NICOMACHEANETHICS(BOOKVII) 215
principle or first premise. A man who has this right opinion is self-controlled, and his
opposite is self-indulgent.
But there exists a kind of person who loses himself under the impact of emotion
and violates right reason, a person whom emotion so overpowers that he does not act
according to the dictates of right reason, but not sufficiently to make him the kind of
man who is persuaded that he must abandon himself completely to the pursuit of such
pleasures. This is the morally weak man: he is better than the self-indulgent, and he is
not bad in the unqualified sense of the word. For the best thing in him is saved: the prin-
ciple or premise [as to how he should act]. Opposed to him is another kind of man, who
remains steadfast and does not lose himself, at least not under the impact of emotion.
These considerations make it clear that moral strength is a characteristic of great moral
worth, while moral weakness is bad.
- Steadfastness in Moral Strength and Moral Weakness:Is a man morally strong
when he abides by any and every dictate of reason and choice, or only when he abides
by the right choice? And is a man morally weak when he does not abide by every choice
and dictate of reason, or only when he fails to abide by the rational dictate which is not
false and the choice which is right? This is the problem we stated earlier. Or is it true
reason and right choice as such, but any other kind of choice incidentally, to which the
one remains steadfast and the other does not? [This seems to be the correct answer,] for
if a person chooses and pursues the attainment of aby means of b,his pursuit and
choice are for aas such but for bincidentally. And by “as such” we mean “in the
unqualified sense.” Therefore, there is a sense in which the one abides by and the other
abandons any and every kind of opinion, but in the unqualified sense, only true opinion.
There are those who remain steadfast to their opinion and are called “obstinate.”
They are hard to convince and are not easily persuaded to change their mind. They bear
a certain resemblance to a morally strong person, just as an extravagant man resembles
one who is generous, and a reckless man resembles one who is confident. But they are,
in fact, different in many respects. The one, the morally strong, will be a person who
does not change under the influence of emotion and appetite, but on occasion he will be
persuaded [by argument]. Obstinate men, on the other hand, are not easily persuaded by
rational argument; but to appetites they are amenable, and in many cases are driven on
by pleasures. The various kinds of obstinate people are the opinionated, the ignorant,
and the boorish. The opinionated let themselves be influenced by pleasure and pain:
they feel the joy of victory, when someone fails to persuade them to change their mind,
and they feel pain when their views are overruled, like decrees that are declared null and
void. As a result, they bear a greater resemblance to the morally weak than to the
morally strong.
Then there are those who do not abide by their decisions for reasons other than
moral weakness, as, for example, Neoptolemus in Sophocles’Philoctetes.Granted it
was under the influence of pleasure that he did not remain steadfast, but it was a noble
pleasure: it was noble in his eyes to be truthful, but he was persuaded by Odysseus to
tell a lie. For not anybody who acts under the influence of pleasure is self-indulgent,
bad, or morally weak, but only those who do so under the influence of a base pleasure.
There is also a type who feels less joy than he should at the things of the body
and, therefore, does not abide by the dictates of reason. The median between this type
and the morally weak man is the man of moral strength. For a morally weak person does
not abide by the dictates of reason, because he feels more joy than he should [in bodily
things], but the man under discussion feels less joy than he should. But a morally strong
202530351151 b510152025