How Did Aristotle Contribute To The Development Of Moral Virtues

* 20-21 List 5 parallels between moral and intellectual virtues. ---Cultivating the virtues is a developmental process extending through a lifetime/ Growth in the virtues is not automatic/ We are not alone on our efforts to become morally and intellectually virtuous people/ our careers as a moral and intellectual agents are enveloped in a community context/ We must work to sustain our gains in the moral and intellectual life, since regression is a real possibility/ Growing in intellectual virtue requires that we grow in moral virtues, and vice versa.---

He divides virtue into two categories: virtue of thought and virtue of character. First category can be obtained from teaching, and it requires time and experience. Second category comes as a result of habituation, since virtues of character “arises in us neither by nature nor against nature. Rather, we are by nature able to acquire them, and we are completed through habit.” (p.18) In order to better illustrate it, Aristotle compares virtues with crafts. The same way we learn crafts, by producing the same product and mastering the technique, similarly we can perform and mastering our virtues, by doing the right things, “we become just by doing just actions, temperate by doing temperate actions, brave by doing brave actions.” (p.19) Therefore if we want to achieve a good result, we must practice good actions. Aristotle also stresses that it is important to start doing the right actions from the very young age, because developing of a character can take long time, and the earlier we begin, the better result we can get. Pleasure and pain are essential parts of virtue of character. Pleasure and pain impact our actions, it can help to estimate them, it also might be the cause of our behaviour, and if we are using pleasure and pain properly, it can increase our

Aristotle one of the best philosopher in our history developed a moral system in which brings virtue, and it tells us what the best type of act we can do. According to Aristotle, “The virtuous act is the mean between two extremes, which are vices; for example courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice” (Cahn 135). This means that we should have control of our emotions, and think how we are going to act, then we will be making a virtuous act. When a person acts with courage he will become virtuous because he practiced being courageous. He will become what he practices. However Aristotle’s system does not

Aristotle describes the importance of pleasure in relation to the human life; that is, pleasure is important and needed for a life to be virtuous. Though he describes pleasure in two ways, first he makes it a significant aspect of one’s life. “For pleasure is a state of soul, and to each man that which he is said to be a lover of is pleasant… the lovers of what is noble find pleasant the things that are by nature pleasant; and virtuous actions are such, so that these are pleasant for such men as well as in their own nature” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1.8 1099a7-15). Having pleasure, a feeling of satisfaction, joy, and even ecstasy, is a state of the soul. It is something to be drawn towards and feeling that one should strive to gain. Those who practice a noble life and are virtuous will naturally come to find

Recalling from the discussion on Euthyphro, the ancient Greek approach to moral philosophy was oriented towards overall character development, what one could think of as a universal approach to morality. The central question is “How should I live?” To which the answer is quite tersely, “live happily and noble.” Yet it is notable that this approach characterizes the person’s life, rather than their explicit actions. In other words, being a virtuous person is not simply reducible to doing the right thing or making the right decision. In this older form of philosophy, actions are sheer reflections of what has genuine moral worth, the character of a life fully lived. Therefore, it would appear that these early philosophers saw that the moral worth of people takes precedence over the rightness of their actions. For many, the concept of trying to “live honorably” sounds old fashioned. This is because it is old fashioned. This notion of regarding yourself as an “honorable man” or “virtuous woman” can, nowadays, strike many as arrogant or self righteous. In addition, other might perceive such thinking as reserved for their grandparent’s generation or the devoutly religious. Yet this is precisely what both the Platonic and Confucian moral traditions advocate. This approach of virtue prompts readers to consider moral standing in broader terms than simply doing the right thing. Rather, Confucius suggest

Virtues are deliberate, voluntary actions that aim for individual and communal well-being. Thus, the use of virtues requires that an individual can think critically, observe their surroundings properly, make use of wise counsel, and engage appropriate action when necessary. However, different circumstances leave room for different interpretations of virtue and/or vice. Therefore, it is important for an individual to acquire the best education and experiences in order to differentiate between second-nature virtuous and vicious habit forming, which affect overall character development. Thus, it is important to evaluate the perspectives of other educational fields to better acquire the best education and experiences required to become lifelong

When considering virtue ethics, the focus of an individual’s morality is based on their character rather than any one of their specific actions. When confronted with a difficult situation virtue ethicist would strive to always act virtuously, or as someone with ideal character traits would. Aristotle defined these ideal character traits as traits that are derived “from natural internal tendencies”, and that these traits “need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable.” [1]

Aristotle being a prize pupil and one of the most important Philosophers that believe for one to have virtue has to live a good life and base on their behavior. Moral virtues are totally different from intellectual ones. Intellectual virtues on can learn and Morals is one to live by.

Aristotle characterizes moral goodness as an aura to carry on in the correct way and as a mean between extremes of inadequacy and abundance, which are indecencies. We learn moral goodness fundamentally through propensity and practice as opposed to through thinking and guideline. Goodness involves having the suitable mentality toward torment and delight. For instance, a quitter will endure undue dread even with peril, while a rash individual won't endure adequate dread. Aristotle records the standard ideals alongside their comparing indecencies, as spoken to in the accompanying table. An upright individual shows the majority of the ideals: they don't appropriately exist as particular qualities yet rather as various parts of an ethical

Aristotle argues that virtues lie between (mean) two vices one of excess and one of deficiency and that virtues are determined through reason; if one acts in accordance with virtues then they are deemed to be good of character. Moral virtues, or good traits, are “attained” through habitual doing of such acts and in turn such acts determine one’s character. One must consciously do what is right for oneself. By that I mean, one

According to Aristotle virtue is achieving excellence of the soul. (1) For man to become virtuous they must build habits that model virtuous behavior. Aristotle believed that moral virtue forms through habit and no one is born virtuous. Under this premise virtue is both learned and practiced through our behaviors. When one acts in a moral and virtuous way they become more virtuous, the opposite is true also that if one acts in a non-virtuous way they will learn to become less virtuous. To be virtuous you also must maintain a balance which is called the mean.

The aim of this essay is to examine the following question. Does it make a difference in moral psychology whether one adopts Aristotle's ordinary or Immanuel Kant's revisionist definition of virtue as a moral habit? Suppose it is objected, at the outset, that these definitions cannot be critically compared because their moral theories are, respectively, aposteriori and apriori, and so incommensurable. Two points of commensurability and grounds for comparative evaluation are two basic problems that any theory in moral psychology must address. They are moral ignorance (I don't know what I ought to do) and weakness (I don't do what I know I ought to do).(1)

Aristotle, provided his account of morality, then Hume also has his own set of morality. In which, Hume mentions that “reason is the salve of the passion”(Prompt). While, Aristotle’s view is that passions are the slaves of reasons. Even though both have their own sets of morality, one of them has a better concept of morality. Hume has his own set of morals in which there are flaws. In this paper, I shall have to agree with Aristotle over Hume. Aristotle’s concept that our passions are the slaves of reasons. In this paper, I will agree with Aristotle and I would have to disagree with Hume. I shall start off with a brief introduction of Aristotle’s morals. Next, I will move on to the reasons why Aristotle has a better reasons than Hume. Then finally, I will give my closing remarks on the topic.

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.

an overview of virtue, both intellectual and moral, learning that we as humans are not born with