> My criticism of Aristotle: Living the golden mean, like a happy person isnt going to help when your country is invaded.

An interesting criticism considering Aristotle elevated soldiers at war as a prime example. Greek philosophy was generally done by and for noble men, who were expected to deal with war on a regular basis and often actively participate in it.

> Aristotle's golden mean (or Temperance) does not account for this.

Aristotle gives the example that soldiers should be temperate in their enjoyment of war, not reveling in the bloodshed or pushing farther than they can handle. Work and studies are the same way: regardless of your age the human body has limits that you need to account for. When you're younger you can push past some of the softer limits (stay up late, go without food, etc) but eventually you will hit hard physical limits that, if not respected, will cause irreversible damage and often put you in a worse spot than you started.

> "But Wisdom would say that this is acceptable to sacrifice health at points" Does it? How do you weight these virtues as one better than another?

To directly answer: Aristotle does say Practical Wisdom (or Prudence) is the highest of the cardinal virtues, and that the cardinal virtues of Prudence,Courage,Temperance, and Justice are more important virtues than others.

But that's also sort of the whole point of his ethics, you don't have specific rulings of what to do, you develop the character to make the right decisions for the given circumstance. In this case, you rely on good Practical Wisdom to determine what the moderate amount of work is: a wise person wouldn't slack off at work but also wouldn't work 80 hour weeks at the expense of seeing their family.

> Calling for some perfect Platonic form that answers all these questions correctly is a bit of a cop-out.

You'll have to take that up with his teacher I suppose.

My guess is that their interpretation of word "temperance" (e.g. inaction) derives from Christianity, not from ancient Greece.

The 5th century BC Greece is a place where dying for your city-state is by all means, the highest honour one can achieve.

There's a peril in translating the Greek word that is often used by Aristotle and the other Virtue Ethicists -- eudaimonia -- into happiness. Happiness in English often maps to a transient & discrete emotional state, whereas eudaimonia is a much more expansive conception of flourishing and fulfillment that is not as simply as "feeling" happy or joyful all the time. Indeed, in virtue ethics, it is sometimes possible to endure hardship and feel quite negative emotions while experience eudaimonia (at least in the Stoic version of this branch of philosophy).

Fully defining terms (i.e. eudaimonia) for a modern audience is essential. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

Prudence is the virtue that allows us to see what to do in the infinite and unique situations that present themselves to us each day. This will always and everywhere mean sacrificing a lesser good for a greater one. This can be something as trivial as saying "I choose to forego the pleasure of this ice cream for the sake of my health", or something as life-changing as "I choose to give up this career because it's making me unhealthy." The good choice is always what leads to 'happiness', which is perhaps better translated as beatitude or fulfillment.

Sometimes choice this will result in a feeling of sadness. This is not opposed to 'happiness'/fulfillment/beatitude as Aristotle means it, which is not a feeling.

Also, you don't weigh the virtues against each other. They work in harmony. You weigh one action against another.

this reminds me that stoicism was written by leaders in govt and didn't consider classism or economic disparity. Sure, they might have started from broke, but they were important.