Moral Virtues Between Aristotle And St. Thomas Aquinas

Aristotle outlined his theory of Virtue Ethics in his book Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle focused his idea of ethics on agents rather than acts. His main idea is focused on the idea of human character- how can you be a better person? In fact, Aristotle once said: “For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good, since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.” Aristotle is given the credit for developing the idea of virtue ethics, but many of Plato's cardinal values influenced his ideas. Virtue Ethics is focused on the person's actions, not the consequences of that action. Aristotle believed if you had good moral values, then your actions would be "good" in theory. Rather than defining good actions,

Aquinas identifies the virtuous man as “the one who really lives out his ‘function’ and acts in accord with reason, but even desires in accord with reason.” Both the Stoics and Aquinas would agree that the virtuous man has the virtues; temperance, fortitude, courage, and justice which are all properly ordered with his reason. When reason is removed or blurred the virtuosity of the person is called into question. Virtue cannot be fulfilled without reason, and vice versa, however the one factor that can alter or affect reason, is passion. The Stoics characterized passion as “any emotions in disaccord with or exceed reason” and Aquinas defined passions as “any movement from the sense appetite.” Aquinas believes that if all passions belong to the sense appetite, then passions can be moderated and perfected by reason. These two varying definitions of passion show the rigidity of the Stoic view by portraying the virtuous man as the passionless man, which by default means the virtuous man lacks antecedent passions.

Aristotle takes the key to morality to be the concept of “virtue,” which he argues to be activity in accordance with rational principles. He bases this argument on a concept of what is “natural” for man, but his discussion is clearly limited to a small class of Greek male citizens, whom he views as the

Through the works of Epicurus, Epictetus, and Aquinas, it is evident that their philosophies inherit a great deal of virtue. Although roughly specified, virtue is implanted within their different ideologies. From achieving happiness, stoic beliefs, and in respects to Christian idealism, virtue turns out to be the driving factor in determining the ideal meaning of life from the perspective of each philosopher and it gives them their value. Backed by firm evidence, it is notable that virtue is more apparent in the Thomism philosophy.

Virtue ethics is a concept that is used in the process of moral decision making. It is dependent on the individuals themselves rather than on society, culture and religion. Aristotle was one of the main philosophers involved in virtue ethics. He was an advocate for virtue. Virtue ethics are associated with the type of person that one should become. It is solely concerned with human nature and morals. This essay will explore Aristotle’s conception of virtue. I will discuss Aristotle’s belief that virtue ethics are vital in achieving the ultimate goal of happiness. I will further consider and examine his theory of the Doctrine of the Mean. Finally, I will explore how Aristotle distinguishes between the two kinds of virtues and this will result

Mankind has been searching for existential reasoning since our earliest beginnings. One of the biggest questions, the one that keeps me up at night, “How ought we to live?” will be explained from the viewpoints of Epictetus in his Enchiridion and Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics. In this paper, I will discuss both philosophies in principle and practice, while giving insight to how to they may function in a modern world situation. Although both theories have useful guidance for navigating the human condition, Aristotle’s theory of virtue encompasses more of a real world schematic of how to interpret oneself in relation to our surroundings through compassion rather than apathy.

Moral virtue is acquired through the habituation of good acts which constantly aim for a mean between excess and deficiency in each circumstance. It is the choice of moral virtue through our acts, which allows us to satisfy a major requirement for happiness. Virtue, for Aristotle is a state in which reason helps us decide to do good acts. This is a part of our natural function as human beings, since reason is our distinguishing characteristic and good is the always the object of “correct reason.” The habituation of good acts, then, is what leads us to states of virtue in our lives. Since action always implies either pleasure or pain, it is our job to maintain the appropriate amount of each in the things that we do.

Aristotle’s work, The Nicomachean Ethics, consists of numerous books pertaining to Aristotle’s Ethics—the ethics of the good life. The first book discloses Aristotle’s belief on moral philosophy and the correlation between virtue and happiness.

Both Aristotle and Aquinas were prominent philosophers who wrote profound works that discussed the concept of the highest human good and how humans can achieve it. In Aristotle’s, Nicomachean Ethics, the highest human good is a state of constantly seeking knowledge as a way of achieving full capacity as a human. The writings of Aquinas are similar to Aristotle, but, in Treatise on Law, he discusses the type and elements of law. His discourse on law ultimately names the highest human good as being in the perfect community with God. Aquinas’s argument supports obedience to law, preexisting inclinations for the good, and a resolution. Aristotle requires that the person constantly seek knowledge and be at work, which can act as a positive force that drives humans to improve themselves.

Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn

The philosophy of virtue ethics, which primarily deals with the ways in which a person should live, has puzzled philosophers from the beginning of time. There are many contrasting interpretations regarding how one should live his or her life in the best way possible. It is in my opinion that the Greeks, especially Aristotle, have exhibited the most logical explanation of how to live the "good life". The following paper will attempt to offer a detailed understanding of Aristotle's reasoning relating to his theory of virtue ethics.

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

In our society today, we are mostly challenged by two questions: ‘is it right to do this or that? And ‘how should I be living in society?’(Bessant, 2009). Similar questions were greatly discussed in the history by our ancestors in their philosophical discussions. The most ancient and long-lasting literature on moral principles and ethics were described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. He had an excellent command on various subjects ranging from sciences to mathematics and philosophy. He was also a student of a famous philosopher. His most important study on ethics, personal morality and virtues is ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’, which has been greatly influencing works of literature in ethics and heavily read for centuries, is believed to be

In Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the idea of moral virtue. Aristotle emphasized the importance of developing moral virtue as the way to achieve what is finally more important, human flourishing (eudaimonia). Aristotle makes the argument in Book II that moral virtue arises from habit—equating ethical character to a skill that is acquired through practice, such as learning a musical instrument. However in Book III, Aristotle argues that a person 's moral virtue is voluntary, as it results from many individual actions which are under his own control. Thus, Aristotle confronts us with an inherently problematic account of moral virtue.

As well as being a devoted biologist, botanist, moral philosopher, psychologist, zoologist and many more things besides Aristotle held a view about human nature that he interwove into his concept of virtue theory, this is described at some length in the text Nicomachean Ethics. It is this view on human nature that I intend to explain and discuss throughout this essay with reference to some more recent philosophers to show that Aristotle’s view was not only linked directly to Athenian society but has managed to stand the test of time. A point I will return to later in a yet to posted article ‘Can we Consider Modern Ethics to be Aristotelian or Nietzschean?’, this article is much better written and argues the points in greater detail. I must admit this was in fact a very early work of mine and although some editing has been made it still lacks the strength some of my later pieces possess.