescription and in the way in which the wise person would determine it
(Aristotle, 1107a1 1107a2). For Aristotle, the basis for determining what the
appropriate (re)action is should be rational evaluation; the decision should be
made through reasoning.
(ii) The truth in the statement lies in nature of man as a human being. Even
though man is considered the rational animal, he is not free of errors and
mistakes. Because of the imperfection of all human beings, in practice
Aristotles theory cannot prove fully executable. According to Aristotle there
is no objective intermediate, it depends on the situation and the perspective
of the people involved: Aristotle also notes that one cannot in practical
matters ever determine exactly where the mean lies and how far one has to
depart from it before one is deserving of blame, nor can one lay down precise
rules for determining the mean. The decision rests with perception says
Aristotle (1109b23) (Urmson, p. 36).
Aristotle writes: *The+ intermediate, that is, not in the object, but relative to
us (Aristotle, 1106b7 1106b8).

2.2
A)
Situation I
A colleague (C) promised to finish up a project (A) which will deliver crucial
information on which you will base you next project (B). At the next staff meeting
(the day when project A is due), it turns out that colleague C has not finished the
project due to reasons that were out of his influence. When you hear that, you get
up (in the middle of the staff meeting) and start yelling at your colleagues as well as
the boss. You tell them that you think what a bunch of slackers they are and that
never anything gets done in the office. After this, you storm out of the meeting
room.


Situation II
In the same situation as described above, you decided not to lose your cool in the
meeting and instead remain calm. You express your need of more time to finish
project B because you will need to get the information from project A at first and ask
for an extension of the deadline. After the meeting, you search for a clearing talk
with your colleague C and might even ask your boss for a private meeting to discuss
the work ethics of employees in the office (and how to improve them, of course
without blaming any particular person).
Explanation
Aristotle would see the handling of the second situation as a display of virtue
because you react in a way that is appropriate for the situation. The minimal
extreme would be not to react at all and just take the information in which is
unreasonable because everyone would get angry if a project would be delayed. The
maximal extreme would be just what happened in the first situation. Aristotle writes
a person is praised if he gets angry in the circumstances one should and at the
people one should, and again in the way one should, and when, and for the length of
time one should (Aristotle, 1125b32 1125b34). This is what the reaction in
Situation II portrays.
B)
Situation I
Imagine a person who weighs approximately 250 pounds and is a professional
football player at a Chinese Buffet (all you can eat). This person starts eating and is
still not done after the fifth plate of their favorite dish.
Situation II
Now imagine another person in the same situation, just that this person weighs
about 150 pounds and is an office clerk.
Explanation
Aristotle would view the eating habit of the football player as virtuous (Situation I)
whereas the behavior of the office clerk would not be seen as virtuous from an
Aristotelian point of view. In book III.11, Aristotle describes people as described in
Situation II as people that are said to have belly-lust (Aristotle, 1118b19-
1118b20). He writes for eating or drinking whatever is to hand until one is overfull is
to exceed the natural limit in quantity, since the object of natural desire is to
replenish the lack (Aristotle, 1118b17 1118b19). A professional football player
weighing 250 pounds naturally should take in more calories (and therefore more
food) on a daily basis than a 150-pounds heavy office clerk. The office clerk clearly is
exceeding the natural limit in quantity as it probably is hard even for the professional
football player to eat more than five plates of one dish at a Chinese Buffet (if not
only for the reason that they must get tired of eating the same thing).