Problems with Golden Mean

       Aristotle's Golden Mean practically states that there is a midpoint in a decision that is neither too excessive not too deficient. The class example of an threatening intruder barging into the class arose the question of diffusion of responsibility. Who would be responsible on handling the threat? After the question is answered, then it is important to address how should said person act. A cowardice action (deficient) of ignoring the threat vs. acting out recklessly (excessive) and approaching or even attacking the threat.Aristotle would suggest that there is an action of series of actions that the "responsible" agent that are neither reckless nor cowardice. In our example, we said that a golden mean action would be to talk the intruder (if possible) out of the situation.

           While I agree that most times there is a golden mean, I also think that there are times where a golden mean is not applicable. Like stated in class, there are such virtues like honesty that cannot be measured. There may be something like not honest enough but not enough honesty. Moreover, can loyalty be measured?  For example, in a relationship, can a party we be too loyal? Or is the golden mean loyal enough? Are there more virtues that can't be explained by Aristotle's Golden Mean?

The other problem, of course, is who would be the responsible agent. How is the responsible agent who makes the decisions assigned? It is also difficult to judge what the golden mean is. Depending on the agent, the golden mean can actually be too excessive for some or not enough for others. Plato would disagree in my opinion; his ideas are more abstract and usually have no real application to examples. But my question is: Can Plato's Justice be explained by the Golden Rule? Is there such a thing as too much justice or not enough?