Continuing in my journey of exploring ethics and morality, this week I have been traversing the “Nichomachean Ethics” by Aristotle and doing a slow-reading of Camus’ essay, “The Rebel”. It is interesting to note some of the overlap, how my understanding of Aristotle is enhancing my reading of Camus, and even sparking recall of other pieces I have read over the years. This is why we read the great works. It is exhilarating when you start to connect the dots and see a bigger picture emerge before your eyes.
After becoming acquainted with Aristotle’s 12 virtues in recent days, I found myself begging the question: “why be virtuous when we live in such a permissible society?” There is not necessarily the same social reward for living a noble life as in eras past after all. It is perfectly acceptable to engage in overindulgence in Western culture and not expect much, if any rebuke.
Surplus enjoyment
Against the backdrop of this permissible society, we ought to ask ourselves ‘how do we really feel when we participate in it?’ Some of us have surely noticed that the excitement derived from anticipating pleasure often exceeds the actual acquisition of it. Lacan’s objet petit a, or “object cause of desire”, explains this: when one’s desire to find fulfillment is met, the novelty soon wears off and they then seek other avenues of enjoyment. We are never sated in our pursuit of pleasure. In fact, an excess of pleasure leads to dissatisfaction and in recent years, I think, this has contributed to higher rates of depression.1
We have access to essentially any type media, however overstimulating, anywhere, at any time. Pleasure in all its forms is so easily attainable, yet many people find themselves more unhappy, lonely, depressed and anxious than ever. The practise of temperance, one of Aristotle’s virtues, is a lost art. I would not go so far as to argue that we never engage with any of these things, but that we should have a distaste for excess in general and pursue pleasure with a “quality over quantity” mind-set.
Surplus enjoyment as defined by the modern philosopher Slavoj Žižek, is a way of characterising our “technocratic and consumer-oriented age”.2 Since the “death of God” in society (Nietzsche), the question of “what is life for?” has been open for debate. The post-modernist interpretation, under whose auspices we currently reside, would say that we exist for our own enjoyment and the pursuit of pleasure.
Consumerism is a primary catalyst for this ideology.
Consumerism tells us that we deserve to have everything we need to feel comfortable in life. We have all the options: in every aisle of our stores, in every streaming account, in every corner of Amazon, more than we could possibly want in a lifetime. Decision fatigue exhausts us before we can even make up our minds and once the enjoyment is over, we still feel at a loss because the void remains; we need some new thing to entertain us or else we are at risk of sitting quietly with our own thoughts, facing life’s real problems.
The illusion today is that many people think they know what they need to be happy. They assume happiness is making purchases, gaining power or status at work, and indulging in your vices in your free time, when really, all of these activities do nothing to bring about actualisation or provide long-term enjoyment.
There is always one more thing.
The desire for strong-man leaders and authority figures
Something which spins out of this permissiveness in society is a desire for a strong-man leader or authority figure. As more and more people come to understand that freedom of choice does not equate to satisfaction or happiness, a logical next step in many of their minds would be returning to a system with more serious contraints and more centralised power; or at least seeking the wisdom of a parental/teacher type figure who an provide guidance on how to then best live amidst the chaos. The popularity then of the likes of Viktor Orbán or Jordan Peterson, and the increased interest in populist politics can be easily explained.3
We live amidst the mess of alt-right obscenities and pseudo-leftist politically correct moralist rigidity.
-Slavoj Žižek, “Surplus Enjoyment: A Guide for the Non-Perplexed”
To an extent, the rise of podcasters like Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman, Andrew Huberman and others like them in the last decade can also be attributed to people’s increased thirst for discipline, knowledge and guidance in a polarised and permissive society. Though they are not necessarily out to eschew permissiveness, they represent a mass-yearning to make sense of things and to achieve optimised human performance. As academic enrollment in humanities programs is on the decline, gaps in moral and metaphysical knowledge exist in society, which leaves room for anyone with a URL and a recording device to add their pseudo-intellectual insight to the public sphere.
Between 2015 and 2018, the share of bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees awarded in humanities fields fell 5%, 11%, and 9% respectively on average throughout the OECD, with drops of varying proportions detected in 24 of the 36 OECD countries…a common perception lingers that non-quantitative fields are somehow lacking in academic rigor.4
-Ben Goldstein, ”Decline of the Humanities”, The Cornell Diplomat
With regard to politics, data consistently reflects that that a middle ground between permissivensess and constraint is best for society in terms of citizen well-being:
Relative to moderate nations, very permissive and very constrained nations exhibit worse psychosocial outcomes (lower happiness, greater dysthymia, higher suicide rates), worse health outcomes (lower life expectancy, greater mortality rates from cardiovascular disease and diabetes) and poorer economic and political outcomes (lower gross domestic product per capita, greater risk for political instability). This supports the notion that a balance between freedom and constraint results in the best national outcomes.5
-Culture and National Well-Being: Should Societies Emphasize Freedom or Constraint? (Harrington et al.)
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F497b89fa-81af-4338-a787-890c2e3e39dd_1784x1234.png)
Making ethical decisions is most rewarding when the individual chooses to do so of their own volition, not because an authority threatens punishment for not abiding by the rules. Thus, living virtuously in a permissive society is a much more powerful demonstration than under dictatorship or religious law.
Even as someone who does not consider themselves religious, I see here the importance of Aristotle’s virtues against the backdrop of the current moral climate. So many of us are desperate for guidance and wisdom because many of the most prominent leaders and personalities of our time do not exhibit virtuous traits or act as such. More and more of us have tried leaning into the idea that anything goes but found this way of living to be lacking in substance. It may feel right for a period of time, but after you’ve had your metaphorical cake ad nauseam, eventually, it becomes ash in your mouth.
The Mean
Aristotle asserts that we exercise virtue and live a most satisfied life by avoiding excess and defect. The mean, the middle, is where we conquer vice. Picture a target: the bullseye is where happiness exists. Expanding outward in all directions, with varying degrees, is excess and defect, or various levels of vice. It is not healthy to be too self-denying, nor is it to be over indulgent. Moderation is the key.
But though our present account is of this nature we must give what help we can. First, then, let us consider this, that it is the nature of such things to be destroyed by defect and excess, as we see in the case of strength and of health (for to gain light on things imperceptible we must use the evidence of sensible things); both excessive and defective exercise destroys the strength, and similarly drink or food which is above or below a certain amount destroys the health, while that which is proportionate both produces and increases and preserves it. So too is it, then, in the case of temperance and courage and the other virtues. For the man who flies from and fears everything and does not stand his ground against anything becomes a coward, and the man who fears nothing at all but goes to meet every danger becomes rash; and similarly the man who indulges in every pleasure and abstains from none becomes self-indulgent, while the man who shuns every pleasure, as boors do, becomes in a way insensible; temperance and courage, then, are destroyed by excess and defect, and preserved by the mean.
-Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Book II, 2.
This is by no means a novel idea. It has been rehashed, reiterated and repackaged over the centuries by well-meaning self-improvement personalities and academics alike. However, it always deserves revisiting. As simple as it is to conceive, it is arduous to execute, especially when we are as overwhelmed with content and possess such incredible ease of access to quick pleasure as we do.
To be more dialled in and more disciplined, we need to reframe our way of thinking and develop a distaste for the excess. The Nichomachean Ethics insists that we shape our thoughts by persistent action, not the other way around. By practising virtuous habits we begin to genuinely love and enjoy them. What starts to satisfy our souls is acting with temperance or honesty or courage instead of giving in to the most base human desires.
Living a virtuous life
I think the key takeaway is that regardless of whether or not we face societal pressure to be virtuous and live with moderation, it is what makes us more content in the long-run. There are no real public repercussions for binge-watching Netflix, drinking to excess, or spending 8+ hours a day on your phone. They are all relatively widely acceptable forms of behaviour. The difference is coming to the realisation that just because you can does not mean you should. We are alive in an age where it takes more restraint and discipline than ever to live a mentally-clear and deep life. It feels like more serious thinking on this subject is overdue.
Žižek makes the argument that we are emancipated when we come to the realisation that there is no authentic “you”. You merely exist in the gap between what you consider your identity to be and what you are to others. That is, you perform based what others believe of you, but an idealised version of you remains yet to be attained.
The paradox is that what unites us with the Real “in itself” is the very gap that we experience as our separation from it.
-Žižek, “Suplus Enjoyment”
We are ever in limbo. But, still in control.
We are free the moment we discover that we have been free all-along.
We are free to make decisions about how we will act today. We have the knowledge that excessive pleasure only stirs further discontent, that our appetite is never sated, and that we will never fill that void which we think requires more of our attention. We have statistical data and centuries of anecdotes which support the idea that leading of a virtuous life as laid out by Aristotle results in increased happiness and life satisfaction.
Let us then consider pursuing higher things, not in the name of a political movement or a religious ideology, but in the name of bettering ourselves, our communities, and enjoying a life well-lived.
Find sincerity within you to be more virtuous in some way. Commit your time to an interest or hobby which captivates you and of which you never grow tired. Contentment ensues. Everything falls into place.
Gallup poll, 2023.
From Henry Powell’s review of “Surplus Enjoyment: A Guide for the Non-Perplexed”
I withhold my opinion concerning these figures and others like them. They are just fitting, well-known examples. Ultimately, one must be judicious in educating themselves factfully in the areas of politics, leaving no stone unturned, and cautious of the advice they heed from self-proclaimed professionals.
In relation to footnote 3, Goldstein interestingly suggests that the decline in Humanities degrees may lead to an increase presence of populist governments as Humanities/Liberal Arts students are less-likely to consent to authoritarian rule. Without them, less protest may arise. https://www.thecornelldiplomat.com/issue6/2021/11/24/decline-of-the-humanities