Aristotle Virtue Ethics Essay

Aristotle and Plato both said that there are four "natural virtues": Justice, Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. These values are all necessary to achieve human flourishing. Another key part of Aristotle’s ethic is what he referred to as ‘The Golden Mean’. He believed that a virtue can not necessarily be viewed as a virtue when it is used in excess. For example, courage is a virtue, but in excess it becomes rashness, a vice rather than a virtue. Moreover, when there is a lack of a certain virtue, this is also considered a vice. Aristotle's ethic is based primarily on balance. There cannot be too much excess or too little of the virtue. Thus, he said: "The mean [i.e. the balance] is successful and commendable. Virtue then is a state of deliberate moral purpose consisting in a mean that is relative to ourselves, the mean being determined by reason, or as a prudent man would determine it.”

In this paper, I will critically examine Rosalind Hursthouse’s argument on “Virtue Ethics” about the reasoning of a virtuous person by delving into the topic. I will then expose a particular problem within it. Perhaps the strongest point of the argument on “Virtue Ethics” that Hursthouse gives relies on the claim of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy claims that a virtuous person would act and make decisions like what a virtuous person would do. In this paper, I will focus on Hursthouse’s argument on the certainty of a virtuous person, offer an objection to the argument, and demonstrate how Hursthouse might respond to that objection.

In order to achieve this final, we need to live a virtuous life according to the Golden mean, which is finding the middle grounds of the virtues we live by. Aristotle explains that we should continuously act in accordance with virtues, which are acquired from our upbringing and experiences. Because Aristotle believed in teleology, he said that by aiming our actions toward an end (happiness), our souls need to work in the way of excellence.

Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they’re the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed persons. The first person is the virtuous person, Aristotle believes that a virtuous person is a person that behaves in a highly well-mannered way. A virtuous person knows how to act as a mean within the deficiency (too little) and excess (too much). “Hence virtue is a sort of medial condition because it is able to aim at and hit the mean.” (2.6 1106b27-1106b28) The virtuous person often does things through habit and continuous practice rather than having someone teach them because it can’t be taught. “From this, it is also clear that none of the virtues of character comes about in you naturally, since nothing natural can be habituated to be otherwise.” (2.1 1103a18-1103a19) Virtuous persons don’t let things overcome who they truly are, meaning their attitudes are at an even level when it comes to pleasures and pains. Virtuous persons can’t let things get the best of them, which is why the mean is so important because it gives balance and clear judgement.

     When talking about happiness and goodness, there must be an important quality present. According to Aristotle, people need to practice balance and moderation in their every day lives. Achieving this middle ground, or mean, translates into being virtuous in Aristotle’s mind. If virtue is present, so is its opposite vise. For every virtue, there are two vices. One vice is excessive while the other is deficiency. Courage works as a great example because it is virtuous. The excessive vise is recklessness and the

This is developed during the discussion of virtue in book II of The Nicomachean Ethics. The Doctrine of the Mean originates from two teleological arguments that inaugurate the structure of Aristotle’s moral philosophy: the function reason for virtue and the relapse argument that stands for eudemonia. Aristotle’s The Nicomachean Ethics embarks on the stance that all arguments must in due course be directed towards a single end. This single end is called eudemonia. With comparison to all inferior ends such as pleasure, nobility, and intelligence, eudemonia is pursued for only itself and is autonomous and whole. Although eudemonia is something that can eventually be attained, it should not solely be viewed as an ‘end-goal’. It is a vigorous standing which accompanies good deeds. It is something to be developed over a period of time and preserved. The status should eventually be attributed to life in its entirety. This can be reiterated by one of Aristotle’s eminent sayings: “one swallow does not make a

In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

To also be a liberal man you must first have respect for your own stuff, not being careless with it by giving it all away but only what is necessary at the right time. This is truly what he meant by it being a “mean” because it is the way of giving where its not giving in excess and its not giving in defect which would be giving to the wrong people; For those things amount to failure in a virtuous sense. One is not born a liberal man, he is created through out life, this brings us back to book one where he speaks of the stone and how it can not be forced to go up with out coming back down or how fire cannot be forced to burn down. If we were all created a liberal man there would be no problems at all and we would all be living on an equal plain. But life isn’t perfect and it will never be that way because were not all the liberal man. Not to sum up Aristotle in one sense but what he is basically trying to say I think is, you are who you make yourself and who you are surrounded with. I could be completely wrong but I feel that this is what he is

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores virtues as necessary conditions for being happy. A virtuous person is a person with a disposition toward virtuous actions and who derives pleasure from behaving virtuously. Aristotle distinguishes between two types of human virtue: virtues of thought and virtues of character. Virtues of thought are acquired through learning and include virtues like wisdom and prudence; virtues of character include bravery and charity, which are acquired by habituation and require external goods to develop. As a consequence, not all people can acquire virtues of character because not all people have the external goods and resources required to develop that disposition.

so we've seen the connection that 0:01Aristotle makes between reason and 0:04virtue 0:04the next question is how do virtuous 0:06people make moral decisions and how does 0:09one become more virtuous for Aristotle 0:12this is by means of the golden mean so 0:17the mean is an important concept within 0:20Aristotle to reiterate virtuous the 0:24state of character that allows a

Throughout life, one must make difficult choices. People are often faced with decisions of the good (temptation and temporary and immediate pleasure) and the greater good (pain and sacrifice). The most important moral virtues are moderation, courage, and justice. Moderation keeps us from overindulging in limited goods, pleasure, and temptation. Courage is facing your fears, and justice (the laws) encourages people to behave virtuously and create relationships with others. Reaching happiness is highly dependent on living a balanced virtuous life.

To Aristotle, ethics is not an exact science, it’s ruled by broad generalizations that work most of the time and are found with those of experience, the men of practical wisdom (Nicomachean Ethics, 1094b15-1095a10). We don’t need a focused study in the sciences to understand the good, all one needs is a proper understanding of how the external aspects of life: friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth operate in concert. No aspects of friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth ought to be practiced too much (excess) or too little (deficient); moral virtue is action performed between two extremes (Nic. Ethics, 1106b5-25). And it is by consultation that one may find the middle ground between excess and deficiency, The Golden Mean (Nic. Ethics, 1097b5-20; Nic. Ethics, 1104a10-25).

“Nothing in excess.” This Doric saying situated in the foreground of the temple at Delphi, is one of the earliest elaborations of the doctrine known as the Golden Mean. It was this one saying that sparked the birth of an ethical principle, in which the concepts are tenfold. In the aftermath of reading this excerpt, scholars alike have interpreted this statement, gradually contributing to the pantheon of perceptions that revolve around the connotation of the Mean. First reflected in Socrates’ teachings, the Mean was passed down by Plato, and then utterly revolutionized by Aristotle. Utilizing cross-fertilization, it eventually spread throughout the known Earth. (Aristotle on the Concept of the Golden Mean) Simply, the Golden Mean is the the belief in moderation between two extremes, and it reaffirms the balance that we, as a thriving species, need in life. The golden mean is the most influential axiom that was developed by the Ancient Greeks because it is prevalent in many Greek myths, was theorized by Aristotle, and has influenced the livelihood of people in the Western World.

Aristotle’s overlook on what is the ‘good life’ as he used an empirical approach to ethics. The ‘good life’ as Aristotle defines it as one which has happiness as a characteristic or ‘a life of happiness’. ‘Happiness is an activity of the soul in accord with perfect virtue’. ‘People ought to behave so as to achieve happiness’. I believe that Aristotle’s answer will be everyone always ought to follow the middle course between certain kinds of activities. Aristotle uses an analogy to describe happiness. The analogy of happiness is best described as how much a person can eat. For example, if a person believes that having two cakes would be sufficient for his lunch, but if he believes that having one cake would not be enough for his lunch, then how much is right for him? To be right for him, he must eat between one and two cakes in order to satisfy his appetite. This is Aristotle’s formula, ‘the doctrine of the mean’ or the preferred name ‘golden mean’. The ‘Doctrine of the Mean’ is the moderation in all things. The virtues we must have are virtues of moderation. This will be different for different people as Aristotle believed. Aristotle is therefore a relativist.

Aristotle studied under Plato, who studied under Socrates, yet Aristotle tended to be more real-world oriented with regard to how he thought. Aristotle has come to be known as the father of logic, and has been credited as the first person to classify knowledge in specific categories like mathematics, and biology. Indeed, his sound reasoning skills and belief in the scientific method form the framework for much of his work, and his idea of a good life is probably no different (Richter, 2008). Aristotle was an observer of nature, and recognized the need for balance in natural systems. He could have reasoned that since humans are products of nature, we too must find a balance with-in our environments. This probably led to the idea of a golden mean, or balance between two extremes that humans should strive to achieve. The golden mean is not an exact middle or average in the mathematical sense, but rather a flexible guideline that can vary depending on the situation. In this way, it could be said that courage is the desirable trait that exists between cowardliness and recklessness. However, where courage lies between these two extremes varies from situation to situation, so a baseline cannot be defined to cover every case. For example, risking one’s life in battle to save the lives of others would be considered a courageous act, while risking one’s life through heavy alcohol or