Book 4 / Chapter 6
Paragraph 1 - The Virtue of Social Conduct
Explanation - Part By Part
"In gatherings of men, in social life and the interchange of words and deeds, some men are thought to be obsequious, viz. those who to give pleasure praise everything and never oppose, but think it their duty 'to give no pain to the people they meet'; while those who, on the contrary, oppose everything and care not a whit about giving pain are called churlish and contentious."
Aristotle is describing two extreme types of behavior in social interactions. On one side, he talks about people who are overly eager to please, whom he calls obsequious. These individuals try to avoid causing any discomfort or disagreement, so they go along with everything, offering constant praise and never challenging anyone. On the other side are those who do the exact opposite—they disagree with everything, show no care about hurting others’ feelings, and behave in a harsh, argumentative way. These people are labeled as churlish or contentious. Both of these extremes are seen as flawed approaches to social behavior.
"That the states we have named are culpable is plain enough, and that the middle state is laudable- that in virtue of which a man will put up with, and will resent, the right things and in the right way; but no name has been assigned to it, though it most resembles friendship."
Aristotle is explaining that there are two extremes in how people behave in social interactions: some are overly compliant or pleasing (the "obsequious" type), while others are overly combative or oppositional (the "churlish" type). Both of these extremes are problematic or blameworthy. However, there is a balanced, virtuous way to engage with others—responding appropriately to situations by showing tolerance or opposition when it is right to do so and in the right manner. This balanced state is praiseworthy.
Interestingly, Aristotle points out that this virtuous middle state doesn't have a specific name but is similar to what we think of as friendship, though not entirely the same. While it resembles a good friend’s behavior, it doesn't stem from emotional attachment or affection—it arises from being a virtuous person who deals with others rationally and justly.
"For the man who corresponds to this middle state is very much what, with affection added, we call a good friend. But the state in question differs from friendship in that it implies no passion or affection for one's associates; since it is not by reason of loving or hating that such a man takes everything in the right way, but by being a man of a certain kind."
Aristotle is describing someone who possesses a balanced and virtuous approach in social interactions. This person is similar to what we might think of as a "good friend," but there's an important difference. A "good friend" typically acts with affection or emotional attachment toward others—out of love or care. However, the person in this "middle state" acts appropriately not because of any strong feelings (like love or hate) but because of their character. They respond to people and situations in the right way simply because they are the kind of person who has developed virtues like fairness, good judgment, and self-control. In other words, their behavior isn't driven by emotions; it originates from their moral nature and rational ability to discern what is fitting in every situation.
"For he will behave so alike towards those he knows and those he does not know, towards intimates and those who are not so, except that in each of these cases he will behave as is befitting; for it is not proper to have the same care for intimates and for strangers, nor again is it the same conditions that make it right to give pain to them."
This part is about how a balanced, virtuous person interacts with others, whether they are close friends or strangers. The point Aristotle makes is that while such a person will treat everyone fairly and appropriately, the way they behave will still take into account the type of relationship they have. It's unrealistic and even improper to treat a close friend and a stranger in exactly the same way. The level of care, attention, or even the way one handles giving criticism or causing discomfort should differ because the nature of the relationship calls for different approaches. Essentially, it's about being thoughtful and contextually appropriate in one's treatment of others.
"Now we have said generally that he will associate with people in the right way; but it is by reference to what is honourable and expedient that he will aim at not giving pain or at contributing pleasure."
Aristotle is explaining that a person who follows the "middle state" or balanced, virtuous approach in social interactions will behave rightly by considering both what is honorable (morally proper) and expedient (practically beneficial). This person seeks to avoid causing pain to others and aims to offer pleasure, but they do so only when it aligns with what is ethical and reasonable—not simply to please everyone for the sake of it. Their actions are measured by higher standards of integrity and benefit.
"For he seems to be concerned with the pleasures and pains of social life; and wherever it is not honourable, or is harmful, for him to contribute pleasure, he will refuse, and will choose rather to give pain; also if his acquiescence in another's action would bring disgrace, and that in a high degree, or injury, on that other, while his opposition brings a little pain, he will not acquiesce but will decline."
This part focuses on how a virtuous person navigates social interactions, balancing between causing pleasure and causing pain. Aristotle is saying that a person with good character (the "middle state" between being overly agreeable and excessively confrontational) cares about the impact of their actions on others but is guided by principles like honor and what is beneficial.
Imagine a situation where agreeing with someone to make them happy (contributing pleasure) would actually lead to something dishonorable or harmful. In such a case, the virtuous person will refuse to go along with it, even if this refusal causes discomfort or pain. Similarly, if someone’s actions are leading to significant harm or disgrace, the virtuous person will not fear causing minor pain by opposing them—especially if this opposition helps avoid worse outcomes.
Essentially, a virtuous person doesn't just "go along to get along." They consider what is right and moral over the immediate comfort of others, prioritizing long-term good or avoiding greater harm over short-term niceties.
"He will associate differently with people in high station and with ordinary people, with closer and more distant acquaintances, and so too with regard to all other differences, rendering to each class what is befitting, and while for its own sake he chooses to contribute pleasure, and avoids the giving of pain, he will be guided by the consequences, if these are greater, i.e. honour and expediency."
Aristotle is explaining that a virtuous person interacts with others in a way that respects the differences in their social roles, relationships, and circumstances. For example, this person would treat someone of high status differently than someone of ordinary status, or approach close friends differently than distant acquaintances. The idea isn't about being manipulative or deceitful, but about behaving appropriately and adjusting one’s behavior according to what is fitting for each specific situation.
This person prefers to bring pleasure to others and tries to avoid causing unnecessary pain or discomfort. However, their actions aren’t guided purely by the desire to please; they are grounded in reason. When greater considerations like honor or practical benefits (expediency) are at stake, they carefully weigh the outcomes of their actions. For instance, if causing a small amount of discomfort in the short term might lead to a greater positive result in the long term (like preserving someone’s dignity or avoiding harm), they would choose the harder path of inflicting slight pain for a better outcome. Essentially, this is about striking a thoughtful balance in human interactions, guided by ethics and prudence.
"For the sake of a great future pleasure, too, he will inflict small pains."
This part emphasizes that someone who embodies the ideal "middle state" in social interactions—neither overly agreeable (obsequious) nor overly combative (churlish)—understands that sometimes causing minor discomfort (or "small pains") in the present is necessary to achieve a greater long-term benefit or "great future pleasure."
For example, this could mean offering constructive criticism to a friend or colleague, even if it stings in the moment, because it helps them grow or avoid larger problems down the line. It reflects a balance: prioritizing what is honorable and beneficial over momentary comfort, and making decisions thoughtfully, based on what is ultimately best for everyone involved. This approach demonstrates care and wisdom in navigating relationships and social situations.