choice, and the aristotalian mean
I talked about the issue of choice in one of the blogs I wrote yesterday.
Strangely, came across this thing called 'mean' principle, as introduced by Aristotle. Any activity taken on by humans can have too much of something, or too little of something, or just the right amount. The easiest example is salt in food, there can be too much, too little or just right.
I was pondering on 3 major issues, and how they can be addressed in a socio-political sense. Namely, the right of women to abort their babies, the right to have sex out of marriage, and the right to own a gun to protect one's family and oneself.
Giving this right to individuals, or taking this right away from them, appeared to both have their pros and cons. It seemed that the decision to allow or disallow individuals to exercise these rights were dependent on: a.) impacts of their decision on other humans -- with abortion, it appears to be the impact on the unborn child, and depriving its right to live; with guns it depended on the character of the gun owner, that person's mental health, moral standards; with sex out of marriage it appeared to depend on the harm caused by a break up of the relationship and the pain caused by the break of the sexual bond, and also on the potential of future partners to be affected by transmitted sexual diseases).
Having read on Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, I could not help but wonder how this paradigm could be applied to the politics of the three issues I was thinking about.
Take the issue of sex out of marriage.
The extreme negative consequence of this would be that sex between two people would result in the transmission of STDs, and cause great emotional pain to either or both partners in the case of a break up. The extreme positive consequence of this would be that when two people are given the choice of expressing their love through sex, their bond grows, and their monogamous union helps prevent the spread of sexual disease.
The aristotalian mean of this may be that both individuals are fully aware of the consequences of their sexual union, and take precautions to prevent disease, and also maintain a rational perception of their act, i.e. it may or may not lead to a life time partnership, and therefore, keep good check on the extent to which their emotions and expectations are engaged.
In the case of spread of disease, I beleive that two rational and educated people can take measures to prevent this.
Yet in the case of the emotional bond that results from sexual union, can these two people maintain 100% rationality? Is it human to be detached to that extent?
So, am still pondering.
Tomorrow, I will look at the issues of gun ownership and right to abort in the context of the aristotalian mean.
Strangely, came across this thing called 'mean' principle, as introduced by Aristotle. Any activity taken on by humans can have too much of something, or too little of something, or just the right amount. The easiest example is salt in food, there can be too much, too little or just right.
I was pondering on 3 major issues, and how they can be addressed in a socio-political sense. Namely, the right of women to abort their babies, the right to have sex out of marriage, and the right to own a gun to protect one's family and oneself.
Giving this right to individuals, or taking this right away from them, appeared to both have their pros and cons. It seemed that the decision to allow or disallow individuals to exercise these rights were dependent on: a.) impacts of their decision on other humans -- with abortion, it appears to be the impact on the unborn child, and depriving its right to live; with guns it depended on the character of the gun owner, that person's mental health, moral standards; with sex out of marriage it appeared to depend on the harm caused by a break up of the relationship and the pain caused by the break of the sexual bond, and also on the potential of future partners to be affected by transmitted sexual diseases).
Having read on Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, I could not help but wonder how this paradigm could be applied to the politics of the three issues I was thinking about.
Take the issue of sex out of marriage.
The extreme negative consequence of this would be that sex between two people would result in the transmission of STDs, and cause great emotional pain to either or both partners in the case of a break up. The extreme positive consequence of this would be that when two people are given the choice of expressing their love through sex, their bond grows, and their monogamous union helps prevent the spread of sexual disease.
The aristotalian mean of this may be that both individuals are fully aware of the consequences of their sexual union, and take precautions to prevent disease, and also maintain a rational perception of their act, i.e. it may or may not lead to a life time partnership, and therefore, keep good check on the extent to which their emotions and expectations are engaged.
In the case of spread of disease, I beleive that two rational and educated people can take measures to prevent this.
Yet in the case of the emotional bond that results from sexual union, can these two people maintain 100% rationality? Is it human to be detached to that extent?
So, am still pondering.
Tomorrow, I will look at the issues of gun ownership and right to abort in the context of the aristotalian mean.
Comments