Plato V Aristotle

[hicetnunc]

Also, the Catechism makes no specific reference to Aristotle’s Golden Mean.

“Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Mathew 5:48

Thanks for your reply.

You are right in saying that the catechism doesn’t make any specific reference to Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. Indeed, the catechism isn’t an exhaustive philosophical reference and there are many things in the Catechism which are not explicitly stated. For example, neither will you find a discussion in the catechism of Aristotle’s doctrine of syllogistic logic. The catechism is not a philosophy book. So there are many things which are a valuable part of the Christian contribution to philosophy which are not covered in the Catechism.

As for your John Hardon reference, Fr Hardon is not rejecting Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean in this document. In fact, nowhere does Fr Hardon reject Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean; Fr Hardon himself was Thomistically trained and fully subscribed to Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. What Fr Hardon clarifies in the text you sent is a distinction to be understood between objective and subjective application of the doctrine, which most Thomists would not have a problem with.

Nor is there any conflict between Matthew 5:48 and the doctrine of the mean. In fact, St Thomas himself quotes this passage in explaining the meaning of the virtuous and holy life in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians. As I have mentioned, St Thomas himself explains virtue in the context of the mean. Perfection comes in consistently and correctly attaining the mean in the moral virtues. Not only is there no conflict between this doctrine and the teachings of the Church, it is in fact an honoured account of virtues in Catholic theology.

Perhaps you could provide some concrete reference to support you claim that the Church rejects the Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, if you are interested in exploring this further and we can unpack it together.

Pax.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hic

** Perfection comes in consistently and correctly attaining the mean in the moral virtues. Not only is there no conflict between this doctrine and the teachings of the Church, it is in fact an honoured account of virtues in Catholic theology.**

By citing Father Hardon I only meant to point to my sentiment being much the same as his. I understand that the golden mean has its uses as an ethical principle, and would not dispute those uses. I just don’t think the golden mean is integral to Catholic ethics, and I have never seen or heard of it being used to teach Catholic ethics in my lifetime (Aquinas notwithstanding).

If the golden mean of Aristotle was essential to a sound moral system, Jesus surely would have touched on it. Instead, he says, “Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” There cannot be any middle ground between virtue and vice that constitutes a golden mean. Yet I know many Catholics that are content to believe they are not perfect, just “good enough.” This is moral mediocrity.

 

[hicetnunc]

If the golden mean of Aristotle was essential to a sound moral system, Jesus surely would have touched on it. Instead, he says, “Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” There cannot be any middle ground between virtue and vice that constitutes a golden mean. Yet I know many Catholics that are content to believe they are not perfect, just “good enough.” This is moral mediocrity.

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the meaning of the doctrine of the mean? I get the impression (please correct me if I’m wrong!) that you interpret the mean as perhaps implying a kind of mediocrity. Rather, the mean sits between extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, as the Catechism says, true justice is a mean between a deficiency of justice (which is undue leniency) and an excess of justice (which is undue severity). We also can see the mean at work between cowardice and recklessness; the mean there is courage. It’s easy to see that perfect courage and perfect justice is a balance between extremes. What the doctrine of the mean refers to is proportionate and measured behaviour, given then moral action can tend to either deficiency or excess. Consider eating as well: one could eat insufficiently (a person obsessed with weight) or excessively. The mean here is a healthy, balanced diet. You would be certainly correct, and I would join you, in rejecting any notion of the mean as being a kind of lukewarm or easy option between two difficult choices, but this is certainly not what Aristotle and St Thomas have in mind in speaking of virtue as being the mean between extremes.

If you are interested, I can send you links to some good and reliable Catholic ethical treatments which deal with the virtuous mean. It is a little more complicated than what I’ve sketched out here given the limitation of space (and because I don’t want to bore you!); for example, the mean of justice is not the same kind of mean that applies to temperance or fortitude, because the mean of justice is a “medium rei”, meaning a non-subjective mean established by law, nature or contract.

Anyway, I am happy to continue the discussion if you like. I certainly have enjoyed the exchange.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Consider eating as well: one could eat insufficiently (a person obsessed with weight) or excessively. The mean here is a healthy, balanced diet. You would be certainly correct, and I would join you, in rejecting any notion of the mean as being a kind of lukewarm or easy option between two difficult choices, but this is certainly not what Aristotle and St Thomas have in mind in speaking of virtue as being the mean between extremes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As I said, I have no objection to Aristotle’s golden mean other than that it is clearly incomplete. This is reflected too in the fact that Christ, St. Paul and the Catechism do not give it a central place in Catholic theology.

I think the golden mean is a theoretical construct which serves to help identify the different ranges of ethical choices that we make. The construct is for armchair philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas, or you and me. I think it has little practical value so far as the day to day routine of our moral choices is concerned. That is, except in the obvious instances of food, drink, play, and work, we rarely stop very much to think about whether we have reached the mean between two extremes. But if we do, that’s fine. Should we look for the golden mean before we act? I think it highly improbable and mostly unnecessary. Our moral choices originate more in will than intellect. That is why the great moral maxim of Jesus “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is so clearly aligned with will, rather than the intellectual exercise of measuring a point of golden mean. “Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect” puts no limit of excess or deficiency on our moral acts. If we are not with Christ, we are against him. There is no middle ground, no golden mean. He said himself that he despised the fence sitters. “I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." (Revelations 3:15)

For so much of our conduct the golden mean is inadequate at best and heavy baggage to boot.

Thank you. I have enjoyed the exchange as well.

 

[hicetnunc]

As I said, I have no objection to Aristotle’s golden mean other than that it is clearly incomplete. This is reflected too in the fact that Christ, St. Paul and the CatechismShould we look for the golden mean before we act? I think it highly improbable and mostly unnecessary. Our moral choices originate more in will than intellect.

Hi Charlemagne; thanks for those thoughts…and that’s the first time I’ve ever heard of Aristotle or St Thomas being described as armchair philosophers! Lol.

And yes, I do indeed think we should indeed look for the mean in action before we act. The acquired moral virtues are not intuitive; they are a work which is acquired through effort, including the effort of reason to understand what the right course of action is (see Catechism, numbers 1804 following). The contemplation of moral action falls under the virtue of prudence, since the “prudent man looks where he is going”. Nor is it sufficient to simply divorce the will from the intellect; the will as a faculty in itself is amoral; what makes willed actions moral or immoral is their conformity to right reason and natural law. The intellect and will do not dispense with each other. In Fides et Ratio, Bl. Pope John Paul II explains that perfection of virtue, especially the virtue of faith, comes through the conformity of intellect and will.

And while it may be true that there is no explicit mention of the virtuous mean or any ethical theory for that matter in Scripture, or in the Catechism, these both do insist on the dignity of human reason and the ability of reason to discover the truth. I think we put ourselves on very dangerous ground when we start declaring philosophical insights null or suspect simply because we can’t find them explicitly stated or corroborated in Scripture or the Catechism. Such a methodology would nullify a great deal of the philosophical heritage of Christianity, including logic, metaphysics, aesthetics and mathematics, just for starters. Neither Scripture nor the Catechism claim to be a definitive authority over philosophical methods. The teaching magisterium of the Church does not limit the scope and methodology of philosophy and it both allows and encourages philosophers to plum the depths of human reason, in conformity with a genuine search for the truth and the teachings of the faith.

A great many Catholic philosophers have written about the application of the virtuous mean and these are quite consistent with the Catholic moral teaching. I think it is also dangerous ground to dismiss an ethical system on the basis of what seems improbable or unnecessary to us without first having fully engaged in an understanding of what is being proposed and why. Clearly, a great many moral philosophers do find St Thomas’ virtue theory practical and worthy of study. I would be happy to explore with you why this is the case if you are interested. St Thomas, who incidentally is referenced in the Catechism a great many times, is a highly honoured teacher in Catholic tradition and not simply in spite of his virtue theory, which is central to his entire anthropology. If I may share the following with you: “The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) for which [then Cardinal] Ratzinger was finally responsible, has given official sanction, as it were, to the recovery of Thomist virtue ethics.” (from The Essential Pope Benedict XVI: His central Writings & Speeches, 2007).

Pax.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hic

** I think we put ourselves on very dangerous ground when we start declaring philosophical insights null or suspect simply because we can’t find them explicitly stated or corroborated in Scripture or the Catechism. **

You are putting me in an awkward position there. I never used the words “null” or “suspect” regarding the golden mean. These are your words. I only said, if you read my previous post, that the golden mean is neither complete nor central to Catholic theology. Yes, it has its counterpart in virtues like prudence and temperance, which are certainly addressed in the Catechism.

** I think it is also dangerous ground to dismiss an ethical system on the basis of what seems improbable or unnecessary to us without first having fully engaged in an understanding of what is being proposed and why.**

Again, I did not dismiss Aristotle. I only said he is incomplete. I think the golden mean is relevant to Christian thought, but I don’t think many Christians think very much about Aristotle or the golden mean, whereas the great and central truth of Christianity is that we should be the best that we can be, saints in this world and in the next. Unfortunately, all too many of us settle for a “golden mean” of moral mediocrity.

Armchair philosophers generally write when they are sitting. And although Aristotle had a reputation for walking, I suspect Aquinas was very much a sitter.

** “The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) for which [then Cardinal] Ratzinger was finally responsible, has given official sanction, as it were, to the recovery of Thomist virtue ethics.” (from The Essential Pope Benedict XVI: His central Writings & Speeches, 2007).**

I am and always have been a Thomist.

 

[hicetnunc]

You are putting me in an awkward position there. I never used the words “null” or “suspect” regarding the golden mean. These are your words. I only said, if you read my previous post, that the golden mean is neither complete nor central to Catholic theology.
I am and always have been a Thomist.

Actually, what you originally wrote was “Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean is also at variance with Catholic teaching on morals.” There’s a big difference between saying “at variance” and “incomplete”! But I have no disagreement with that latter statement at all (even St Thomas died before completing his Summa and left his treatise on the sacraments unfinished). In fact, you are of course correct in saying the Aristotle’s own theory is incomplete, which is why I think St Thomas set out to correct it, so thanks for pointing that out.

Also, glad to hear that you are also a Thomist. I did suspect as much from other stuff you’ve written, which is why I was surprised at your earlier statement. But thank you very much for clarifying and engaging with me, I have enjoyed the exchange. If Thomas was around today, I’m sure he would want to be a Texan. :tiphat:

All the best.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hic

Actually, what you originally wrote was “Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean is also at variance with Catholic teaching on morals.”

O.K. My mistake. By “variance” I did not mean the golden mean contradicted Christ so much as incomplete or not central to Catholic teaching in the way Christ’s teaching of the golden rule is.

When making moral choices, most people do not stop to consider Aristotle’s golden mean, whereas “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is an inescapable dictum.

It is warm and dry in West Texas. Our nights are full of cool breezes. We are blessed indeed!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

When making moral choices, most people do not stop to consider Aristotle’s golden mean, whereas “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is an inescapable dictum.

That’s the point of virtue ethics: that it is not a guide to decision-making. Aristotle and Aquinas thought that you generally don’t act morally by thinking about the right thing. You act morally because you have the right habits. And they were right about that.

Jesus said, “**Be **perfect.” Not “Make the perfect decision.” Our decisions flow from our character.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Prodigal
**
You act morally because you have the right habits. And they were right about that.**

They certainly were. And the right habits cannot be formed without the desire to be as good as we can be, as any athlete will tell us.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Prodigal
**
You act morally because you have the right habits. And they were right about that.**

They certainly were. And the right habits cannot be formed without the desire to be as good as we can be, as any athlete will tell us.

Now **you’re **sounding like a Greek, Charlemagne!

Come on in. The water’s fine.