216 ARISTOTLE
man remains steadfast and does not change on either account. Since moral strength is
good, it follows that both characteristics opposed to it are bad, as they in fact turn out to
be. But since one of the two opposites is in evidence only in a few people and on few
occasions, moral strength is generally regarded as being the only opposite of moral
weakness, just as self-control is thought to be opposed only to self-indulgence.
Since many terms are used in an analogical sense, we have come to speak analog-
ically of the “moral strength” of a self-controlled man. [There is a resemblance between
the two] since a morally strong man is the kind of person who does nothing contrary to
the dictates of reason under the influence of bodily pleasures, and the same is true of a
self-controlled man. But while a morally strong man has base appetites, a self-controlled
man does not and is, moreover, a person who finds no pleasure in anything that violates
the dictates of reason. A morally strong man, on the other hand, does find pleasure in
such things, but he is not driven by them. There is also a similarity between the morally
weak and the self-indulgent in that both pursue things pleasant to the body; but they are
different in that a self-indulgent man thinks he ought to pursue them, while the morally
weak thinks he should not.- Moral Weakness and Practical Wisdom:It is not possible for the same person
to have practical wisdom and be morally weak at the same time, for it has been shown
that a man of practical wisdom is ipso factoa man of good character. Moreover, to be a
man of practical wisdom, one must not only know [what one ought to do], but he must
also be able to act accordingly. But a morally weak man is not able so to act. However,
there is no reason why a clever man could not be morally weak. That is why occasion-
ally people are regarded as possessing practical wisdom, but as being morally weak at
the same time; it is because cleverness differs from practical wisdom in the way we
have described in our first discussion of the subject. They are closely related in that both
follow the guidance of reason, but they differ in that [practical wisdom alone] involves
moral choice.
Furthermore, a morally weak man does not act like a man who has knowledge
and exercises it, but like a man asleep or drunk. Also, even though he acts voluntarily—
for he knows in a sense what he is doing and what end he is aiming at—he is not
wicked, because his moral choice is good,* and that makes him only half-wicked. He is
not unjust, either, for he is no underhanded plotter. [For plotting implies deliberation,]
whereas one type of morally weak man does not abide by the results of his deliberation,
while the other, the excitable type, does not even deliberate. So we see that a morally
weak person is like a state which enacts all the right decrees and has laws of a high
moral standard, but does not apply them, a situation which Anaxandrides made fun of:
“Thus wills the state, that cares not for its laws.”** A wicked man, on the other hand,
resembles a state which does apply its laws, but the laws are bad.
In relation to the characteristics possessed by most people, moral weakness and
moral strength lie at the extremes. For a morally strong person remains more steadfast
and a morally weak person less steadfast than the capacity of most men permits.
The kind of moral weakness displayed by excitable people is more easily cured
than the moral weakness of those who deliberate but do not abide by their decisions;
and those who are morally weak through habituation are more curable than those who
3035
1152 a
510152025*I.e., his basic moral purpose is good, even though it is eventually vitiated by appetite.
**Anaxandrides (fl. 382–349 B.C.) migrated from his native Rhodes (or Colophon) to Athens, where
he gained fame as a poet of the Middle Comedy.