In these then you never can go right, but must always
be wrong: nor in such does the right or wrong
depend on the selection of a proper person, time,
or manner (take adultery for instance), but simply
doing any one soever of those things is being wrong.
You might as well require that there should be determined
a mean state, an excess and a defect in respect of
acting unjustly, being cowardly, or giving up all
control of the passions: for at this rate there
will be of excess and defect a mean state; of excess,
excess; and of defect, defect.
But just as of perfected self-mastery and courage
there is no excess and defect, because the mean is
in one point of view the highest possible state, so
neither of those faulty states can you have a mean
state, excess, or defect, but howsoever done they
are wrong: you cannot, in short, have of excess
and defect a mean state, nor of a mean state excess
and defect.
It is not enough, however, to state this in general
terms, we must also apply it to particular instances,
because in treatises on moral conduct general statements
have an air of vagueness, but those which go into
detail one of greater reality: for the actions
after all must be in detail, and the general statements,
to be worth anything, must hold good here.
We must take these details then from the Table.
I. In respect of fears and confidence or boldness:
[Sidenote: 1107b]
The Mean state is Courage: men may exceed, of
course, either in absence of fear or in positive confidence:
the former has no name (which is a common case), the
latter is called rash: again, the man who has
too much fear and too little confidence is called
a coward.
II. In respect of pleasures and pains (but not
all, and perhaps fewer pains than pleasures):
The Mean state here is perfected Self-Mastery, the
defect total absence of Self-control. As for
defect in respect of pleasure, there are really no
people who are chargeable with it, so, of course, there
is really no name for such characters, but, as they
are conceivable, we will give them one and call them
insensible.
III. In respect of giving and taking wealth (a):
The mean state is Liberality, the excess Prodigality,
the defect Stinginess: here each of the extremes
involves really an excess and defect contrary to each
other: I mean, the prodigal gives out too much
and takes in too little, while the stingy man takes
in too much and gives out too little. (It must be
understood that we are now giving merely an outline
and summary, intentionally: and we will, in a
later part of the treatise, draw out the distinctions
with greater exactness.)
IV. In respect of wealth (b):
There are other dispositions besides these just mentioned;
a mean state called Munificence (for the munificent
man differs from the liberal, the former having necessarily
to do with great wealth, the latter with but small);
the excess called by the names either of Want of taste
or Vulgar Profusion, and the defect Paltriness (these
also differ from the extremes connected with liberality,
and the manner of their difference shall also be spoken
of later).
