Aristotle analsys

             Smith have committed a crime together and were caught. Both of us are held in separate cells and the police want a conviction. We are each offered a deal separately with the options of myself confessing and being released and the other gets 10 years, he confesses and is released while I receive 10 years, both confess and we both get 5 and neither of us confess and we each get one. The question is what would I do and why, what would Aristotle say about my decision. While debating this predicament I must take into consideration that there is no communication with each other, the prosecutor is telling the truth about the choices given and Mr. Smith and I have been friends for a long period of time.
             In this predicament I would have to consider the option of no one confesses and we each receive one year. My choice for this is that it's the most logical of choices and it's the easiest for me and my friend to take. Why I would chose this option breaks into many factors. Considering we are friends from the neighborhood and would take the time to develop a plan to commit a crime together shows unity and I would never expect a friend to rat me out so to say in the event of capture. The option of admitting the actions with the possibility of my friend not confessing puts me in a chance of receiving 5 years if he confesses also, and if he doesn't places me in a bad position in my home environment, causing me to lose face amongst my peers. If he confesses and I don't then he sufferers the same fate at home which could last much longer than 10 years, and the fear of revenge is too much of a price to pay in life. Taking 9 years away from an conviction sounds more logical of the choices. .
             Aristotle would most likely disagree with my selection because it does not involve telling the truth, and without truth there is not morality. But he would like my choice based on his Golden Mean, which is a moral guide that directs man choices between under-quality and over-quality.