Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
H. Rackham, Ed.

whose special definition is not very different¹ from the general definition of ‘man,’ though nevertheless he is really quite distinct from men in general.² （That such persons are only called unrestrained by analogy is proved by our blaming unrestraint, whether unqualified or with reference to some particular bodily pleasure, as a vice and not merely an error, whereas we do not regard those unrestrained in regard to money, etc. as guilty of vice.） [3] But of those who exceed in relation to the bodily enjoyments with regard to which we speak of men as temperate or profligate, he who pursues excessive pleasure, and avoids the extremes³ of bodily pains such as hunger, heat, cold, and the various pains of touch and taste, not from choice but against his own choice and reason, is described as unrestrained not with a qualification—unrestrained as regards these pleasures and pains—as is one who yields to anger, but just simply as unrestrained. [4] （A proof that ‘unrestrained’ unqualified denotes unrestraint as regards bodily pleasures and pains, is that we speak of men as ‘soft’ who yield to these, but not those who yield to anger or the like.） And hence we class the unrestrained man with the profligate （and the self-restrained with the temperate）⁴ , but not those who yield to anger or the like, because Unrestraint and Profligacy are related to the same pleasures and pains. But as a matter of fact, although they are related to the same things, they are not related to them in the same way; the profligate acts from choice, the unrestrained man does not. Hence we should pronounce a man who pursues excessive pleasures and avoids moderate pains when he feels only weak desires or none at all, to be more profligate than one who does so owing to