But before we get to my complaints with the golden mean, we need to understand how Aristotle defines happiness. He does a fine job with it. Happiness, according to Aristotle, is not just pure hedonistic pleasure, but as flourishing. A state of Eudaimonia. And this sort of happiness is the end goal of all pursuits. Aristotle was certainly not a Belgian, but there is a sort of "every man for himself" quality to his ethics. So Otto wasn't completely off base. But Aristotle explains why a you should be mainly concerned with your own path to happiness and not particularly worried about other people. He posits that if a person uses his method of the middle path to attain a state of happiness, it will follow that this virtuous person will have true friendships with people of similar virtuous character. This will be good for society. Take care of your own happiness, and the people you wish to associate with will be reflective of your virtuous ethics. Thus, there will be a flourishing society of good people (except for women and slaves . . . he wasn't so keen on their potential). He explains this in Book I of Nichomachean Ethics:
Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else . . ."
So happiness is the thing that we don't seek in order to acquire something else. Happiness is the something else, the ultimate aim. We seek money in order to use it for things that make us flourish, not to roll around in it (unless you're Scrooge McDuck). We seek a nice car so we can drive our friends around; spending time with our friends (at high speeds, listening to music on a bangin' system) makes us happy.
Aristotle lived a long time ago-- he wrote the Nichomachean Ethics in 340 B.C.-- and so he would probably struggle with paradoxical post-modern folks who do seek happiness in order to acquire something else . . . these are the people who seek happiness so they can post pictures of themselves-- super-fucking-happy pictures of themselves-- on social media so that their ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends from high school can witness just how fucking-super-happy they are and then these ex-boyfriends and girlfriends will get really jealous and finally realize exactly what they missed out on by dumping these super-happy people. But that kind of behavior is probably only possible with the internet, so we can't blame Aristotle for not predicting just how bananas people would become once they had access to platforms like Facebook and Snapchat and felt the need to show the world just how happy they are (despite the Zoloft). So let's consider these people who seek happiness in order to rub it in other people's faces outliers and move on with our lives. Because if you're reading this blog, then you're definitely not the sort who likes to infinitely scroll through Facebook pictures, right?
Aristotle sees virtue as habitual action: "Moral virtue is the outcome of habit." He is a consequentialist, unconcerned with deontological principles (e.g. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative). Good people deliberately commit good behaviors. That is their purpose. He is a teleologist. Or so says my neighbor's dog.
We are defined by our actions: "It is by doing just acts that we become just, by doing temperate acts that we become temperate, by doing courageous acts that we become courageous." But how do we figure out what is just, temperate, and courageous? Aristotle concedes that it's not easy. We need to seek the mean between the excess and deficiency. And not the mathematical average, but the mean relative to ourselves.
If being "courageous" is the target trait and the deficiency of courage is cowardice and the excess is being foolhardy, then Aristotle believes we need to chose actions that are neither "neither too much or too little." There are so many ways of doing it wrong, and only one way of doing it right. And it's partially determined by who you are. If you're a soldier, then your level of expected courage is so much higher than if you're a dude prone to motion-sickness at an amusement park. A soldier may need to fearlessly charge at a machine gun nest. Perhaps he shouldn't throw himself on a grenade during the charge-- that might be foolhardy because he could just run away from the grande and direct others to do the same-- but he can't not charge with his company. That's what he's trained for. The dude at the amusement park needs to take a Dramamine and ride the looper with his children, but he doesn't need to go beyond that . . . he doesn't need to forego his seat belt. That would be foolhardy (though it's intrinsically less dangerous to charging a machine gun nest. It's all relative).
Aristotle adds another rule. There are certain characteristics that are simply evil. There's no middle path with those. There's no right amount of betrayal or adultery. So there are traits to be avoided. Even positive traits provide difficulty. It's incredibly difficult to find the mean in anything. According to Aristotle, it takes a man of science. He also believes it is "only a man of science, who can find the mean or center of a circle," so apparently most Greek laymen did not have access to a compass.
All of us can understand this struggle. My teenage teenage children desire "pleasantness of amusement" but the waver between the deficiency and the excess, what Aristotle terms as "buffoonery" and "boorishness." Only occasionally are they "witty." The great divide in American politics is essentially defined by this conflict over money: "anybody can give or spend money, but to give it to the right persons, to give the right amount of it and to give it at the right time and for the right cause and in the right way, this is not what anybody can do, nor is it easy."
Americans tend to carom back and forth between the extremes. Last week, I had to cook dinner every night (a birthday gift for my wife) and this led to some over-indulgence in alcohol. I swore this week that I would abstain completely. But that's unrealistic. And so I found the middle ground between dipsomania and tee-totaling. Moderation. Moderate alcohol consumption is fueling this post.
The problem with this Aristotelean method of trying to attain the mean is that it's two-dimensional. Our lives don't operate on a line, they operate in a three-dimensional space. Whenever we work on some two-dimensional triplet continuum, there is some other force pulling on this line. So say we want to work on eating healthy. The deficiency of healthy eating is gluttony. Stuffing your face with Oreos and pudding. The excess of healthiness is anorexic obsessiveness. Only eating kale. You want to be in the middle, eating in a smaller window of time, no late-night snacking, fewer carbs, more protein and vegetables. So you end up eating a shitload of meat. Every kind of animal in the barn and then some. Bacon . . . ham . . . pork chops.
And you don't want to do that, but it's a consequence of trying to stop eating crap. When you're fixing your golf swing, you can only work on one thing at a time. But the other things screw up the one thing you're working on. It's a conundrum. And Aristotle didn't really offer any help. Physics does . . . sort of. My analogy for this dilemma (trilemma?) is called the "three body problem." If you need to compute how two bodies will move in relation to one another, say the earth and the moon, this is relatively easy (for a mathematician . . . I have enough trouble tracking down a high fly ball in left field). But when you add a third body to the system, the problem becomes notoriously difficult to analyze and solve. Wired unravels it in this article. Good luck. And for an extremely detailed narrative look at the consequences of the chaos endured by a planet orbiting a three-body star system, check out Cixin Liu's sci-fi masterpiece The Three-Body Problem (or wait a few years and watch the Amazon series based on the trilogy).
The way I see it, it's pretty easy to compute the relative mean between two extremes. There's complete abstinence of alcohol. Prohibition. No drinks. There's excess. Ten drinks a night. And then there's moderation. A beer or two a couple nights a week. Maybe a few more on the weekend. But then add the pull of a third body. The holiday season and multiple parties. This throws a monkey wrench in things. You need to socialize. What is the mean of socializing? The deficiency is introverted reclusion. Avoiding people entirely. Then you could control your drinking perfectly. The excess is extroverted delirium. You need to attend everything. You have a fear of missing out on anything. And the mean is some sort of convivial participation. But this is going to screw with your plan on drinking moderately. And the drinking screws with the eating. And the next thing you know, it's January and you've gained ten pounds and the gym is packed.
Basically, once you add a third body to a relationship, it's extremely difficult to compute the forces and understand what habitual actions you should take. Which is why people like categorical rules. It's often easier. When you're pressed to order at a restaurant, it's difficult to fulfill both your ketogenic diet and your green ethics.
The Hidden Brain episode "A Founding Contradiction: Thomas Jefferson's Stance on Slavery" investigates an infinitely controversial historical example of the moral three body problem. There is no question that in the realm of politics, Jefferson flourished in the virtuous mean between oppressive monarch and reckless anarchist. He forged documents and laws designed to give the right amount of freedom to the man in the middle. He revised property laws, wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, outlined the proper relationship between the Church and the State, and generally conceived ideas and policies that were built to last. And during this fruitful period, he owned 175 slaves and fathered six children with one of them (Sally Hemings).
Jefferson clearly spoke against slavery (though he considered himself a "good and benevolent" slave owner).
"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this and learn to imitate it, for man is an imitative animal."In 1807, three weeks before Britain did the same, Jefferson signed a law banning the importation of slaves into the United States, effectively banning the slave trade. Yet Jefferson only freed a few slaves during his life; when he died, 130 of his slaves were sold as part of the Monticello estate.
Jefferson knew slavery was wrong and must end, but he wasn't ready to expend the personal capital to end it. He was working on a lot of other things. So he never computed the Aristotelian triplet on slavery that would lead him to habitual moral action. Perhaps the excess is "slave master" and the deficiency is "wanton sluggard" and somewhere in the middle is "cooperative employer." He felt the pull of the immoral nature of slavery, just as I know eating factory farmed animals is wrong-- these animals are the slaves of our time-- but if I'm going to be working on my own diet and fitness, I'm going to be eating animals.
Historian Annette Gordon-Reed offers this explanation during that Hidden Brain episode:
This is not to minimize, as I would never do, the depredations of the institution of slavery - but I imagine, 100 years from now, people are going to look back at certain things that we do and say, why didn't people understand? You know, why didn't people do something? And there are a lot of things - there are a lot of times human beings don't act according to what they know is the right thing to do.It's easy to espouse theoretical, deontological rules, but habitual action is hard. While it's difficult to argue for relative ethics-- I'm never going to excuse clitoral castration-- it's also difficult to universally condemn Jefferson for owning slaves. He was trapped within an economic and social machine reliant on slaves. And so while he wrote like an abolitionist, he also framed a pragmatic triplet that we might find abominable and contradictory. Jefferson saw that the excess as a slaveholder was to be a "cruel overlord" and the deficiency was to be an "apathetic and irresponsible patriarch." You couldn't just free your slaves, you also had to provide for them. There was no system in place. (Sally Hemings was freed but then negotiated to return to slavery at Monticello, but with "extraordinary privileges.") So Jefferson arrived at the mean . . . what he considered to be "benevolent ownership." We find it repugnant, but people in the future will laugh sardonically at our attempt to be environmental by foregoing plastic straws, while we drive our gas guzzling vehicles from store to store buying plastic gewgaws.
Monticello was Jefferson's place. This was his way of life. It's what he knew. And he felt that he helped to found a country. He helped the United States come into existence. Breaking with Great Britain, setting up a government, that was a pretty big deal, and that the next generation of people had something to do, as well, and that was to make the progress on the issue of slavery that he thought could be made.
Now, we're not satisfied with that because we say, you had the talent to do this thing. Why didn't you use the talent to do the other thing? But that's not, you know, what he thought he was here to do. The American Revolution was the most important thing in his life. And the tragedy is he couldn't see that, after the union is formed, that the thing that would split it apart would be the institution of slavery.
Jefferson was busy building the framework for many, many progressive policies . . . policies that were far-ranging and significant. The Louisiana Purchase. He did what he could, and did it well. We need to remember that sometimes we can't change a habitual action without the help of technology. As far as slavery goes, we have it easy now . . . it's not even an option (unless you're in the sex slave trade . . . and then, shame on you!) We would never go back to slavery now that we have better agricultural technology. It's not even a moral choice. Jefferson couldn't see a simple way to attack the problem, and there would be no simple way until the plantation system-- a system of which he was a participant-- was completely dismantled.
People in the future may look back at us as savages because we tortured so many pigs and cows and sheep and chickens. We created huge cesspools of fecal waste and huge clouds of methane. But these future folk will be sitting on high, criticizing our evil ways, while they partake in delicious lab grown beef. No animals harmed, no animal waste, and no habitual action to compute. The Impossible Burger may solve this problem sooner than later. It's apparently "hyper-realistic" and bleeds just like real meat. It's a hell of a lot easier to fall into a virtuous habit when it's widely available and cheap.
So this is my gripe with Aristotle's middle path, the mean between excess and deficiency. It's nearly impossible to tread. There are always other virtues pulling you off course. Like a tennis serve or a golf swing, you can only work on one improvement at a time . . . you can't fix everything at once. And these traits operate in a three-dimensional space, and each attempt at moving toward the mean influences the other attempts. We can't figure it all out. And our willpower might be a limited resource. This works on a larger scale as well. As a technological society, we are struggling with free speech on the internet. The excess of free speech allows every hateful opinion and every fake news story. The deficiency of free speech is censorship . . . as the internet operates in China. So we try to plot the mean, some sort of middle ground where speech is free as long as it isn't malevolent fictitious propaganda or hate speech directed to incite riot and violence. But then toss in another dilemma to solve, say how much the government should regulate big tech monopolies-- the institutions that are controlling the platforms where this conflict is occurring-- and you've created a many-body problem that's incalculable. Who should control what we read? How free should our speech be? Who should monitor this? Should tech companies have more power than the government over our First Amendment Rights?
Who knows?
That's the end of the line for me. We need a modern Aristotle to figure this one out.
