Philosophy - Two Parts Short Assignment

PART B Please response to these two original posts below. When responding to these posts, please either expand the thought, add additional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why. Remember that we are after reasons and arguments, and not simply the statement of opinions.

Original Post 1 What is the golden mean, and how does it enable us to identify a virtue?

The golden mean is an idea that helps us understand what a virtue is. It states that a virtue always lies between two vices. The virtue occurs between two polar extremes with one being an excess and the other being a deficiency. Having an excess amount of any virtue no longer makes the person virtuous. For example, having an excess amount of kindness could mean that the person is too giving and attempting to provide too much when the recipient doesn't need or want any help. The other side of the golden mean would be a deficiency of kindness. The person would be rude and not show enough compassion to others when they need it. Finding a middle ground and learning to balance it would allow someone to recognize a virtue.

Original Post 2 Why are emotions important to the motivation of action on the Aristotelian view? How is this different from the Kantian claim that one should act out of duty and not merely accordance with it?

Kantian ethics values one’s motives and adherence to universal moral laws, such as never lying, and pays no attention to the emotions involved in the current situation. However, we are all controlled by our emotions all the time, so much so that we are oblivious to its substantial influence over our lives, including our morality. Virtue ethics, on the other hand, believes that rationality has the capacity to differentiate between appropriate/reasonable emotions and those that aren’t; and that emotional responses are more than just blind first nature psychological forces, but rather second nature perceptions of value that can be trained to manifest during appropriate circumstances. For instance, in the case of the axeman, one could immediately sense his extreme hostility and malicious plans with their knowledge of appropriate emotions. And so, they would never disclose crucial information, such as their loved one’s whereabouts, to such a dangerous man, because they know that if they did, then there would be dire consequences. So they would lie to him instead even if it is morally wrong to do so, according to Kantian ethics, and it treats him as a means to an end rather than an end. This is due to the fact that most people’s natural instinct would be to protect their loved one, more so if they’re very close such as a parent or child, due to their strong emotions, such as love, for them.