termined by Man’s reaction to events. That is, a person with true Moral Virtue will not only act correctly, but will not be unnerved or bothered by acting with Virtue. This is an important conception, as Happiness cannot be derived from a life consisting of acts contrary to the will. Thus, Aristotle feels it is very important that people understand their actions, and the motives behind them. Actions conducted with Virtue, therefore, should be acceptable to the reason, and bring happiness. The next point Aristotle considers more or less obvious, that Virtue should lie within the mean. Not just the absolute mean, either, but the relative mean with regard to the individual. He states that for each instance and every decision, the mean will vary. The only guide to us is that it should be obvious to a “man of practical wisdom,” or one who is wise. His point seems well established, though, as he brings out the examples of self-control, anger, truthfulness, and wealth. Certainly each of these has extremes in both degrees, and it seems reasonable to assume that either extreme of any of the cases is not to be a desired state. This leads to his summation of Virtue as “a state apt to exercise deliberate choice, being in the relative mean, determined by reason, and as the man of practical reason would determine.” All of these elements work together—each necessarily—to bring about the condition Aristotle calls Happiness. Taking a specific case in point, it might be asked whether a man like Thomas Jefferson could be considered both Happy and Virtuous in light of his owning slaves. The issue can be taken from several views: Did Jefferson act in moderation with regard to slavery? Did Jefferson act according to custom? (Which may or may not be a valid defense in light of Aristotle’s conception of who would fall under the sphere of moral theory) Did the slaves even have the ability to be Happy, given their...
