Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, describes the virtue as an action, when a person keeps him/herself in a stable balance of the soul, in order to select the action deliberately and for its own purpose. This stable harmony of the soul is what establishes the character. Aristotle claims that being virtuous person is an aim that a person can generally conclude by selecting virtue, behaving as it mention, and make it a habit and natural tendency, with free will. humans ‘by virtue of the action’ capability is coming from the birth. Being virtuous is a propensity that turns out again through proper processing of this capability. People become virtuous by taking virtuous actions, just by taking just actions and temperate by taking temperate actions. …show more content…
The mean can change from one situation to another. Diverse degrees are required for diverse situations because every situation has different perspectives to determine the right point. Knowing precisely what is fitting in a given situation is difficult. Also, the mid-point can also change one person to another. However, in some cases, this cannot show changes. For example, traffic rules can be seen as the rules of order process but we can also accepted them as the mean point in our daily life. If people reach the two extreme points, this can causes some problems. On the one hand, if a person drive a car fastly, this can causes the accidents that can give harm themselves and the others. On the other hand, if a person drive a car slowly, this can causes disruptions in the traffic. When every person obey the rules, there can be no problems except some exceptions like air conditions or error of the road. Moreover, Justice is accepted as doing right things by Aristotle and the virtuous person takes right actions. When we think the mean, it is also the result of being virtuous. And so, behaving in mid-point can be thought that equals to doing right actions. Aristotle argues that “…for there seems to be a kind of justice that obtains for any human being in relation to anyone capable of sharing in law and taking part in agreement…to the extent that the other is a human being.” (Aristotle, 157) In this perspective, a person is just if s/he is moral, compassionate and obeys the law. Obeying laws like traffic rules is the symbol of being just person. In other words, a just person behaves towards other people virtuously. So, s/he should act with thinking about other people in accordance with the rule. Each person should think own self and the people around him/her. The conclusion reached for this given example is that obeying the rules is the middle point of humans' and when they obey the rules, good flow appears
According Aristotle, a virtuous person will always use reason and intellect, and effortlessly make the correct decisions in every situation. They have their hexis in the correct place, and they have truly lived and struggled. With a virtuous person, life will have not been easy, and a virtuous person will have had to experience difficult times and learn from these experiences. These experiences are what will make them a virtuous person. For example, a person who had lived their life in poverty, then makes the decision to work and study to get a high paying job. With this, they dedicate a great deal of their time and money to helping the homeless. This person would be an example of what a virtuous person, their soul has had struggled, and without this they would have not become this person. They need to have this struggle in order to become a virtuous person. With a virtuous person, they are naturally a good person.
Rule utilitarianism must find a balance between rules and utility to try and maximize human flourishing. Williams and Harwood both critique utilitarianism, but an ideal rule utilitarianism is able to satisfy any critique posed. An ideal rule utilitarianism would be able to avoid the problem of rule worship while still allowing the rules to carry sufficient meaning. Rule utilitarianism should refine rules to become more specific, which will hopefully lead to the ideal form of rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is able to respond to the criticisms proposed by Williams and Harwood by making more specific rules that will coincide with the greatest happiness
asks “What are the costs?” and “What are the benefits?”. According to rule consequentialism, rules are selected entirely based on the goodness of their consequences and proceeds to claim that these rules govern what kind of acts are morally wrong. Basically, the rightness or wrongness of an action is contingent on whether it is obligatory or prohibited by an ideal set of rules. An ideal set of...
According to Aristotle, there are two types of virtue. These are: intellectual and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue stems from growth and teaching. In order to be intellectually virtuous one must have a great amount of experience and have allocated a great amount of time in studying whatever task it is they are looking to be virtuous in. On the other hand, moral virtue is given birth through habit. It is not an object that we are just born with it. Moral virtue originates from constant repetition.
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
Rather, when an individual consistently strikes the mean for a particular virtue, then that person can be said to have attained the particular virtue. For instance, when one is feeling anger, choosing not to respond with it demonstrates that an individual is trying to exercise self-control and if this individual continues to consistently refrain from acting upon that emotion, then eventually the individual will attain the virtue of good temper. Evidently, Kant and Aristotle differ in their theories regarding the source of virtuous action as Kant claims that a virtuous action must be done from duty and Aristotle believes that a virtuous action is done for its own sake and done in a conscious manner.
Aristotle's ethics consist of a form of virtue ethics, in which the ethical action is that which properly complies with virtue(s) by finding the mean within each particular one. Aristotle outlines two types of virtues: moral/character virtues and intellectual virtues. Though similar to, and inspired by, Plato and Socrates’ ethics, Aristotle's ethical account differs in some areas.
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a state that makes something good, and in order for something to be good, it must fulfill its function well. The proper function of a human soul is to reason well. Aristotle says that there are two parts of the soul that correspond to different types of virtues: the appetitive part of the soul involves character virtues, while the rational part involves intellectual virtues. The character virtues allow one to deliberate and find the “golden mean” in a specific situation, while the intellectual virtues allow one to contemplate and seek the truth. A virtuous person is someone who maintains an appropriate balance of these two parts of the soul, which allows them to reason well in different types of situations.
One of the major players in ethical theories has long been the concept of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that in general the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action is directly related to the utility of that action. Utility is more specifically defined as a measure of the goodness or badness of the consequences of an action (see quote by Mill above). For the purposes of this paper, Utility will be considered to be the tendency to produce happiness. There are two types of Utilitarianism; these are “act” and “rule”. An act utilitarian uses thought processes associated with utilitarianism (i.e. the principle of utility) to make all decisions, this requires a lot of thought and careful calculation. For example, an act utilitarian deciding from a list of possible day trips would sit down and calculate out the utility of each possible decision before coming to a conclusion as to which one was preferable. Contrary to an act utilitarian, a rule utilitarian uses the principles of utility to create a set of rules by which they live. Rule utilitarians are not incapable of calculating a decision; they just do not see a need to do it all the time. For example, a rule utilitarian might have some rules like this: in general do not kill, in general do not steal, in general do not lie; but if they found a situation that might except the rule they would do the cal...
Virtue, then deals with those feelings and actions in which it is wrong to go too far and wrong to fall too short but in which hitting the mean is praiseworthy and good….
In a big way, aiming at the mean makes people better, but it is not the only thing that exists. In other words, by striving for perfection, people often do very well and even their best. This can be considered virtuous. Virtuosity is not as narrow a goal as Aristotle spells it out to be. Aristotle in essence equates virtuosity with a grade of 100, but the majority of people do not receive 100’s all the time.
the way in which we come to find out what actions are right and which
He claims that virtue of thought is taught and that virtue of character is habitually learnt. Either way, virtues do not “arise in us naturally” (216, 1103a20). He argues that humans have the capacities for virtues, but they must act on them (216, 1103a30). Thus, a person must learn to use the capability of being virtuous, meaning someone needs to teach them those virtues (217, 1103a10). To be virtuous, it is not just the action that matters, but the reason behind the action too. Aristotle says that a person should be consciously acting virtuous because this would result in him living a happy life (221, 1105a30). This takes time and a person must constantly repeat these actions to achieve the end goal of being virtuous (221,
Aristotle once stated that, “But if happiness be the exercise of virtue, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the exercise of the highest virtue; and that will be the virtue or excellence of the best part of us.” (481) It is through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that we are able to gain insight into ancient Greece’s moral and ethical thoughts. Aristotle argues his theory on what happiness and virtue are and how man should achieve them.
Aristotle then shifts to asking the question that we might feel we are already good people because we are already acting in a just manner. Aristotle disagrees with this. He brings up an example of an artist and shows that the skill of the artist is in what he creates. It is over once the art has been made. Virtue is different. The end does not fully matter, but also needs to be in a good state of mind. We should always want to act in a virtuous way. We can only make it to this by creating habits in living a virtuous life. He also brings up that speeches could make people think they are becoming more virtuous, but it will not do anything. Aristotle then discusses what virtue is. It must be in passions, capacities, or characteristics within the soul. Passions have to do with pleasures and pain, capacities are what helps us understand our