Temperance and intemperance - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Temperance, seemingly a simple call for moderation, holds within it a paradox: how much is too much, and who decides? More than mere abstinence, it’s a virtue navigating the treacherous waters between deficiency and excess, a principle as universally lauded as it is personally defined. Often conflated with teetotalism or puritanical denial, temperance, in its truest form, is a reasoned self-governance.
References to temperance snake back through history, echoing in the dialogues of ancient philosophers and the pronouncements of religious leaders. Aristotle, who was relevant to the ancient roots of virtue ethics, enshrined it as a cardinal virtue, a cornerstone of the balanced life he termed eudaimonia, or flourishing. Yet, even earlier, echoes of this concept resound in Eastern and Western traditions, from the Buddhist concept of the Middle Way to the Old Testament's admonitions against gluttony and drunkenness. The very act of civilization can be construed as a temperance movement, as humanity moved toward regulated societies and social contracts built on reciprocal restraint.
The concept morphs across time, reflecting cultural anxieties and social upheavals. The rise of organized temperance movements in the 19th and 20th centuries offers a fascinating study in contrasts. Initially conceived as a means of uplifting the working class and combating domestic abuse, the movement adopted increasingly stringent stances and faced a moral dilemma that invited both valid and invalid arguments, ultimately fueling Prohibition in the United States – a grand social experiment that exposed the slippery slope between virtuous restraint and oppressive control. The moral quiz of Prohibition revealed the societal bias of decision making that lay beneath the surface. From the Women's Christian Temperance Union to figures like Carrie Nation wielding her hatchet, the era is rife with stories of zeal – sometimes admirable, sometimes terrifying – raising uncomfortable questions about the line between individual liberty and societal well-being. Many of its positions are now considered morally reprehensible, which raises additional thought in consideration of objective vs subjective morality.
Today, temperance resurfaces in new guises. It informs discussions about environmental sustainability, digital detoxes, and mindful consumption, reflecting a broader unease with the excesses of modern life. From overeating and overspending to compulsive social media use, we grapple with the virtue's relevance in a world of instant gratification and sensory overload. Is temperance merely a personal choice, a path to individual well-being? Or does it hold a broader social and ethical imperative, a key to navigating the complexities of a world teetering on the edge of its own appetites? This calls for further investigation into moral philosophy.