If we wish to live a “good life,” the path is remarkably simple: we must consistently accumulate good actions. A person who lives well is defined by the daily practice of such deeds. As Aristotle observed, an architect is an architect because they build houses, and a musician is a musician because they play an instrument.
But what, then, constitutes a “good action”? Both Aristotle and the Buddha taught the importance of the “Middle Way” (Mesotes/Madhyama-pratipad)—the principle of avoiding extremes. However, this is not a mathematical midpoint; it is not as simple as picking 50 on a scale from 0 to 100. It is, so to speak, the “sweet spot” of human conduct.
Aristotle provided various illustrations. For instance, regarding courage, being reckless is problematic, but being too cowardly to act is equally flawed. Regarding temperance, drowning in desire is wrong, yet feeling nothing at all is also a mistake. As for anger, while losing one’s temper instantly is an obvious issue, failing to feel anger even in the face of injustice is its own kind of deficiency—an unnatural state in its own right. It is easy to understand why these polar extremes are harmful. However, the “right balance” between them does not have a fixed, absolute value that applies to everyone. This is precisely why it is so difficult to find.
In recent years, while “diversity” and “inclusion” have become common buzzwords, there seems to be an opposing trend toward oversimplifying complex issues into black-and-white arguments. Aligning oneself with a particular camp and raising one’s voice provides a sense of security, giving you a sense of easy righteousness through the validation of like-minded people.
But I want you to pause for a moment and reflect on whether you, too, have drifted toward an extreme. I believe that as more people engage in this self-reflection and search for that “right balance,” the world will gradually become a more peaceful place.