Aristotle 's Theory Of Moral Virtue

915 WordsNov 24, 20154 Pages
Given the outline of Aristotle’s theory of moral virtue, I am left to conclude that Aristotle’s position is correct. Morality is obviously not innate, but clearly anyone with proper faculties of reasoning can achieve morality. Similarly we would not judge a baby on the actions it takes just as one would not judge the actions of an animal because the lack of reason strips the ability to achieve morality from the being under judgement; So to say that an animal or baby is gluttonous and therefor immoral makes no sense. We also know emotion to lack being inherently good or bad, even sadness can be good given that you act sad for the proper reasons in response to the proper conditions. I definitely agree that in most cases, what is virtuous is the mean between two vices and determined by the conditions underlying the situation. This is because the each action can be good or bad, and when a situation involves multiple conditions, it produces a range of mixtures of actions to be taken; some actions being more good or bad then others. For example, in war there are many conditions interplaying with one another; in instances of possible death, one must act courageous to overcome fear, but in the case of certain death one may employ cowardice. In both previous examples, one can argue that the action that followed was morally virtuous; in the first case, courage aided in warfare, while in the second, cowardice saved the man to fight another day. I further agree with Aristotle that to
Open Document