Category: Golden Mean

In almost every decision we make there is an ethical choice that come along with it, some more pronounced than others, and still, some more demanding than others. Some choices are clearly the “wrong” one, for instance to kill someone or not to, but others are not as clear cut. The potter box, developed by Dr. Ralph Potter, is designed to help evaluate which choice is the ethical one is these murky situations (Apple, 1). The potter box is composed of four quadrants: situation, values, principle and loyalties; these quadrants enable us to view the ethical dilemma from of points of view and evaluate which choice is the ethical one. In this paper the four quadrants will be broken down to better explain how the potter box is used to find the ethical dilemma in a situation.

Quadrant one, or definition, of the potter box is used to describe the situation. This is generally an ethical situation that anyone could encounter. The quadrant is used to lay out the facts of the case that are presented. This section should be as detailed as possible, since there are many things that need to be disclosed about the situation/ethical dilemma being faced. In an ethical dilemma there are always more than one point of view, and in the potter box all points of view must be presented. There needs to be no bias when listing the facts and presenting the differing points of view, or the outcome will not be accurate; there should be no judgements or hiding of facts. Again, as stated this must be filled out as detailed as possible so that no important facts are over looked, and nothing missing. A good example would be a photograph, if it permits, since this would present all the evidence without having and bias or judgements getting in the way of facts.

The second quadrant of the potter box, values, evaluates what a person, group, organization, nation, etc. considers to be important (Apple, 3). Each point of view presented in the first quadrant will have its own set of values for the given dilemma. This section allows for the analyst to identify the different perspectives of each party for the particular situation.

A situation may be judged according to professional (innovative or prompt), logical (consistent, competent), aesthetic (pleasing, harmonious), moral (honest, nonviolence), or socio-cultural values (thrifty, hard-working) (Christians, et al., 2). These values represent the specific concerns, or what is deemed important by the parties involved. An example of this could be a shopping center being built over a green space in a community. The values of the shopping center may be creating more jobs, bring more people to the area, and increasing value of the neighborhood, these all demonstrating professional and logical values. The community it is being built in though may value the green space for its beauty, a place for children to play, a community space, etc.; the community has more aesthetic, and maybe even socialcultural, values. Each side’s set of values influence the decision-making.

The third quadrant of the potter box is the evaluation of principles. Principles are the moral guidelines that are used when making decisions in a situation, or, the proper rules of conduct. Principles can be used as rules to determine the way we act or behave when faced with a situation that may be ethically unclear. Considering the values from the second quadrant in an ethical dilemma, it will aid the decision maker when looking at this section of the potter box. There are several ethical principles that can be looked at and utilized in this quadrant that will be outlined in the following sections.

Aristotle’s Golden Mean defines the moral virtue as a middle state, determined by particle wisdom which emphasizes self-restraint and moderation. Another is Confucius’ Golden mean, also known as the compromise principle; this says that “moral virtue is the appropriate location between two extremes (Christians, et al., 11)”. Both of these focus on virtue, moderation or middle-ground of some sort.

Kant’s ethical principle is based on duty (Deontological ethics), stating that we should only act on a decision that we would want everyone else to act on as well; “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will it should become universal law (Christians et al., 12).” If you would not want someone else to do the same thing you are choosing to do, then in this sense it would not be ethical because you would not want it to become “universal law.”

Utility is another principle in ethical guidelines, the best known being John Stuart Mills. His utility principle states that we should seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number [of people (Christians et al., 15-16). There are two forms of utilitarianism, act and rule. Act utility says that we should make the choice that produces the greatest good in any given situation, whereas rule utility states that we should focus on the greatest good for the general welfare, NOT just any given situation (Christians et al., 16).

John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance is an ethical principle based on rights. This principle states that when we do not know which stakeholder position we find ourselves in, we remove personal interests from the analysis and make the more ethical decision; “justice emerges when negotiating without social differentiations (Christians et al., 16).”

The “me first” or “Only me” is another principle that can be looked at in the third quadrant. This principle can be demonstrated by people that choose as action that will benefit themselves, but not the larger society. This principle is one that assumes that other people have less value than the self (the person making the choice); it isalso considered narcissistic morality (Apple, 5). An example of this could be a business partner throwing the other under the bus in order to benefit one’s self, even if the action or choice they made was made together. Another principle along these means, is the bottom line, or money morality. Essentially, this principle states that as long as there is a profit, and money is being made, then everything is fine (Apple, 5). Generally, it does not matter how the money is made or what is sacrificed to make it. Both of these principles, sadly, are quite common in what is heard on the news and among people these days; a good example of this would be any example of a Ponzi scheme.

Another one that is all too abundant is bureaucratic morality; procedure and paperwork being more important than the people who need to be serviced (Apple, 6). Part of the power behind this type of morality, is the diffusion of responsibility. Tied into this idea of power, is the Machiavellian morality. This is one that looks for the keys to power and considers power to be the most important thing; this can be present in many present day and historical battles for presidency, king, etc. (Apple, 7). People believe it is their right to have power.

A well-known, though probably not realized, principle can be stated as ends vs. means. This principle asks if the end is so important, that any action can be morally justified to achieve it; or will the end justify the means (Apple, 4). As many say though, it’s not about the destination, it’s about the journey there, and I think that this can be well applied for this principle. Finally, there are the ethical principles based on love. The Judeo Christian Principle, or Persons as ends. This principle is also very well known, and is more commonly stated as “treat your neighbor as yourself [or how you would want to be treated]”; “love all men everywhere alike (Christians et al., 17-18).” This principle emphasized the love of our neighbors as well as the golden rule’ we should love our neighbors and seek to do good to them, as we would want ourselves.

A conclusion cannot be morally justified unless a clear demonstration that an ethical principle shaped the final decision (Christians, et al., 9). The principle for the parties in the ethical dilemmas can be found by evaluating the values of each party from the second quadrant. These principles are crucial in the overall process of reaching a justified, ethical decision or conclusion (Christians, et al., 5).

The final quadrant of the potter box is loyalties. In this quadrant each of the parties’ loyalties must be evaluated. These loyalties are to people, not things; the loyalty is to who the moral duty, or allegiance, is owed to by the decision-maker (Apple, 8). When analyzing these situation, there are five categories of obligations, or loyalties: duty to ourselves, duty to clients/supporters/subscribers, duty to organization or firm, duty to colleagues, and duty to society (Christians et el., 19-20). The loyalties of each party must be examined because this is who the decision is for, in a way.

Each party will have loyalties to different people, and possibly, to the same people. The loyalties depend on who that party is, for example a news broadcaster may have loyalty to the public, their employer, and/or the industry. A teacher may have loyalties to the students, the school system, their employer, a union, and the industry. There is not usually a single loyalty per party, may have loyalties to quite a few people and it varies every time.

Evaluation with the potter box may not always provide a solution until the fourth quadrant at times. When competing values seem like they are appropriate, the resolution can occur in the third quadrant, when evaluating principles. When two ethical theories are relevant, the sufficiency of the theories will need to be evaluated using theology or metaphysics. Occasionally, the ethical solution is not clear until you reach the fourth quadrant. This can occur when both sides of a dilemma have been appropriate in their situation, values, and principles; only when looking at who they loyalty is to can the dilemma be resolved; this was the case for the dilemma between the U.S newspaper and the British television (Christians et al., 5-7). Both of these parties had adequate values and principles for the situation, but when looking at who the parties were loyal to, this is when the more ethical can be determined.

The potter box is a tool used to find the ethical disagreement in any given situation. This tool focuses on the moral issues as opposed to legal or mater-of-fact issues, and can be used to reflect and situation that requires moral decision-making. However, there will be no clear cut, single “right’ answer, but can nevertheless help one to think through what to do.

Aristotle was a greek philosopher who lived approximately 2400 years ago. He is considered one of the great philosophers from his time, and he is still widely known and highly regarded today. During his lifetime, he came up with Virtue Theory. Virtue Theory is an ethical theory that focuses on a person’s character, not the set of rules a person is supposed to follow, to determine if they are a good person or not. This is largely based on Aristotle’s virtues, of which the four most important are prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. There is also 8 more virtues, but these are the main four. Aristotle believes that each of these virtues comes at the Golden Mean, which is halfway between excessive and deficient for each of them. He also believes that for someone to be a good person, they must follow all of the virtues. For example, temperance is the golden mean between the two vices, self-indulgence, and insensibility, or how fortitude is between recklessness and rashness. Like Aristotle, most people realize that it is not good to be too self indulgent nor too insensible. Most people realize that moderation is a good thing, but they never put it on a scale like Aristotle did. Aristotle also believes that every virtue is good in moderation, and this is one of the things which he is remembered most for because it still has relevance for today’s society. Machiavelli believes a lot of the same things that Aristotle taught, and he wrote them in his book, The Prince.

Machiavelli was a philosopher during the Italian Renaissance. One of his most famous works was The Prince. In it, he talk about how a prince should behave and treat their subjects. He agrees a lot with Aristotle when it comes to moderation in virtues. He says that princes are supposed to be generous, but not generous to the point where it earns you a reputation for being generous. He says it’s a bad thing to be too generous because he will use up all of your resources, but he also says that it is a bad thing to not be viewed as somewhat generous because you will be viewed as a miser. Machiavelli said, “I say that it would be good to be considered generous, nevertheless, generosity used in such a manner as to give you a reputation for it will harm you”(The Prince, pg338). This shows that for generosity, Machiavelli agrees with Aristotle in sharing the same principle for the virtue of generosity. They both agree that too much and too little generosity are both bad.

Machiavelli also says that princes must not be cruel, and they must be merciful, but not too merciful. But he also says that cruelty can be necessary in some cases. But too much mercy is never acceptable because it can create disorder among people. Machiavelli also takes a standpoint in the middle of whether it is good to be loved or to be feared. However, since it is difficult to have both at the same time, Machiavelli feels that is better to be feared than to be loved. He says, “I reply that one should like to be both one and the other(loving and feared), but since that is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved when one of the two must be lacking.(The prince, p339) ”.

As you can see from the evidence provided above, Machiavelli definitely followed a lot of the same principle of moderation in virtues as Aristotle did. Many of Machiavelli’s ideas are probably based off of Aristotle. They have exactly the same opinion on generosity, which is to be generous, but not too generous. Moderation in virtues is necessary for anyone to thrive in the world, and Aristotle and Machiavelli are absolutely right in the way they see it.

Video Summary: Altruism and Empathy

Natural Selection can put certain facts or guides in our brains to allow for our survival. This has to do with kindness and being nice to others. Our ancestors were nice to people so they could stay alive in hard times. While at life and death situations they fought and showed no mercy to protect themselves. This is seen today around the world. We are all taught to be nice to everyone and many people follow this idea because it helps them stay happy and alive. If your mean to people, chances are they will be mean back and could even become violent. When people become violent, it puts your life at risk. So, the key is determining our actions to allow for our survival and natural selection helps us with this step.

1. Summarize Aristotle’s approach to moral philosophy by concentrating on virtue. How does he apply the golden mean in his Nicomachean Ethics?

Aristotle’s approach to philosophy concentrates mainly on Virtue. Aristotle uses character traits and virtue rather than performing a certain act to have good outcomes from the situation. Aristotle claims a person is “virtuous if they have ideal character traits.” (Internet Encyclopedia Philosophy) The character traits he most used were kindness in individuals. Kindness is derived internally inside you and once you develop certain character traits, they must remain stable in order to continue to remain virtuous. The goal of Aristotle’s virtue approach is to have people obtain stable character traits to live a good life that’s meaningful.

Aristotle’s approach allows people to become virtuous by developing their state of thinking and their actions. Once a person develops a character trait, they need to keep that state of mind. If their mind is not stable, they cannot guarantee they have mastered the character traits. If their mind is continually stable and in the right state of being, can be said to be virtuous. A person who develops character traits over time with practice and interactions allows for their virtue to increase and excel. Once they have mastered the state of thinking, they can then move to actions. Once a person develops character traits for kindness, you tend to see a shift in their actions. If you now have those characteristics and you see a person in the real-world needing assistance, it can be provided with your help. All a person needs to do is realize their mind needs to be in a good state first before others can be assisted.

Aristotle applies the golden mean in his Ethics by talking about virtues’ origin and how they are created to help us live a happy life. The goal is to achieve happiness and one can do this through obtaining character traits and virtues. In his Ethics, he talks about finding the good in a whole situation or person rather than just a few key points. The goal is to see the whole picture or a person as good instead, of focusing on all the negative character traits. The golden mean tends to be applied in his ethics as well. The golden mean “represents a balance between extremes” (Zine Articles, 2007) Aristotle wants people to find their balance in life through Nature. Many of us tend to focus too much on ourselves or spend too much time helping others. This leaves one person with relaxation and self-care while the other must deal with exhaustion and burnout. Through nature, people can find balance in their life activities and with helping others. When you have balance in your life, then life can start to be more meaningful and happiness can be achieved. People need to accept their current situations and can act on them to change it and improve their well-being. Once a person lets go of ego and arrogance, they can become happy and achieve balance through their developing character traits allowing virtue to be gained.

Works Cited

1. Golden Mean, www.anus.com/zine/articles/draugdur/golden_mean/.
2. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/.
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

Knowledge can be depicted in many ways. In Plato’s foundational text on Western philosophy and justice, Republic, true knowledge is represented in terms of permanent and immortal truths that can be represented only by the absolute reality of Forms; whereas in John Milton’s biblical epic poem, Paradise Lost, knowledge is symbolized by an all-knowing God and the Tree of Knowledge. In Thomas More’s socio-politically driven narrative, Utopia, access to knowledge is for everyone and it is complemented by religious faith; whereas in Mary Shelly’s pioneering science-fiction work, Frankenstein, the pursuit of knowledge is seen as a solitary effort and we see a man pushing beyond the limits of conventional knowledge and creation set forth by God. Knowledge takes on various roles and there is a difference in the distribution of knowledge in society that allows for myriad variations in social structure and hierarchy, but more interestingly we also see a diversification of the interactions between the individual and the collective. It is fascinating to see this phenomenon. How does the role and distribution of knowledge in Plato’s Republic, Milton’s Paradise Lost, More’s Utopia, and Shelly’s Frankenstein cause differences in social structure and hierarchy, and how in turn there is a difference in the interactions between the individual and the collective?

Approaching this topic and analyzing these books in natural chronological order is very convenient as we can see a clear progression of ideologies and also examine the important historical contexts surrounding these works. Beginning with one of the most influential works on Western philosophy, political theory, and justice, published approximately around 380-381 BCE, we look at the Greek philosopher Plato’s Republic. This book explores different ideas concerning ancient Athenian society through the method of the Socratic Dialogue. Through the Socratic Dialogue, Plato presents the reader with “proofs” and arguments that showcase the characteristics of an “Ideal State.”

Plato presents us with the idea of an Ideal State that deals with knowledge interestingly and unexpectedly. One would imagine that in a perfect society there would be no restrictions on anything. It would be a place where individual freedom would be paramount. So, knowledge like anything else would be freely accessible to anyone and everyone. However, we see in Republic that knowledge in distributed unequally among the citizens of this society. This creates a spectrum in terms of the amount of knowledge that a person possesses. A spectrum like this is what enables the formation of a social hierarchy with Producers at the lowest end with only the knowledge required for their jobs and the Philosopher King at the highest end with perfect knowledge. It is important to understand what knowledge really means in Plato’s world so that we can see how there is the creation of a spectrum. The concept of knowledge, true knowledge, is eternal and is based on the Theory of Forms. An Ideal Form is the purest and most intangible form a thing and a concept. Everything in the real, tangible world around us is a shadow of the Ideal Form (a table in the real world is an imperfect shadow of the Ideal Form of a table). They are at a level of knowledge that can only be accessed by the Philosopher King (Kotsonis 2019a). This restriction is what causes the spectrum to form.

The effect of a society with the existence of a knowledge spectrum like the one in Plato’s Ideal State is that it allows for a separation of power from the people at the lower part on the spectrum. The Guardians and Philosopher King who have more knowledge than the Producers have more power than the Producers. In Plato’s Ideal State, this is justified as there is the belief that all knowledge cannot be handled by everyone and some knowledge (such as the knowledge of Forms) can only be accessed by a few. So now we see the formation of a social hierarchy based on power which indirectly stems from the difference in “access” knowledge. The fact that some people cannot handle complete knowledge is also tied with the Greek idea of the Golden Mean and the idea that “goodness is good for what is as it should be.” A person at a certain level should stay in their level, pan metron Ariston meaning “all excellent things must be limited.”

Now it is also important to know that in Plato’s Ideal State, the success of the State is what matters. All individual actions are for the betterment of society as a whole. This is also a form of restriction on individual freedom. While Plato encourages specialization amongst the Producers and focuses on the fact that people should do what they are most talented at, the extent to which this is applied results in the exercising of the power of the Guardians. If a child born in a family that specializes in occupation “A” is actually talented in occupation “B” then it is the role of the Guardian to observe this discrepancy and move the child to a family that specialized in occupation “B” (Kotsonis 2019a). This is supplemented by Plato’s idea that children should be common for everyone in society. We can see this paralleled by the Greek thirst of putting everything in their place, categorizing things, and a quest for stability. This brings about the stark contrast in the value given to the benefit of society and in the value of individual freedom.

So, in Plato’s Republic, we see that the society envisioned by Plato is characterized by an unequal distribution of knowledge that leads to the creation of a power dynamic between the masses and the leaders. It is also a society that places supreme importance at the benefit of the collective causing indirect restrictions on individual freedoms.

Moving approximately two thousand years, from the 4th century BCE to the 16th century CE, we come to the time of Sir Thomas More. Thomas More’s groundbreaking political and philosophical satire, Utopia, deals with the journey of the fictional Thomas More and his discussions with various other characters like his friend Peter Giles and, philosopher and explorer Raphael Hythloday. We see Hythloday describe to More and Giles the wonderful island nation of Utopia. A nation set in the New World and separate from all the political and religious problems facing European nations, especially Tudor-ruled England. It is described as a nation that is closest to perfection in its social organization and systems.

Thomas More, like Plato, describes to us his concept of a perfect state, Utopia. The way they deal with knowledge and its distribution, however, is very different. In Utopia, everyone has free access to knowledge as everyone is educated equally. This creates a society that does not have a knowledge spectrum that distinguishes citizens and puts them in different classes. While there is a political hierarchy, it is not based on the distribution or access to knowledge. All children in Utopia are provided with a thorough education so that everyone has equal opportunity in terms of exploring their talents and interests in free time (which there is a lot of in Utopia as everyone works just six hours a day and whiling away free time is severely punishable). Citizens who excel in intellectual pursuits could be exempted from physical labor and just pursue their interests. In More’s Utopian society, compared to Plato’s Athenian society, knowledge is understood differently. In Utopia, knowledge, and education were considered the basis for the cultural and moral development of individuals. Rational and intellectual pursuits were what drove the citizens of Utopia. More also emphasizes that in Utopia religion along with rational thoughts were essential in the proper functioning of society. The belief that there was an afterlife in which people were assessed based on their previous actions is what had the Utopians practice and adhere to all moral, civil, and ethical laws. So proper and universal knowledge is essential in allowing Utopians to create an open and communal environment.

While there are differences in how More and Plato handle knowledge, More and Plato share similar ideas concerning the individual and the collective and corporatism. The concept of boundaries and moderation (similar to Plato’s Golden Mean) is also present in More’s work. It is however important to note that as shown above that the distribution of knowledge doesn’t necessarily cause this to happen, it is caused by the role of knowledge. The role knowledge plays in Utopia is that of various virtues and ethics. More has showcased various scenarios in Utopia that show how there could be unintended consequences when one doesn’t follow or exercise these virtues. It is the job of the elected officials, the Syphogrants and the Traniborto, to make sure that all laboring citizens are engaged in their own works and are not idling away their time. More does not address happiness; he ignores it as he does not think of them as very important; he is a very religious man and shuns all types of luxuries; he derives from the Greek rule of the Golden Mean where all extremes are removed from society (Kotsonis 2019b). Laws are extremely strict in Utopia; this creates an atmosphere where citizens are indirectly controlled to do what is beneficial for society. This can also be seen as a disregard of individual freedom and feelings. It is true that the society provides it, citizens, with ample (almost unparalleled when brought alongside 16th century Europe) resources and free time but the society is so result-oriented that it does not see issues in limiting freedoms and strictly enforcing laws that put collective benefit above individual freedom.

In Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, we see that the ‘near-perfect’ island nation of Utopia possesses equality in the access of knowledge for its citizens, the lack of a knowledge-based power dynamic. We still, however, see the existence of a politics-based social hierarchy that implements rigorous laws and punishments that rein in certain individual freedoms in favor of societal service.

Advancing to the 17th century and from socio-political satire to perhaps the greatest epic poem in the English language, we shall now look at John Milton’s Paradise Lost. This biblical poem in blank verse about the Fall of Man, God, and Satan is an epic poem in every right and has shaped cultural images of many aspects of the bible. Milton begins at the first conflict in human history, the conflict between Adam and Eve, how they took a step away from God and begin a journey to get back to God (Kotsonis 2019c)

The way to analyze the concept of knowledge and social structure in Paradise Lost is slightly different from the other books as we aren’t presented with a political analysis of perfect societies. Here we are required to look at details within the narrative arc to derive points that give us the necessary insight. Knowledge in Paradise Lost exists in the form of God, the being with complete knowledge, and the Tree of Knowledge. Eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was strictly prohibited by God and it was the tasting of this fruit that was the very cause of the downfall of Adam and Eve, it was their disobedience. The thing that this represents is that Eve and then Adam had “tasted” knowledge. While in Paradise, Adam and Eve existed with limited knowledge and just obeying the directions of God and living a life of innocence. However, after tasting knowledge they somehow become conscious of things around them. This is not just a direct violation of one of God’s rules but also shows the breaking free from their innocence. They now have to face God’s wrath – leave Paradise and struggle on Earth until humans gain complete knowledge and become one with God. Now that we have seen the concept of knowledge as it exists in Paradise Lost, we can see that there is a steep wall between humans and knowledge. God actively dissuades Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Knowledge and it is only after Satan tricks Eve into craving knowledge from the tree that we see the events unfold. We know for a fact that Adam is curious by nature.

• “Tell if ye saw how came I thus, how here.
• Not of myself: by some greater Maker, then,
• In goodness and in power preëminent.
• Tell me, how may I know him, how adore,
• From whom I have that thus I move and live,
• And feel that I am happier than I know!” (Milton 2005, 8.277-282)

He wishes to know more and asks the Angel Raphael about his creation and God. However, Adam suppresses this curiosity because of God’s commandments. We can now clearly see the inequality in the distribution of knowledge that exists in this case. This also makes apparent the power dynamic that exists between God and humans. This idea is also supported by the fact that the only way humans can gain redemption is that they struggle and obtain complete knowledge so that they can become one with God. So, knowledge is a very important factor in the idea of human progression.

Similar to Republic, in Paradise Lost we see a power dynamic and a knowledge spectrum with innocent humans at the lower end and a supreme God at the higher end. God who knows and has created everything – past, present, and future – determines and dictates the laws of the Universe. God’s first creation Satan continuously disobeys God and is certain to remain in Hell for his sins. However, we see that after seeing various visions of the future from Archangel Michael and the survival of Noah and his family, Adam is motivated to forever obey God after the original sin no matter how long it takes. The difference in the two cases showcases the subtlety of this hierarchy as obedience to God also plays a vital part in it. The difference here when compared to Plato is that Milton allows for the possibility for the hierarchy to be reset if humankind achieves perfect knowledge; then humanity is also on the same level as God. Analyzing the interaction between the individual and the collective is a bit more complicated here. Initially, there is no “collective” as such as there are only two human beings; but it is Eve, an individual, – it is she who recommends to Adam that they split up and specialize in their work, and she who first tastes the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge – whose actions cause the Fall of Man and the creation of a collective. So, we do see that the individual’s actions were essential for change and progress (albeit this change would lead to great pains, especially for Eve and following women) but later on there is an emphasis on the collective effort in order for the advancement of humanity.

John Milton’s Paradise Lost is an epic poem that places great importance on knowledge and hierarchies (obedience) and how they can change depending on the progression of our human society, it also has an intricate system of individualism and collectivism. The book also shows how an initially subdued human society through massive struggle (it will get much worse before it gets better) could eventually reach a state of freedom.

Forwarding from a 17th-century biblical creation story to an 18th-century science-fiction creation story, we land at Mary Shelly’s innovative and genre-creating novel Frankenstein. Frankenstein deals with the account of Victor Frankenstein who in his pursuit of science creates artificial life, in the form of a monster, defying restrictions placed by God. It is a story of individual ambition and how science is being deployed with the idea that the human condition can be improved.

The quest for knowledge is one of the main driving forces in Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein is an ambitious scientist who after the death of his mother isolates himself and conducts scientific experiments in hopes of being able to create life. Frankenstein’s isolation is of note over here, it juxtaposes the fact that an individual who is all alone and has distanced himself completely from his friends and family is trying to create another individual. Shelly really highlights the ambition of individuals in Victor Frankenstein and Robert Walton. Both are extremely ambitious men in search for knowledge. However, both differ in the fact that in the end, Walton considers the value of the people around him (his ship’s crew) and puts a limit to his knowledge by turning back and ending their Arctic expedition, whereas Frankenstein despite knowing the consequences of his individual actions disregards them and still continues his journey of pursuing the monster he created, while bringing harm to the people around him. Victor Frankenstein can be paralleled to the Greek mythological character, Icarus – a person who is so absorbed in their actions that they do not realize that they are a danger to themselves – as his ignorance of the people around him and his determination to kill the monster at all costs is what ultimately leads to his death (Kotsonis 2019d). Frankenstein’s last words to Walton are: ‘Farewell, Walton! Seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries (Shelly 2008, 295). This is the moment when Frankenstein realizes the consequences of his obsession and says that it is better to stay within the limits as an unchecked individual ambition would lead Walton to a state like that of Frankenstein, death. This line is extremely interesting as it agrees with all the previous three books we have looked at, Plato’s Republic and the idea of Golden Mean and moderation, More’s Utopia and the idea of putting society before everything, and Milton’s Paradise Lost and that there need to be limited to the knowledge and actions of human beings.

While it might be said that a citizen of the Ideal State practically internalizes the idea that all their actions are for the benefit of the State and they are free in their own right as whatever they freely willed to do would be inherently beneficial to society. It strengthens the idea that it is the collective that matters.

After speaking with students over various issues like the meaning of ethics, the duty of life, and other things they enjoy about school. It takes a turn by one of the students lighting up a marijuana joint and offering it to Aristotle then follows by asking him his opinion on the major topic that has been up for debate for years. Aristotle then goes into detail and states why he doesn’t support marijuana and why it should not be legalized.

To begin, Aristotle believes a ‘good’ individual is one who reasons well, and who always acts on the best decisions. Aristotle’s best work was a book by the name of ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ which goes into deep detail and clarify what it means to be a ‘good’ individual. In Book 1, of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he states that satisfaction is the best good, and is the objective of an individual and of those wanting to be somebody of importance in society. He also states that joy is comprehended as both living great and progressing admirably, which leads to a ‘good’ individual. Also Aristotle States, that happiness is accomplished by indulging in activities that have a reason behind them. As indicated by Aristotle, being happy is the noblest feeling and is the ultimate objective for most people. This belief really contradicted other normal beliefs and philosophical speculations. Aristotle also comes to the conclusion that many people will experience happiness and after experiencing such a genuine feeling they will begin to participate in ‘good’ activities which will lead them to being ‘good’ individuals. A happy person is also a good person

Moreover, Aristotle is big about his theory of the Golden Mean. The Golden Mean is a scale for figuring out what is virtuous versus what is not. Aristotle’s work of the Golden Mean is viewed as one of the first major rational research works in the realm of an approach to improve human culture for further cheerful life and a long life fulfilled with persistent and continuses satisfaction. Moreover, Aristotle asserts that human society would be happy full-term if everyone would follow his theory of the Golden Mean in life. Moral conduct is the mean between the two limits in his Golden Mean idea, toward one side it is excess and at the other it is a deficiency. Aristotle accepts that many individuals who are ‘good’ person it might be easy to locate a moderate situation between these two limits, and when you do, you will act ethically. “Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives – choice, not chance, determines your destiny.” (Aristotle 1953) Aristotle believes the ultimate objective of life is to accomplish satisfaction, which will come from reasoning. A ‘good’ person would take in this viewpoint of the golden mean and choose virtuous activities.

In addition, Aristotle believes the main objective in life is happiness. “Happiness depends upon ourselves.” (Aristotle 1953). Happiness can be viewed as wealth, rounitenly participating in acts that bring happiness or it can be viewed as satisfying one’s individual pleasures. Aristotle expresses that ‘Happiness is an expression of the soul in considered actions’ (Aristotle 1953). Like I referenced before, the Golden Mean encapsulates Aristotle’s response to how satisfaction can be accomplished by an indivual. Aristotle feels that satisfaction should not be compared with material delight or even sexual delight. He states that satisfaction should to be the main objective of man, it is the ultimate objective. He believes that happiness must be accomplished by finding the correct harmony between the two boundaries.

Moreover, Aristotle is enthusiastic about virtues. Aristotle’s meaning of virtues expresses that it is “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” (Aristotle 1953) For Aristotle virtues is pure happiness, it is also categorized with human greatness and to become one, one must accomplish ‘righteousness’ but in this case they must accomplish virtues. Virtue ethics is a theory that Aristotle used to determine rather a moral choice was good or bad. It doesn’t depend on religion, society or even social beliefs it just relies upon the individuals themselves. This theory was initially presented in ancient Greek. Aristotle was an incredible believer to these virtues and the goal of virtues, to him it implied having the option to satisfy one’s happiness. Virtue ethics does not concern itself with the question of ‘What should I do?’ but it rotates around the inquiry ‘what kind of individual should I become?’ It has more to do with the character of an individual man, as opposed to with the rights and wrongs of one’s actions. Rather than concentrating on what is the ‘correct action’, virtue ethics asks you how one be a better individual overall. Aristotle states that the individuals who does lead a virtuous life are constantly upbeat and have a feeling of prosperity and growth in their life. This leads to happiness which is the main objective in life for many individuals. . Aristotle also demands that the virtues remain equivalent in every community just as the main viewpoint remains similar which is the long-term feeling of satisfaction. Aristotle also explains that all ‘good’ activities have indicualds trying to reach an ultimate goal. He also expresses that many daily things we do, we are also trying to reach some goal, rather it is going to school to acquire a degree or changing your eating habitats and start working out constantly to lose some weight. A more common example is getting up every morning to go to work, which leads to making money, then leads to feeding your family, then might also lead to going on family trips. The ultimate aim is to make yourself happy.

Moreover, the legalization over marijuana has been an ongoing debate for years. According to the statics recorded by the ‘Drug-Free World program 158.8 million people around the world use marijuana which is 3.8% of the planet’s population. Some of the population disapproves of the use of the drug and some approve of the use of the drug rather its for medical use or simply recreational use. The use of marijuana has been such a conservancy topic over many years.

Furthermore, the pros of marijuana are solely based on the drug’s medical benefits. Marijuana can be beneficial in curing chronic pain for patients. One patient explained how they were confined to their bed for years until their doctor introduced medical THC to them, after the patient using the medical marijuana a few times they saw an instant change in their pain severity. Also, studies show that the use of marijuana can restore an individual’s natural sleep cycle. Patients who struggle with insomnia have been recommended to using a small quality before bed. One patient stated that it has been a while since they have actually sleep throughout the night without being restless, until his first dosage of the drug. He states that it was the best sleep he has had in a year. Based on these reasons Artsistole would agree with the benefits but it still does not make one a virtuous person by distorting your mind so he would still not believe it should be legalized

Additionally, the cons of marijuana are pretty detrimental. In 2014, German researchers claimed one of the first known death directly caused by the constant use of marijuana. It was discovered during an autopsy of two young mean that had a long history with the drug that they had undetected heart problems caused by the heavy use of marijuana. Also, the use of marijuana can lead to serious respiratory systems issues and cause harm to the lungs, as reported by the Canadian Research Institution. Studies also show that marijuana users have been implicated in a number of automobile crashes and workplace accidents, due to it altering your senses. The last con of marijuana is that it can be very addictive and lead to a serious dependence on the drug and this will only increase with the legalization on the drug. For these various reasons, Aristotle’s agreement still sticks that the drug should not be legalized and he will not participate in the activities.

To conclude, after studying Aristotle’s beliefs, he rejects smoking the marijuana joint and he also does not believe that marijuana should not be legalized. If any action undermines or debases our judicious limits, at that point we have an ethical motive to stay away from that certain person or thing. This is why Aristotle would not participate in smoking marijuana. It shows that there is an ethical motivation to abstain from smoking pot because it manipulates one sense and thinking process. Any activity that degrades our rational thinking would should reframe from it. At some degree of utilization, Aristotle would encourage us to not smoke marijuana, because the altering it does to our mind.