Assignment task:
Aristotle recognizes that virtuous behaviour depends highly on context. He writes that we might need to, for example, give money "... to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is ... rare and laudable and noble" (Aristotle, 350 B.C.E., Book II, Sec. 9). In this case, why should we be talking about a "mean," rather than talking about some actions being right?
Here are two accounts, both of which we can find in Rosalind Hursthouse's "A False Doctrine of the Mean" (Hursthouse, 1980-81), the first of which she attributes to Philippa Foot.
The mean applies to actions in situations. Virtues are relevant when we have choices between different options, some of which can be temptations pulling in different directions. When faced with a danger, for example, we might be tempted to take the safest path, or we might be tempted to take a showy but foolhardy path. So virtue is a matter of finding the right choice, or the mean, between opposing wrong ones in situations.
The mean applies to people's general characters. Just as matter of human psychology, for any given virtue we tend deviate from it in one of two broad ways. So, for example, with respect to courage, we generally tend to be less than excellent either by being cowardly or by being rash. Virtue is a matter of correcting our broad tendencies, to approach a mean in our characters.
Which of these two accounts is the better one for understanding Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Book II)? Argue for your stance.
Please answer in multiple long paragraphs and write neatly please.