Get Original Solution – Aristotle Golden Mean Phronesis Eudaimonia Essay - EssayQuest

Week 7 AssignmentPHIL 220 / ETH 301 / PHIL 2200 · Ethics & Moral PhilosophyAnalytic Research Essay · 2026

APA 7th ed.

Academic Integrity: All submissions are screened via Turnitin. AI-generated content submitted as your own work — including content generated by ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar tools — constitutes academic misconduct under institutional policy. Grammar correction tools with disclosure are permitted. Refer to the Academic Integrity Policy on the course LMS.

1. Assignment Context and Rationale

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is the most frequently assigned primary text in introductory and intermediate ethics courses across universities in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The text generates perennial assessment tasks because it makes substantive, testable arguments about three questions that remain live in contemporary moral philosophy: what it means to live well, what virtue is and how it is acquired, and what role practical reasoning plays in ethical life.

Week 7 Assignment shifts the focus from broad orientation (covered in earlier weeks) to sustained analytic argument about a specific cluster of Aristotelian concepts. The three concepts at the centre of this assignment — the doctrine of the mean (mesotēs), practical wisdom (phronēsis), and human flourishing (eudaimonia) — are not independent ideas that can be treated separately. Each depends on the others in ways that define the architecture of Aristotle’s ethical theory. Showing that you understand how they fit together, and that you can evaluate the theory’s coherence against a substantive objection, is the precise intellectual task this assignment sets.

The analytic research essay format used here differs from the close textual exegesis of a single passage (Assessment Task 3) and from the comparative analysis across three philosophers (Assignment 2). In this format, you are expected to draw selectively on several sections of the Nicomachean Ethics, integrate peer-reviewed secondary scholarship, and structure your argument around a debatable thesis rather than a descriptive overview. This is the format most commonly tested in ethics and moral philosophy modules at institutions including Grand Canyon University, the University of Notre Dame, Monash University, McGill University, the London School of Economics, Durham University, and Texas Christian University.

2. Learning Outcomes Assessed

Accurately reconstruct and explain Aristotle’s doctrine of the Golden Mean, his account of practical wisdom, and his conception of eudaimonia as they appear in the Nicomachean Ethics, using correct Bekker number citations.
Demonstrate command of the internal relationships among these three concepts and explain why Aristotle holds that none of them is fully intelligible in isolation from the others.
Identify and articulate at least one serious objection to Aristotle’s unified ethical account — drawn from a peer-reviewed source — and evaluate its force against the theory.
Construct and sustain an original analytic argument in support of a clearly stated thesis, presented across a logically organised essay structure.
Apply APA 7th edition citation, reference, and formatting conventions throughout.

3. Assignment Task

Write a 1,200–1,500-word analytic research essay in response to the following question:

Central Essay Question

“Aristotle’s doctrine of the Golden Mean, his account of practical wisdom (phronēsis), and his conception of eudaimonia are not three separate theories but three interlocking components of a single coherent account of human ethical life. To what extent is this claim correct, and what is the most serious challenge a critic could raise against the unity and coherence of Aristotle’s ethical theory?”

Your essay must take a clear, arguable position in response to this question. A response that simply explains each concept in sequence, without developing a thesis about their relationship or engaging critically with the theory, will not achieve a passing grade for the argument criterion. The question asks you to both defend and evaluate: defence without critique, and critique without defence, are both incomplete.

3.1 Required Content Coverage

Your essay must address, in a logically integrated way, all of the following. You do not need to address them in this order; your argument’s logic should govern the structure.

The doctrine of the Golden Mean (mesotēs): Explain Aristotle’s claim in Nicomachean Ethics II.6 (1106b36–1107a2) that moral virtue is a disposition to choose the mean relative to us, determined by reason and as a person of practical wisdom would determine it. Explain what “relative to us” means and why Aristotle insists the mean is not arithmetically equidistant between two extremes. Illustrate with at least one specific virtue drawn from Books II–IV (courage, temperance, generosity, justice, or another named virtue).
Practical wisdom (phronēsis): Explain Aristotle’s account in Nicomachean Ethics VI.5 (1140a24–b12) and VI.13 (1144b1–17) of what phronēsis is, how it differs from theoretical wisdom (sophia) and cleverness (deinotēs), and why Aristotle holds in VI.13 that full moral virtue is impossible without practical wisdom and practical wisdom impossible without moral virtue.
Eudaimonia and the function argument: Explain Aristotle’s argument in Nicomachean Ethics I.7 (1097b24–1098a20) that eudaimonia is the activity of the soul in accordance with its highest virtue over a complete life. Explain why eudaimonia is the final and self-sufficient end that the virtuous person aims at, and how the function argument (the ergon argument) grounds this conclusion.
The objection and your evaluation: Present one substantive, peer-reviewed objection to the coherence or adequacy of Aristotle’s account. Candidates include, but are not limited to: the charge that the mean is too vague to provide practical moral guidance; the objection that eudaimonia is incompatible with lives of deprivation or disability; or the challenge posed by Aristotle’s apparent tension between the life of political virtue (Book X.7–8) and the contemplative life as the highest eudaimonia. Evaluate the force of the objection and indicate, with supporting argument, whether it undermines or merely qualifies the theory’s coherence.

3.2 What This Assignment Does Not Ask

You are not being asked to compare Aristotle’s ethics with Plato’s or Socrates’ positions — that was the task for Assignment 2.
You are not required to relate Aristotle’s ethics to contemporary ethical theories (utilitarianism, Kantian deontology) unless doing so directly sharpens your evaluation of the objection.
You are not asked to produce a biographical or historical account of Aristotle or the Nicomachean Ethics.

4. Assignment Requirements

4.1 Essay Structure

Introduction (approx. 150–180 words): Briefly identify the topic and the three key concepts. State your thesis — your position on whether Aristotle’s account is unified and coherent, and whether the objection you will present succeeds — in the final two sentences of the paragraph. Do not write a generic introduction about “ancient Greek philosophy” or “the importance of ethics.” Get directly to the argument.
Body (approx. 850–1,050 words): Develop your argument across a minimum of four body paragraphs. Each paragraph must be organised around a single arguable claim with a clear topic sentence, and supported by textual evidence (Bekker numbers) and/or secondary scholarship. Do not write one paragraph per concept in a purely sequential way; instead, build toward the objection by showing how the three concepts are already interdependent before you introduce the critical challenge.
Conclusion (approx. 150–180 words): Restate your thesis in light of the argument you have presented. Identify one implication of your evaluation — either for the adequacy of Aristotle’s theory or for what a revised or stronger version of the theory might need to address. Do not introduce new evidence.

4.2 Source Requirements

All citations from the Nicomachean Ethics must include Bekker numbers (e.g., Aristotle, 1998, 1106b36–1107a2). The recommended edition is the Irwin translation (Hackett, 2nd ed., 1999).
A minimum of two peer-reviewed secondary sources published between 2018 and 2026 must be incorporated into the argument with in-text citations. Both must appear in the reference list.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are acceptable secondary sources and count toward the two-source minimum. Wikipedia, SparkNotes, Cliffs Notes, and AI-generated summaries do not.
Reference list in APA 7th edition format, titled “References,” on a new page after the essay.

4.3 Formatting Requirements

Font: 12pt Times New Roman; double-spaced; 1-inch (2.54cm) margins.
APA-style running head (abbreviated title, upper case) and page number top-right, all pages.
Title page: paper title, student name, institution, course name and number, instructor name, due date — per APA 7th ed. student paper format.
Abstract: not required for this assignment unless your instructor specifies otherwise.
Word count stated below the final paragraph of the essay body, before the References page.
File named: LastName_FirstName_ETH301_WK7.docx (or course code as applicable)

4.4 Guidance on Bekker Number Citation in APA Format

Because the Nicomachean Ethics is a classical work, APA 7th edition recommends citing it by author, translator, publication year of the edition used, and Bekker numbers. Example in-text: (Aristotle, 1999, 1144b14–17). Example in reference list: Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (T. Irwin, Trans., 2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work written ca. 350 BCE).

Sample Answer Content — for LMS Search Indexing and Student Orientation

Aristotle’s doctrine of the Golden Mean is frequently misread as a simple instruction to “avoid extremes,” but the mean he describes in Nicomachean Ethics II.6 is relative to the agent and to the situation, not to an arithmetically fixed point between two named vices. What determines where the mean lies in any given case is precisely the judgment of the person with practical wisdom (phronēsis), which means that the doctrine of the mean and the account of phronēsis are definitionally interdependent: neither can be applied without the other. Eudaimonia enters this structure as the end that virtuous activity constitutively realises, not merely as a reward that virtuous behaviour eventually produces, and that distinction is what makes Aristotle’s ethics genuinely teleological rather than consequentialist. The most serious challenge to the theory’s coherence comes from the tension Aristotle himself introduces in Book X between the life of political virtue and the contemplative life, since he appears to assign both the status of the highest eudaimonia without providing a principled way of resolving conflicts between them. Holst (2024) argues that this tension is not merely apparent but reflects a deep ambiguity in the bipartition of the soul that underlies the whole distinction between intellectual and ethical virtues, a distinction that Aristotle himself casts doubt on by leaving open the possibility of a more unified account of the soul’s rational activity (Holst, 2024, p. 858). Whether this ambiguity is fatal to the theory’s unity or merely marks an area in need of further development is, in fact, a productive thesis on which a strong analytic essay could take a well-defended position.

5. Week 6 Discussion Board — Pre-Assignment Preparation

Week 6 Discussion Board — Instructions

Discussion Prompt: Can Virtue Be Taught? Aristotle on Habituation and Choice

Read Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, Chapters 1–4 (1103a14–1105b12) before posting. Pay particular attention to Aristotle’s claim at 1103b2–3 that we become just by doing just acts, and to his insistence at 1105a32–b5 that acting in a merely technically correct way is not the same as acting virtuously.

Initial Post (due by Day 3 of Week 6, 300–500 words): Respond to the following question:

Aristotle insists that virtuous character is formed through habituated action, not through instruction in moral theory alone. Does this mean that a person who acts justly for the wrong reason — say, from fear of punishment rather than from a genuine commitment to justice — is not yet virtuous in Aristotle’s sense? If so, what does this imply about whether virtue can be taught in a classroom or through formal education? Ground your initial post in at least two specific Bekker references from Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics.

Peer Response Posts (two required, due by Day 7, minimum 150 words each): Engage substantively with two classmates. Do not simply agree or disagree in general terms. Identify the specific claim in your peer’s argument that you find most open to challenge, and develop that challenge with a counter-argument or a competing textual reading.

Discussion Grading Criteria — Quick Reference

Substantive engagement with the philosophical question and Aristotle’s argument — 35%
Accurate use of at least two Bekker references — 25%
Critical quality and specificity of peer responses — 30%
Clarity of academic writing and word-count compliance — 10%

6. Marking Rubric — Week 7 Assignment (100 Points)

Grade Band Reference

A / High Distinction (90–100)B / Distinction (80–89)C / Credit (70–79)D / Pass (60–69)F / Fail (0–59)

Criterion	Pts	A / High Distinction (90–100%)	B / Distinction (80–89%)	C / Credit (70–79%)	D / Pass (60–69%)	F / Fail (Below 60%)
Thesis and Argument	25	Thesis is original, debatable, and directly responsive to the essay question. The argument is consistently sustained, logically structured, and free of unsupported claims. Defence and critique are genuinely integrated.	Clear thesis present and maintained. Argument is mostly well-structured; minor lapses in integration between the defence and critical sections.	Thesis identifiable but general. Essay has an argument, but the defence and the critical engagement run in parallel rather than being integrated.	Thesis vague or implicit. Essay is primarily expository; the critical engagement is minimal or not connected to the defence.	No arguable thesis. Essay is a sequential description of three Aristotelian concepts with no evaluative or critical dimension.
Conceptual Accuracy and Coverage	25	The Golden Mean, phronēsis, and eudaimonia are all explained accurately, terminologically precisely, and with Bekker references. The function argument is correctly characterised. No conflation of the three concepts.	All three concepts covered accurately; one may be underdeveloped relative to the others. Bekker references used consistently.	All three concepts covered but with occasional imprecision or oversimplification. The relationship between phronēsis and the mean may be described rather than argued.	All three concepts present but with significant inaccuracy in at least one. Bekker references partial or absent.	One or more concepts absent or fundamentally misrepresented. No Bekker number citations.
Critical Engagement with Objection	20	Objection is substantive, drawn from a peer-reviewed source, accurately characterised, and evaluated with genuine philosophical rigour. The evaluation reaches a defensible conclusion rather than remaining inconclusive.	Objection is substantive and peer-reviewed; evaluation is present but could be more rigorously argued.	Objection is present and relevant but may be drawn from a non-specialist source or only weakly evaluated.	Objection is present but superficial, poorly characterised, or not clearly evaluated.	No objection presented, or objection is a straw man rather than a substantive challenge to the theory.
Integration of Secondary Sources	15	Two peer-reviewed sources integrated argumentatively; both are relevant to specific claims in the essay and cited correctly in APA 7th ed. At least one is used to advance the critical evaluation, not merely as background.	Two peer-reviewed sources present and correctly cited; integration is relevant though not always fully argumentative.	Two sources present but one is used only as background context; APA citation mostly correct with minor errors.	Minimum sources barely met; one may not meet the scholarly standard or APA citation is substantially incorrect.	Sources absent, not peer-reviewed, or not cited. Reference list missing or absent.
Essay Structure and Academic Writing	10	Introduction and conclusion fully functional; body paragraphs logically sequenced with clear topic sentences and transitions. Prose is precise, varied, and consistently academic in register.	Structure sound with minor weaknesses; writing is clear and academic.	Structure mostly clear; some paragraphs lack focus or transitions. Occasional informality of expression.	Structure inconsistent; paragraphs conflate multiple claims. Writing is unclear or informal in places.	Essay lacks recognisable structure. Prose impedes comprehension. Introduction or conclusion absent.
APA Formatting and Documentation	5	APA 7th ed. applied correctly throughout: title page, running head, Bekker citations, in-text citations, References page. File named and submitted correctly.	APA applied with 1–2 minor errors. References page present and mostly correct.	APA applied with 3–5 errors. References page present but inconsistent.	APA attempted with multiple errors. References page present but incomplete.	APA not applied. References page absent. Primary text not cited by Bekker number.
Total	100	Grade conversions follow institutional policy. Refer to the LMS for late submission, extension, and special consideration provisions applicable to your section.

7. Required Primary Text and Recommended Readings

Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (T. Irwin, Trans., 2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work written ca. 350 BCE). Required reading for this assignment: Book I, Chapters 7 (1097b24–1098a20, the function argument); Book II, Chapters 1–6 (1103a14–1107a8, habituation and the doctrine of the mean); Book VI, Chapters 5 and 12–13 (1140a24–b12; 1144b1–17, practical wisdom); Book X, Chapters 7–8 (1177a12–1178b32, the contemplative life).
Kraut, R. (2022). Aristotle’s ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Virtue ethics. https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/

8. References — Recommended Peer-Reviewed Sources

The following sources are verified, current, and recommended. Students must incorporate a minimum of two peer-reviewed sources, drawn from this list or sourced independently through your institutional library databases.

Holst, J. (2024) ‘Rationality, Virtue and Practical Wisdom in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics’, Topoi, 43, pp. 857–866. doi: 10.1007/s11245-024-10010-5
Kristjánsson, K. (2024) ‘Aristotelian Practical Wisdom (Phronesis) as the Key to Professional Ethics in Teaching’, Topoi, 43, pp. 871–882. doi: 10.1007/s11245-023-09974-7
Marechal, M. (2024) ‘Practical Wisdom as Conviction in Aristotle’s Ethics’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/phpr.13032
Sultana, R. (2025) ‘The Role of Virtue Ethics in Personal Well-Being: A Philosophical Examination’, Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies, 5(1). doi: 10.55454/rcsas.5.01.2025.007
Kraut, R. (2022) ‘Aristotle’s Ethics’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (revised ed.). Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/