Philosophy
Aristotle defines virtue as being of two kinds; moral and intellectual. Intellectual virtue is dependent on teaching and requires experience and time, while moral virtue is a result of habit. This is to say that moral virtues arise in an individual by nature. In consideration of what virtue is, Aristotle examines the three kinds of things found in the soul-passions, faculties and states of character (Ross 84). In this consideration, Aristotle then concludes that virtue is a trained faculty of choice or habit, the characteristic of which lies in observance or moderation of the mean in relation to the individuals concerned, as determined by reason. Therefore, it is more of moderation since it comes in between two vices.
Simply, this is to say that virtue is the habit of making a choice of the mean between two extremes with respect to some emotion or action. There are three elements that constitute Aristotle’s theory namely the mean, choice and habit. The mean is the relative middle point between two extremes of emotion or action. For example, a person who is under threat can take actions that range from foolhardiness to cowardice. The midpoint of these two can be courage. Virtue is about choice and not by accident. It is up to an individual to choose to act virtuously. After choosing, an individual then makes it a habit of doing a virtuous action.
Buddha’s Middle Way
Often, Buddha’s middle way is misunderstood to mean compromise. However, according to Buddhist teachings, the Middle Way in its simplest form means taking a balanced approach to life and regulating one’s behavior and impulses. The word ‘middle’ refers to some form of balance. Buddha teaches that trending the Middle Way is having a correct view of life and having attitudes and engaging in actions that create happiness for an individual as well as others. Thus, the Middle Way is a form of transcendence and reconciles the extremes of two opposing views. Using Buddha’s life as an example, the title Buddha was bestowed on Siddhartha Gautama who was born into a royal family in Nepal (Ross 52). This means he lived a life of pleasure and luxury in the palace. However, when he realized the suffering of humans outside the palace, he left his comfort and became an ascetic in search of the solution to the problem of suffering, at one time nearly starving himself to death. However, he did not find a solution and thus started meditating so as to realize the truth about the existence of humans.
Comparing Two Theories
The two theories seem to have a similarity in relation to the middle point. In Aristotle’s theory, the middle point is the mean while in Buddha’s theory; the middle point is the Middle Way. Aristotle’s idea of the mean is built around the construct that every virtue can be considered to be a mean between two extremes. In Buddha’s view, neither extreme provide the true meaning of life. Thus the Middle Way describes the balanced approach to life. However, the two theories have their differences. For example, Aristotle’s theory requires that an individual undertake virtuous actions for their sake and that of the community for them to flourish. However, Buddha’s theory is all about an individual obeying precepts and meditating for his or her won purification. Aristotle’s theory appeals to me more because it is more societal than individual as opposed to Buddha’s. Since we live in a society, we should choose actions not only with ourselves in mind but also the community we live in.
Works Cited
Ross W.D. Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925.
