ETHICS

Aristotle is pointing out that a temperate person and a continent person are not the same. A temperate person is someone whose desires and appetites are naturally balanced and under control—they don’t crave excessive or harmful things in the first place. Since their desires align with reason and virtue, they don’t need to exert great effort to resist bad or extreme urges.

On the other hand, a continent person is someone who does have strong or bad desires but manages to resist acting on them through self-control. Because the temperate person doesn't struggle with harmful or excessive appetites, they wouldn’t need "continence" (self-restraint) in the way a continent person does. Therefore, Aristotle argues that these two traits can’t coexist in the same individual: temperance is about harmony, while continence implies internal conflict.

In this line, Aristotle is making a subtle but important point about the nature of continence (self-restraint). He argues that if a person has good desires or appetites (things that are inherently virtuous and worth pursuing), then choosing to resist or suppress those good desires would actually suggest something flawed in that person's character. It suggests that not all forms of "self-restraint" are praiseworthy or admirable—it depends on what you are restraining yourself from.

For example, if someone has a strong desire to help others (a good appetite) but consciously fights against it out of rigid self-discipline, this kind of restraint wouldn't be considered virtuous. In fact, it could be seen as problematic because they are holding themselves back from doing something good. Essentially, Aristotle is saying that continence isn't always positive; it depends on the nature of the appetites being restrained.

Aristotle is making the point that the value of self-control, or "continence," depends on the strength and nature of the desires being resisted. If someone resists desires that are weak and not harmful (e.g., trivial urges or minor whims), it's not particularly impressive or praiseworthy—there's not much of a challenge involved. Similarly, if the desires are weak and bad (e.g., minor harmful tendencies), overcoming these isn't a significant moral achievement either because the difficulty is so minimal.

What he's getting at is this: for self-control to be truly admirable, there needs to be a meaningful internal struggle, a situation where someone resists strong and bad desires. Otherwise, it’s like celebrating someone for walking away from a cookie they didn’t even really want—it doesn’t showcase any remarkable strength of character or virtue.