The Mean, the Right and Archery

Both Confucian and Aristotelian theories of virtue characterize virtue as the mean. Why does each, independently from each other, develop a doctrine of the mean? Is it purely coincidental, or is there a deep philosophical and historical reason for this striking similarity? This paper seeks to develop a new understanding of Aristotle's mean as well as Confucius's mean, and to show that there is deep philosophical reason for their similarity.I argue that, for both ethics, the mean is not a notion of quantity or proportionality, but is identified with what is right. Calling what is right the “mean” happens because both sides follow the model of archery in their effort to explicate the nature of virtue. For both, the doctrine of the mean is meant to show that virtue should be conceived as an archery like quality, and that a virtuous agent who is disposed to act or live rightly is likened to an excellent archer who has the skill to hit the target. A virtuous agent forms and exercises his virtue, just as an archer develops and exercises his archery.Both Confucius and Aristotle characterize virtue as the mean. For Aristotle, virtue is a mean between two vices (Nicomachean Ethics NE 1107a2), and a disposition “laying in a mean mesotēti relative to us.” (NE, 1106b36) Clearly, the mean is essential to what virtue is. For Confucius, “Supreme indeed is the mean as virtue.” (Analects, 6:29) The mean is the supreme virtue (de). Since Confucius's theory of ren (excellence, usually translated as “benevolence” or “humanity”) is his version of the theory of de (virtue), to say that de is the mean amounts to saying that excellence (ren), as virtue in general, is the mean. The statement in Analects 6:29 is repeated in The Doctrine of Mean (Zhongyong, chap. 3), which, as one of the Confucian Four Books, can be read as an elaboration of this idea of Confucius.Why do Aristotle and Confucius, independently from each other, each develop a doctrine of the mean? Is it purely coincidental, or is there a deep philosophical and historical reason for this striking similarity? This paper seeks to develop a new understanding of Aristotle's mean as well as Confucius's mean, and to show that there is deep philosophical reason for their similarity. Section one shows that for both, the mean is divided into inner mean and outer mean. The inner mean manifests itself by hitting the outer mean. In section two, I argue that, for both ethics, the mean is not a notion of quantity or proportionality, but is identified with what is right. Calling what is right the “mean” happens because both sides follow the model of archery in their effort to explicate the nature of virtue. Section three further suggests that, for both, the doctrine of the mean is meant to show that virtue should be conceived as archery like quality, and that a virtuous agent who is disposed to act or live rightly is likened to an excellent archer who has the skill to hit the target. A virtuous agent forms and exercises his virtue, just as an archer develops and exercises his archery.