Can you please explain further the topics you brushed over? What is Socrates' perspective? What is Aristotle's perspective? Considering I want to increase the happiness of everyone through knowledge while being practical in knowing most will not research this themselves, you can help us all out with the hedonistic utilitarian goal in mind. Also, what do you mean by not going into the excess of a situation? Finally, what is the deficient zone?
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. The collection of Aristotle's beliefs that are based on Socrates' intellectual pursuits. Aristotle wanted to use philosophy in a practical sense, and not in a theoretical sense, so that it could be used to better ones own life.
As for the deficient / excess, that all depends on the situation. Most situations have a zone of moderation with the most logical course of action. An example of this would be:
A man sees a child in a burning building, and notices firemen on the other side, unable to see this child. Should the man run into the building to save the child? Should he take the extra time to alert the firemen? Should he do
nothing? All three of these are the extremes of the situation.
The moderation, which is the most logical response, would be to go and get the attention of the firemen. Going into the building himself would most likely end up killing himself, thus killing that child as well. He isn't trained, nor does he have equipment, to effectively rescue anyone from fire. That action would be too rash and thus hitting the zone of excess. Excess. He's gone too far without thinking. The deficient zone requires a lack of caring. So, choosing to do nothing will render the whole situation as "out of his zone of control", at least in his mind. There are people who think this way.
Read more into philosophy, because it'll take a long time to explain all of this.
