What is the Golden Mean in Philosophy? The Aristotelian tool for finding character, but not for finding truth6 min read
The Golden Mean is a sliding scale for determining what is virtuous. Aristotle believed that being morally good meant striking a balance between two vices. You could have a vice of excess or one of deficiency.
This is known as Virtue Ethics. It places the emphasis on high character and not on duty or seeking good consequences. So, true courage would be a balance between too much courage, recklessness, and too little courage, cowardice. A person is courageous out of practice rather than duty or to produce some desired effect. The Golden Mean is a means of assisting a person in practicing good character as they strive to make it second nature.
Aristotle believed that the good life lived from exercising capacity to reason. Practicing virtue is a practice of intellectual reason. Aristotle did not promote virtue in itself as being ethical though. He wrote that the study of ethics is not precise. So, modern virtue ethicists believe that a good ethical theory is necessarily imprecise. Rather than giving precise rules as in the case of deontology and utilitarianism. These are two competing ethical theories.
Striking a balance in certain situations may be warranted. This can be a good exercise in heuristics. But using this as a standard of measure for determining the truth between two things can actually lead to a logical fallacy.
When the tool becomes a problem.
In politics, we see a problem manifest in how Americans typically think of the political spectrum. In theology, we might see this as a balance between two doctrines. This is known as the Middle Ground fallacy. It presumes that the truth is simply a matter of finding the balance between two extremes.
In politics, it would be wrong to say that the best political stance is halfway between Democrats and Republicans. In theology, it would be fallacious to say that the best understanding of God’s Law is to obey certain laws and ignore others.
The Middle Ground fallacy is erroneous for two reasons:
1. it presumes that a situation can only be understood under two false extremes.
2. the truth is a matter of making the two false extremes work together.
A philosophical argument can only be sound if it’s premises are true and a valid argument is formed. So the Golden Mean functions as a tool of virtue because it’s two extremes are necessarily true. It is true recklessness is an excess of courage, and it is true that cowardice is a deficiency of courage. However, if we say that two ideas are both wrong, and the truth is in the middle, then we aren’t employing the tool of the Golden Mean. Instead, we’re using the false reasoning of the Middle Ground Fallacy.
Resources & Further Reading
Thanks for reading my post! Add your thoughts and comments by contacting me below, or you can interact with me and my patrons by becoming a premium member at patreon.com/kerrybaldwin.
In lieu of a comments section
I welcome and encourage your thoughts, comments, and questions through email.
This is the third in a series evaluating Gary North’s book, Christian Economics in One Lesson. North’s work is a spin-off of Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, which is itself based on Frederic Bastiat’s analogy of the broken window. Before reading...
• Podcast Subscribe • and give a five-star rating and review so new audiences can find Mere Liberty. Frederic Bastiat was a man known for "triggering" his philosophical rivals. In a debate, his opponent declared, "Your intelligence...
• Podcast Subscribe • and give a five-star rating and review so new audiences can find Mere Liberty. World War II ended in 1945, but it didn’t end the economic and political fallout. This was the year of Winston Churchill’s famous...