Category: Nicomachean Ethics

It is extremely hard to avoid the attractions of worldly pleasures in today’s world. There are many distractions that can deviate us from our goal of happiness. According to Aristotle, temperance is necessary for happiness because balance indulgence and insensibility. I intend to explain why temperance is problematic, and extremely hard to achieve in terms of Aristotle’s definition. Throughout the course of this paper, I will analyze some of the key concepts Aristotle believes are necessary for temperance. Furthermore, there will be explanation as to why these views are contradictory to his beliefs throughout Nicomachean Ethics.

Temperance is necessary in decision making because it acts as a barrier for our personal desires. We must have temperance in everything we do, in order to make proper decisions. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes temperance as the ability to abstain from being excessive or defective regarding our pleasures and emotions. In other words, it is the restrictive nature that occurs when we attempt to avoid certain things. When analyzing the importance of temperance, we must first acknowledge how important it is in the daily facets of our lives. As soon as we wake up in the morning, we are cited with decisions that require some type of thought process. Furthermore, we must understand that temperance is a result of all the virtues properly aligning. One cannot have temperance and exhibit the character of a coward. We must also understand that temperance, and other virtues are not inherently given to us as a trait. He compares this to teaching a rock to roll upwards. Virtues like temperance are developed through the situations and experiences we go through.

One of the questions we must first ask is how temperance can be achieved. He states that in order to achieve temperance, we must perform temperate acts. This must be an action that is not excessive or deficient. Temperate acts are accomplished when we do not indulge ourselves in pleasure. If we can achieve this without pain, then we are temperate. But how often do we avoid our desires without pain?

On the other hand, one could argue that Aristotle addresses this by saying that the temperate man may exhibit some type of pain when refuting pleasurable desire. True temperance is described as making the right decision through habitual thought. It is not a decision led by desire, therefore there is no struggle in the action. To validate this, we can explain some daily situations that we do out of habit, with no thought of being indulgent or insensible.

So, if we may exhibit some pain, although we make the right decision, is this true temperance? The question arises of how we can be truly temperate if we still experience the exact thing Aristotle tells us inhibits true temperance. Aristotle supports this by referring to the person who avoids indulgence, and experiences pain as a continent person (Morse). True temperance seems nearly impossible to achieve, for we will always struggle to resist out pleasures. It is in our nature to desire so continence must suffice.

Temperance is not actually possible in Aristotle’s terms. To be truly temperate we must concern ourselves first with the other virtues Aristotle explains. Aristotle’s description of how we can achieve temperance is quite confusing and contradictory, as described previously. It must be acknowledged that continence is possible, and much more realistic for us to achieve. We are judged by the acts we commit, not the acts we think of. A continent man still makes the makes right decision, even if he is pained.

All human activities aim at some end that we consider good. Most activities are a means to a higher end. The highest human good, then, is that activity that is an end in itself. That good is happiness. When we aim at happiness, we do so for its own sake, not because happiness helps us realize some other end. The goal of the Ethics is to determine how best to achieve happiness. This study is necessarily imprecise, since so much depends on particular circumstances.

Happiness depends on living in accordance with appropriate virtues. Virtue is a disposition rather than an activity. That is, a virtuous person is naturally disposed to behave in the right ways and for the right reasons, and to feel pleasure in behaving rightly. Virtue is a mean state between the extremes of excess and deficiency. This mean varies from person to person, so there are no hard and fast rules as to how best to avoid vice.

Only voluntary actions are praiseworthy or blameworthy. We can define voluntary action as any action that originates in the agent and not in some outside force like a push or a stumble. There are borderline cases, however, as when someone is compelled to behave dishonorably under severe threat. Voluntary action is characterized by rational deliberation and choice, where the agent determines the best course of action by reasoning how best to achieve desirable ends.

One by one, Aristotle discusses the various moral virtues and their corresponding vices. Courage consists of confidence in the face of fear. Temperance consists of not giving in too easily to the pleasures of physical sensation. Liberality and magnificence consist of giving away varying amounts of money in appropriate and tasteful ways. Magnanimity and proper ambition consist of having the right disposition toward honor and knowing what is one’s due. Patience is the appropriate disposition toward anger, though it is sometimes appropriate to show some degree of anger. The three social virtues of amiability, sincerity, and wit make for pleasant and engaging interaction with others. Modesty is not properly a virtue, but an appropriate disposition toward shame, which is admirable in the young.

Justice in a sense encompasses all the other virtues, since being just consists of exhibiting virtue generally. In human affairs, there are two primary forms of justice: distributive and rectificatory. Distributive justice deals with the distribution of wealth or honors among a group of people and should be given according to merit. Rectificatory justice deals with exchanges between two or more people and should always aim at restoring a sense of balance and equality between the people concerned. It is impossible to treat oneself unjustly or to suffer injustice willingly. While the laws are a good guideline, they do not cover every particular case. On occasion, agreed-upon equity must settle cases that the laws do not.

While the moral virtues dispose us to behave in the correct manner, it is necessary also to have the right intellectual virtues in order to reason properly about how to behave. There are five intellectual virtues. Three of them—scientific knowledge, intuition, and wisdom—consist of contemplative reasoning, which is detached from human affairs. The other two—art or technical skill and prudence—consist of calculative reasoning, which helps us make our way in the world. Prudence is the intellectual virtue that helps us reason properly about ethical matters.

Incontinence is a peculiar form of badness. Unlike vice, incontinence does not involve willing bad behavior. Rather, it consists of knowing what is good but lacking the self-control to do good. Incontinence is not as bad as vice, since it is partially involuntary.

There are three kinds of friendship: friendship based on utility, friendship based on pleasure, and friendship based on goodness of character. The first two kinds of friendship are based on superficial qualities, so these sorts of friendship are not generally long lasting. Friendship based on goodness of character is the best kind of friendship, because these friends love one another for who they are and not for what they stand to gain from one another. Friendship generally exists between equals, though there are cases, like the father-son relationship, which rely on unequal exchanges.

Political institutions rely on friendly feelings between citizens, so friendship and justice are closely connected. There are three forms of constitution based on different kinds of relationships. Of the three, monarchy is preferable to aristocracy or timocracy.

Ideally, our feelings for our friends should reflect our feelings for ourselves. Self-love is more important than friendship, since only people who treat themselves with appropriate care and respect can achieve proper virtue and happiness. Though a happy person is theoretically self-sufficient, friendship is an important and essential aspect of the good life.

Pleasure accompanies and perfects our activities. A good person will feel pleasure in doing good things. The highest good of all is rational contemplation. A life that consists exclusively of contemplation is obviously impossible, but we should aim to approximate this ideal as closely as possible. The practical sciences, then, help us find the right path toward this highest good and help us deal with the practical matters of everyday life that inevitably occupy a great deal of our time and attention.

The word happiness in the Ethics is a translation of the Greek term eudaimonia, which carries connotations of success and fulfillment. For Aristotle, this happiness is our highest goal. However, Aristotle does not say that we should aim at happiness, but rather that we do aim at happiness. His goal in the Ethics is not to tell us that we ought to live happy, successful lives, but to tell us what this life consists of. Most people think of happiness as physical pleasure or honor, but this is because they have an imperfect view of the good life.

The conception people have of happiness frequently does not line up with true happiness because people are generally deficient in virtue. Virtue is a disposition to behave in the right manner, which is inculcated from a young age. A person with the virtue of courage, for instance, will not only show confidence in the face of fear, but will think of this courage as a good thing. Behaving courageously will make the virtuous person happy and will be one part of living a generally good life. By contrast, a person who has been poorly brought up and exhibits the vice of cowardice will find happiness in the avoidance of danger and thus will have an imperfect view of the good life.

A question of high importance in any investigation of ethics is how we can teach people to be good. Aristotle is quite clear that he does not think virtue can be taught in a classroom or by means of argument. His Ethics, then, is not designed to make people good, but rather to explain what is good, why it is good, and how we might set about building societies and institutions that might inculcate this goodness.

According to Aristotle, virtue is something learned through constant practice that begins at a young age. We might understand his outlook better if we recognize the meaning of the word arete, which is rendered as “virtue” in most English translations. This term more generally means “excellence,” so a good horseman can exhibit arete in horsemanship without necessarily implying any sort of moral worth in the horseman. It should be obvious to anyone that excellence in horsemanship cannot be learned simply by reading about horsemanship and hearing reasoned arguments for how best to handle a horse. Becoming a good horseman requires steady practice: one learns to handle a horse by spending a lot of time riding horses.

For Aristotle, there is no essential distinction between the kind of excellence that marks a good horseman and the kind of excellence that marks a good person generally. Both kinds of excellence require practice first and theoretical study second, so the teaching of virtue can be only of secondary importance after the actual practice of it.

One of the most famous aspects of the Ethics is Aristotle’s doctrine that virtue exists as a mean state between the vicious extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, the virtuous mean of courage stands between the vices of rashness and cowardice, which represent excess and deficiency respectively.

For Aristotle, this is not a precise formulation. Saying that courage is a mean between rashness and cowardice does not mean that courage stands exactly in between these two extremes, nor does it mean that courage is the same for all people. Aristotle repeatedly reminds us in the Ethics that there are no general laws or exact formulations in the practical sciences. Rather, we need to approach matters case by case, informed by inculcated virtue and a fair dose of practical wisdom.

Aristotle’s claim that virtue can be learned only through constant practice implies that there are no set rules we can learn and then obey. Instead, virtue consists of learning through experience what is the mean path, relative to ourselves, between the vices we may be liable to stumble into.

For Aristotle, virtue is an all-or-nothing affair. We cannot pick and choose our virtues: we cannot decide that we will be courageous and temperate but choose not to be magnificent. Nor can we call people properly virtuous if they fail to exhibit all of the virtues.

Though Aristotle lists a number of virtues, he sees them all as coming from the same source. A virtuous person is someone who is naturally disposed to exhibit all the virtues, and a naturally virtuous disposition exhibits all the virtues equally.

Our word ethics descends from the Greek word ethos, which means more properly “character.” Aristotle’s concern in the Ethics, then, is what constitutes a good character. All the virtues spring from a unified character, so no good person can exhibit some virtues without exhibiting them all.

Aristotle devotes two of the ten books of the Ethics to discussing friendship in all its forms. This is hardly a digression from the main line of argument. Happiness, according to Aristotle, is a public affair, not a private one, so with whom we share this happiness is of great significance.

The city-states of ancient Greece were tightly knit communities. In the Politics, Aristotle argues that we cannot fully realize our human nature outside the bounds of a Greek city-state. The bonds that tie citizens together are so important that it would be unthinkable to suggest that true happiness can be found in the life of a hermit.

In Book X, Aristotle ultimately concludes that contemplation is the highest human activity. This is largely a consequence of his teleological view of nature, according to which the telos, or goal, of human life is the exercise of our rational powers. In discussing the various intellectual virtues, Aristotle extols wisdom as the highest, since it deals only with unchanging, universal truths and rests on a synthesis of scientific investigation and the intuitive understanding of the first principles of nature. The activity of wisdom is contemplation, so contemplation must be the highest activity of human life.

“All laws are a social construct”. How would Aristotle respond to this statement?

Aristotle would argue that all laws are a social construct due to providing a guideline for society to follow and benefit from, he expresses his judgement on social construct through his types of laws in his book called “Nicomachean Ethics”, the connection and influence the justice system has on the political community in his second book “Politics”, and that without a community of citizens to govern in a state, laws would not have been created to begin with.[footnoteRef:0] The purpose law serves in a state is to create equality, order, and peace within the community. In Aristotle’s perspective, mankind are meant to socialize and form polity’s, however, this may be difficult to achieve without a form of authority and jurisdiction governing citizens of the state.[footnoteRef:1] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, social construct examines the development of society’s values and represents these beliefs within the form of institutions.[footnoteRef:2] It is a construct of mutual beliefs that are agreed upon in hopes of creating laws that can reflect the community expectations. Social construction helps build knowledge of our society and develops institutions to help the way of life.[footnoteRef:3] Aristotle believes that the good of the city is a greater priority than the situation of one individual because the polity must be preserved for the city and the generations to come. This proposition would not become possible without the social construction of laws within the polity’s justice system. Without society’s obedience and influence on law, there would be no value given to the rules created therefore making these laws ineffective. The same idea goes for universal laws, even if the individual’s understanding is based on their morals and idea of what is considered to be right and wrong, these laws would not exist without the citizen’s involvement and cooperation.[footnoteRef:4] Although every individual is born with a moral trait, they are not born with a legal trait that provides an idea of what actions are acceptable in society and which are not. For this reason, a legal system needs to be constructed to guide the citizens of a state.[footnoteRef:5] The justification behind the social construction of laws will be expressed through one of the main types of laws Aristotle believes exist, which include the virtuous laws also known as Universal law.[footnoteRef:6] The second primary type of law is Particular, this category is separated into three different categories that serve different purposes in the justice system. The first type of law within Particular Justice is distributive which is the division of goods and services amongst civilians on behalf of the state.[footnoteRef:7] Then the Corrective or also known as Remedial law aims to restore an equal amount in value of what was taken.[footnoteRef:8] For instance, if you’re giving someone $200 worth of jewelry, that person must reciprocate the gift with something they give that has an equal amount of value or quantity. Aristotle justifies his judgment through his types of laws in his book called “Nicomachean Ethics”, the connection and influence the justice system has on the political community in his second book “Politics”, and without the social construction of a community of citizens to govern in a state, laws would not have been created to begin with.[footnoteRef:9] [0: ] [1: ] [2:] [3:] [4: ] [5: ] [6: ] [7: ] [8: ] [9: ]

Aristotle recognizes two main types of laws which support the belief that all laws are a social construct. These consist of Universal and Particular justice. He believes that Universal Justice is the general base for natural law and that it is a part of human nature as it reflects the shared morals and values of mankind. It is the basic understanding of laws that most communities would enforce and practice in their justice systems.[footnoteRef:10] It is the rule of law that is built on virtuous behavior.[footnoteRef:11] Although many individuals may be born with a moral compass, that does not necessarily mean they have an idea of what is right and wrong. Morals are often developed and shaped by the environment an individual is raised in. If a child is raised in a negative environment they may begin to develop a different idea of what is just and unjust therefore resulting in behavior that can cause conflict in the community. This would contradict the purpose of why laws were created for society in the first place. Since Universal Laws are associated with an individual’s virtue, it is based on acting just in society for the pure basis of being honorable to one’s self and state.[footnoteRef:12] Some people may suggest this form of law is the only type that can be viewed as a contradiction to the statement that “all laws are a social construct”. [10: ] [11: ] [12: ]

However, even though it is based off of an individual’s morals, it does not change the fact that the laws made based on these beliefs are collectively held views in which influenced the formation of all laws.

Particular Justice branches off into three different categories, they are known as distributive, corrective/remedial, and commercial laws.[footnoteRef:13] These are the laws that are known to be socially constructed to fit the community one identifies with. Each branch serves a purpose in society to form an organized, just society. Distributive laws consist of the division of wealth, honors and goods among the citizens. It can consist of money, property and political office positions.[footnoteRef:14] The belief behind this law is to distribute equally amongst society and provide a type of “good” to every citizen. Distributive law can cause dissatisfaction within the community it is administered in because there is an equal distribution of goods but not an equal division of effort in accordance to the fact that it does not matter if an individual is not performing their best results because they will still receive a benefit of goods from the state due to the distribution theory of law.[footnoteRef:15] This type of justice can also result in other individuals taking more than their fair share at the expense of another individual. It can createinjustice among society and is why the corrective laws were created. Corrective laws can be seen as a form of today’s criminal and civil law.[footnoteRef:16] They ensure that individuals who have suffered an injustice within the system are retributed for. This law was created in hopes of decreasing the number of injustices caused to restore the peace and order within a community. The last type of law within Particular Justice is called Recipricol law. The concept behind this law is to return the favor to any individual that provides you with something of value, with an equal amount of worth.[footnoteRef:17] These laws are considered to be socially constructed due to the meaning society gave when enforcing the mutually shared views into law.[footnoteRef:18] All three laws have a similar objective as to creating equality throughout the community since distribution aims to give everyone a fair share of goods, remedial laws objective is to provide justice to the individual who has experienced inequality and through reciprocal law, to equally treat the individual back with something of similar value to return the favor they recieved.[footnoteRef:19] [13: ] [14: ] [15: ] [16: ] [17: ] [18: ] [19: ]

Aristotle believes that the justice system and rule of law exist to serve not only the state and society but also the political community.[footnoteRef:20] The following quote in Aristotle’s book of Politics supports the argument that “all laws are a social construct” because every law that is made for the justice system is constructed to serve as a guideline in society. “But justice is a political matter; for justice is the organization of a political community, and justice decides what is just”. [footnoteRef:21]Aristotle would suggest laws are a social construct because he believes justice started as a political matter which leads to the organization of the justice system because a state and laws influence one another.[footnoteRef:22] It helps provide individuals a moral guideline of what’s right and wrong, therefore, resulting in an organized and successful community. If laws were not created and instilled in institutions that can enforce justice there would be no order in society and individuals who believed their idea of what is just and unjust would act out and lead to a catastrophic society.[footnoteRef:23] [20: ] [21: ] [22: ] [23: ]

“a city-state is among the things that exist by nature, that a human being is by nature a political animal, and that anyone who is without a city-state, not by luck but by nature, is either a poor specimen or else superhuman.”[footnoteRef:24] [24: ]

Aristotle believes that humans are born politically inclined and that it is in human nature for them to participate. Living among a community is also in our human nature as socializing and companionships are what every individual need.[footnoteRef:25] However, there cannot be a city-state or community that consists of authority without a justice system that is socially constructed by the people who identify within the state.[footnoteRef:26] [25: ] [26: ]

The previous quote also states that even if basic laws are within our nature, they only exist in communities that have an idea of what a justice system is and have developed similar morals concerning what’s right and wrong.[footnoteRef:27] So if an individual is not within an environment that naturally has a concept of laws, they will not have a justice system because all laws are made for social construct and made to guide society and states.[footnoteRef:28] [27: ] [28: ]

Humankind is meant to be social and create communities so they are bound to naturally follow a basic number of rules, but even if they are not established laws they are a good example as to why all laws are to be considered a social construct from Aristotle’s point of view.[footnoteRef:29] A social construct is an entity that a community of people agree on and give value to because it is required for a society to function successfully.[footnoteRef:30] The following quote will explain Aristotle’s opinion on humankind and the development of city-states. [29: ] [30: ]

“Hence that the city- state is natural and prior in nature to the individual is clear. For if an individual is not self-sufficient when separated, he will be like all other parts in relation to the whole. Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient, is no part of a city-state—he is either a beast or a god.”[footnoteRef:31] [31: ]

The quote listed above describes what Aristotle thinks about humans forming communities and finding companionship. He believes that laws cannot be socially constructed without the development of a state and people.[footnoteRef:32] No law has any meaning if there is not a group of people it is meant to target and guide. Laws are relevant because the states and groups of people gathered together giving it meaning and implementing it into their daily lives.[footnoteRef:33] Social construction only exists within the result of human interactions and would not be a part of reality if the people did not believe in the laws.[footnoteRef:34] [32: ] [33: ] [34: ]

In summary, Aristotle would agree that all laws are a social construct, while there are different interpretations in regards to whether his form of universal and natural law would be a social contract, his books “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics” provide a sufficient amount of evidence within the quotes to proves his argument otherwise. Aristotle advocates types of laws that are socially constructed appropriately for the societies collectively held views and would benefit the state greatly.[footnoteRef:35][35: ]

Bibliography:

1. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Massachusetts: Hackett Publishing Company, 2011.
2. Aristotle. Politics. Massachusetts: Hackett Publishing Company, 2011.
3. Mallon, R. (2019, January 11). Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction. Retrieved October 29, 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-construction-naturalistic/#WhaSocCon.
4. Social Construct. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social construct.

Aristotle was born around 384 BC in the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia where his father was the royal doctor. He grew up to reach a state where one could say that he is indeed the most influential philosopher to have ever lived with nicknames like the philosopher or the master. Aristotle worked with Plato for a period then he ventured on his own and established a little school called the Lyceum. Many of his books are actually lecture notes and one of the most important books that he wrote is the Nicomachean ethics. As the title indicates Aristotle is concerned with laying out a set of ethics, however instead of simply giving people a set of rules and how they should behave; he focuses on the type of people they should become. He is actually trying to provide the reader with practical advice here not just philosophy. {https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/the-great-philosophers-aristotle/}

In book two of the Nicomachean ethics, he talks about the nature of virtue ethics and he suggests that all good and successful people have some plain virtues and proposed that we should get better at pinpointing these virtues so that we can nurture them in ourselves and honor them in others. Aristotle also observes that every virtue seems to be situated in the middle of two vices and it occupies what he termed the golden mean which is a perfectly balanced between two extremes of character “one involving excess (and) the other deficiency”. {Aristotle 32} However, he states that there are some exceptions and one should not mix up this talk about the golden mean in virtue ethics and generalize it to whatever sort of thing we want to talk about.

Aristotle says that there are some things some actions and some emotions, which do not admit to any sort of virtuous mean. They are bad, morally defective by their very nature and there is no way of making them into something good. He says that the very names of some of them imply evil, deficiency, or badness in some sense and it is not possible to go right with regard to them. They may be brought into some sort of a situation where socially we could use them to get certain things done that might lead to some sort of good but in the person themselves they are a bad thing period. Moreover, it does not matter in certain respects how much of it one has or who one feels it towards; it is still a bad thing and it is a worse thing of course if one has more of it.

To support his claim he gives an example of such emotions and the first one that he starts talking about is Malice {Epikhairekakia}, which literary means setting your hands to wickedness, setting your hands to badness or setting your hands to vice and this is great example of what has been mentioned earlier that the badness of an emotion is integrated in its very name. When we talk about somebody being malicious in terms of their emotions, we mean that they have a drive for doing bad things or harming people just for the sake of doing it or for pleasure, not even necessarily to get anything tangible out of it.

Shamelessness or Anaiskhuntia is another example of an emotion that is bad in its very nature. Shamelessness in English is ordinarily taken to be the antonym of shame, which is a kind of fear felt about one’s social image or reputation being in some way damaged or tarnished, and this feeling of shame is not just felt in relation to other people but also in relation to oneself. However, Aristotle sees things differently when it comes to shame for he says that Shame stems not from the contemplation of loss of reputation or honor in the “abstract, but from specific acts or events that bring about disgrace for example throwing away one’s shield or fleeing; for they come from cowardice. Also confiscating a deposit, or wronging someone; for they come from unjustness. And sleeping with the wrong people, or those who are related for they come from sensuality”. {Konstan 101} And based on this Shamelessness, as Aristotle clarifies “does not seem to be a distinct emotion that is shame’s opposite, but rather a lack of feeling or insensibility /Apatheid/ in respect to the kinds of ills that arouse shame.” {Konstan 100}

Another emotion, which cannot be seen as good is Envy. According to Aristotle Envy is never good and there is no way of making it into something good at all. An envious person is aroused at the sight of goods that somebody else enjoys but instead of being happy that they enjoy them, he feels pain because they are not his and Aristotle thinks that this is something, which is fundamentally bad.

On the opposite side of things, Aristotle introduces another set of emotions, which are good by their very nature, and are indeed signs of good character. One of these emotions is what we translate typically as Emulation and it is a kind of pain that we feel when somebody else enjoys something good we wish we had so it looks like envy but it is not because the pain in this case is not accompanied by ill-wishes but with a recognition that we still have some work to do before we can enjoy the fruits of our labor. For example when one starts out in a profession, he sees people who are higher up in position and in a very good condition which might bother the person and make him wish to be like that so he starts working hard in an attempt to get to where they are and have what they have.

Another Emotion which is good by its very nature is pity which in its broad term can also mean compassion or sympathy and it consists of feeling pain at another person’s undeserved pain or suffering. The person who feels pity is always troubled when he sees people being hurt, being put down or being injured and he has a need to intervene or help in any way possible to stop that harm from happening.

Towards the end of book two of the Nicomachean ethics, after Aristotle listed off the various virtues and their opponent vices, he talks about another exception to the golden mean of virtue ethics. This exception is related to emotions that can themselves be arranged in relation to each other where one would be the mean state as opposed to other states that would be the extremes. And to back up this argument Aristotle introduces a spectrum between three different Emotions {feelings} and they are Envy, Righteous indignation and Malice. Of course, the extremes in this spectrum would be Malice and Envy since they are inherently bad emotions as we discussed earlier, so the mean state in this layout is Righteous indignation {Nemesis}, which means feeling upset, feeling pain or becoming irritated at somebody who is enjoying a fortune which he does not deserve. Righteous indignation is not like Envy; it is not bad because it is kind of setting things right by taking actions against those who got away with what they shouldn’t have gotten away with like the bank robber who is enjoying his fortune and never get caught or a killer who got away with murder and so on. Therefore, when Righteous indignation occurs we think of that as kind of poetic justice and we feel a sense of things being set the way they ought to be. Therefore, “nemesis is a curiously complex emotion, involving both a painful and a pleasurable response to states that may be either good or bad: pleasurable if they are deserved, otherwise painful.” {Konstan 115} In addition, Aristotle points out that the feeling of nemesis in a certain way contributes to the virtue of justice – it does not automatically lead to it but it kind of leads the way- and on the opposite hand the other extremes on the scale like Envy and Malice lead the way to injustice.

Finally, we can say that all these emotions – the ones that are bad by their very own nature like envy and malice and the ones that are good like Emulation and Pity – are part of our moral existence as human beings. And these emotions whether we feel them, how much we feel them or who we feel them in relation to are quite important and should not be overlooked. After all, they are all tied with our moral life and with how we evaluate other people whether they deserve to have pleasure, deserve to have pain, deserve good fortune or deserve bad fortune and so on.