Now that we have that, back to my thoughts on Rhodes' students. When I look at Rhodes I see three categories of students: those who get glory and recognition for doing phenomenal things, being incredibly genius, saving the world, etc.; those who get a different type of recognition for setting things on fire, selling drugs, or getting in serious and noticeable trouble with the administration; and finally those who fall in between those two extremes. In today's society, it seems that those of us who fall in between (the mean) are easily forgotten and can be seen as boring or simply mediocre (NOTICE: not necessarily reality, just how the majority of society appears to see it, or how we ourselves, as products of this society, have been raised to see it). Today, only the extremes are glorified and noticed in society while the in-betweeners are not note worthy. If using Aristotle's ideal of justice as this intermediate virtue that serves as an equilibrium, these "mean" people, though achieving this equilibrium in general terms, fall through the cracks unnoticed by their peers and superiors. Although Aristotle makes a good argument for how we should strive for justice in order to maintain happiness (75), can society today understand that happiness does not always come with being recognized and glorified? In today's society when the extremes seem to be a point of desire for many people and the mean merely a mediocre fence to be sat on, how do you motivate one to try and be virtuous in terms of Aristotle? Or is it necessary for this mean group to not be glorified in one extreme or the other, but rather does this non appreciated group understand more about virtues and justice by remaining "mediocre" in standards today?
Work Cited
Aristotle. "Aristotle, 'Justice,' from the Nicomachean Ethics." Justice. Ed. Jonathan Westphal. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 1996. 73-94.
I agree with your point concerning Aristotle’s definition of justice, but I do not believe it can be adequately applied to the example of mediocre citizens in society that you use. I say this because it is not an injustice to make selective decisions based on merit.
ReplyDeleteI believe Aristotle’s description of justice being the mean between two extremes should be used as a common public standard, such as education. The standard is for everyone to at least graduate from high school, and recognition is given to those who exceed this standard. With that being said, I agree with you that being average in today’s society is often frowned upon. While this may be the cause of many people to be overlooked for certain opportunities, it is simply the nature of the beast that we have created within today’s society. For creditable recognition one must achieve a status that distinguishes them from the masses. There is nothing wrong with being average, but one should not expect great recognition if they have not worked for it.
I agree with Stanton, that the situations being compared are not the same thing. Aristotle is comparing virtues, but society compares talent, motivation, and accomplishment. Believing that the mean is always the most desirable point is actually a logical fallacy (called the Golden Mean or argument to moderation), and is sometimes a problem when reading Aristotle.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether it is unjust for the "mean" group to be less desirable, is that not a just way to encourage the general populace to aspire to greater things? In addition, there are a multitude of perspectives in this world, and each of those views the "mean" as being and meaning something different. Thus those in the "mean" group must chose how they see themselves, and only after they do so will they achieve happiness.