Aristotle lists central virtues where individuals are expected to approximate the mean in their actions. We found that in this conflict, the values of friendliness, patience, justice, civility, and benevolence were most relevant.
A primary concern that must be addressed before any specific analysis proceeds is the contrast between the original poster (OP) and her boyfriend’s habits overall. It appears that OP has established a routine for keeping the house clean, she describes herself as a bit particular, but not so far in excess that she appears to be making an excessive fuss about the state of the apartment. This already indicates that she has aimed at a virtuous mean of moderation in her demands of others. The boyfriend, appears to be extreme in the actions described. Even if we take the story of him spending he entire workday surfing the web for new jobs o be true, the manner in which he spends his time is not balanced, and would now move him towards excellence in all areas of his life: his relationship currently being a primarily neglected area.
In analysis of OP’s boyfriend we can clearly see that he is not pursuing excellence and diligence, which are essential to evolving a moral life. He will be unable to become virtuous until he is willing to respond to the requests of his girlfriend, either by fulfilling them or by proposing another solution to the problem. In fact, if he feels that his girlfriend’s request are unjust, it is his responsibility to communicate that and request a change to the system, but it appears he has taken he role of excuses rather action. We also find that he appears to be falling under the vice of laziness, when it comes to maintaining the home and no hindering the flourishing of his girlfriend. The civility of his actions is also limited, as OP believes that he has been lying to her about what he is really up to all day at home. He is preventing her flourishing by leveling both the problem of a dirty house and a deadweight boyfriend on her. If he has been unable to keep up with the chore of feeding their cats, he ventures into cruelty, which surely puts him at an extreme on the end of benevolence, as keeping non agricultural animals is ultimately an act of charity.
Our original poster is acting far more virtuously, with a few exceptions. Her diligence in working extra hours in order to support the two of them, her friendly firmness in her requests of her boyfriend, and her patience with him shine through. It appears that a central challenge in this conflict is her need to balance standing up for herself to assert what she feels is just, and understanding the stress and insecurity that her boyfriend may feel as the result of being replaced as head of household. OP notes that it has been five days had elapsed since her request, which we agreed was a long enough time for the boyfriend to fulfill her requests. Given the established trend of the boyfriend taking a long time to complete a task, as he apparently has been job hunting for months, she may not be properly assessing the situation and acting in line with a balanced amount of patience.
We have to holistically consider whether the actions of this deadbeat boyfriend are moving him towards eudaemonia, which for Aristotle is the ultimate goal. On his view, in fact good choices are the only way in which we can develop virtue. He states: “Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean,” (Nicomachean Ethics II.6). The boyfriend’s choices are currently taking him away from his progress because he is not putting good out into the world by making girlfriend happy. This negatively affects the girlfriend, and ultimately him by subjecting him to her anger and frustration. Maintaining this behavior will make him less happy because without diligence one cannot flourish. Finally, by avoiding the request and the work, rather the renegotiating or completing it, the boyfriend is not including himself in the cycle of virtue, action, and habit.
Based on all these factors group members reported different possible solutions to the issues presented. They are listed here in order from most to least lenient. Thees suggestions could also be used in a sequential manner: if he is non responsive to the first, OP should move on to the second one and so on. First we suggested the use of a chore chart, this would offer him structure that is lacking in work and offer small and satisfying goals in contrast with the slog of job hunting. This requires OP to further exercise the virtue of patience in waiting for him to improve, benevolence in believing in his ability to complete the tasks and intention to follow through. Next, we suggest a direct confrontation where the boyfriend is firmly told that he is not pulling his weight and OP requests that they split the chores at least 50/50. In this step, OP should express that if the boyfriend doesn’t act promptly, he is at risk of losing her. Finally, we suggest that OP leave him if he is unable to develop the habit of cleanliness. It does not bode well for a long term relationship when one participant cannot pull it together and when one party is not focused on moving towards a state of eudaemonia.
We finally have to consider, if OP proceeds through these steps, does it actually help her move towards eudaemonia? Our modern standard for cleanliness might seem extreme to ancients like Aristotle. However, the challenges of moderating the behavior of another in order to increase the wellness of a whole would appear very familiar. Ultimately, the challenge overcome by practicing effective communication and boundary setting would strengthen OP’s virtue. Though she already acts as head of household, it would further increase her self-sufficiency and resilience, which are values that bode well for the development of a virtuous character. In leaving him, she may lose the opportunity to better the life of another, which may not directly impact her degree of virtuous action.
By Group 1 (LG, GON, CS)