(Previous: Eudemian Ethics II.4.)
Excellence is assumed to be the sort of trait from which arises the ability to do what is best and which guides one to being oriented in the finest way toward what is best, where what's best and finest is directed by straight-and-true thinking, which is the middle way in relation to us between going too far and falling short. Thus in each case excellence of character must be a midpoint and is all about some middle way in pleasures and pains as well as things that are pleasant and things that are painful. The midpoint will sometimes exist in pleasures (that is, between going too far and falling short), sometimes in pains, and sometimes both. For the person who goes too far in being delighted goes too far in pleasures and the person who goes too far in being pained goes too far in the opposite direction, and this either full stop or in relation to some boundary marker - for instance, not doing as most people do, whereas the good person does as one should.
Since there is no specific trait as a result of having which a person will in some situations display a tendency to go too far and in others to fall short, it must be that, just as these extremes are opposed to each other and to the middle way, so also the associated traits are opposed to each other and to excellence. Yet it can happen that while sometimes all the oppositions are plain to see, at other times the oppositions lean more toward going too far or to falling short. Because the distance from or nearness to the middle way is not always the same, in some cases one passes more easily to the middle trait from that of going too far and in other cases from that of falling short, so that the one which is farther removed seems to be the more opposed. For instance, with regard to the body, going too far in exercising is healthier than falling short and more akin to the middle way, whereas falling short in eating is healthier and more akin to the middle way than going too far. Thus also the traits of commitment to being passionate about exercise and health will vary depending on the domain of choice involved: in the first case those more prone to much exercise, in the second those more prone to withstanding privation; that is, in the first case the person who exercises not at all is opposed to due measure, to what straight-and-true thinking urges, and to the other two characters, whereas in the second case it is the pleasure-seeking person and not the person who goes hungry. This happens because right from birth our nature is not equidistant from the middle way in all cases: we are not fond of exercise but instead seek pleasure.
Likewise with personhood: we set down as opposed to due measure and what straight-and-true thinking urges the trait through which we and most people are more likely to go astray, whereas the other trait escapes our notice as if it didn't exist (it goes unnoticed because it's rare). For instance, rage is opposed to mildness and the belligerent to the mild, yet one can also go too far in being kindly and conciliatory and not getting angry when attacked. But such people are rare, since everyone inclines more in the opposite direction, which is why anger is vengeful.
At this point we have grasped an enumeration of the traits that go too far and fall short in relation to each of the feelings, as well as the traits opposed to these through which people are directed by straight-and-true thinking. (As to what straight-and-true thinking is, along with the standard to which we should look in saying what the middle way is, we will investigate this later.) Thus it is plain that all the excellences and deficiencies of character are matters of going too far and falling short about pleasures and pains, and that these pleasures and pains arise from the traits and feelings we have mentioned. But in each case the best trait is the middle way; clearly, then, the excellences - either all of them or some of them - will be matters of the midpoints.
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION