We have to be generous but not too generous, courageous but not too courageous, and so on.
This manifests Schur's Error About Virtue, which confuses virtue with the continuum on which it is represented. (He instructively slips this way several times, but I hasten to add also gets it right later -- for instance, in writing "“anger” is the quality [that defines the continuum], and “mildness” is the dead-solid-middle-point virtue we’re seeking".)
According to Aristotle, virtue IS the mean between extremes. Virtue terms do not correctly describe the extremes or the midpoints between the mean and either extreme! Aristotle says "too much" is no longer courage but instead rashness (as in too much fear-eclipsing confidence), and the "too little" is not too little courage, it's cowardice (maybe too little confidence to overcome fear).
As part of the antidote to Schur's Error About Virtue, take a look at Aristotle's discussion and further discussion of anger in reference to the mean: https://thereitis.org/aristotle_nicomachean-ethics/#anger1 and meditate on the quotation just above, where Schur himself nails the distinction.
