Virtue is a word that is often associated with having the highest honor and integrity. Everyone has a slightly different definition of virtue. I would like to examine: how has the definition of virtue changed throughout the years? I will analyze Nichomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, and The Prince, by Machiavelli. Aristotle wrote Nichomachean Ethics around 350 BC, while The Prince was written in the early 1500’s. With a nearly 2,000 year time period between these two great works, how has the idea of virtue changed?
In Nichomachean Ethics, virtue is defined as achieving good. Virtue is a state of character, which Aristotle says is pointless to examine. All that matters is the achievement of good. He says that there are two kinds of virtue, intellectual and moral. Moral virtue is a disposition to behave in the correct manner. Virtue must be taught from a young age. It is striking a balance between deficiency and excess, which are vices.
Aristotle claims that there are two types of virtue: intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtues must be taught, so it requires experience and time. On the other hand, “none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature.” (Aristotle 23) He says that when we are born, we all have the potential to be morally virtuous; it just depends on our upbringing and habits that determine who actually becomes virtuous. He confirms this with a metaphor to government, when he says, “legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them.” (23) This is showing that on all levels, virtue is something that needs to be taught.
Aristotle says that there are three ways to tell if a person is truly virtuous. The person must “in the first place ...
... middle of paper ...
...more practical with his definition. He claims it is useless to define virtue in the metaphysical sense, because it will never apply to the real world. He defines virtue as actions that gain the praise of others. However, he does not encourage rulers to always strive for virtue. Sometimes, vices can be more beneficial to rule, and in these cases, it is okay to embrace these vices; however, vices should not be pursued for their own sake. Both authors agree that it is important to have a balance between extreme vices. It seems that back in Aristotle’s time, philosophy was much more idealized in determining what the greatest possible definition of virtue was. In Machiavelli’s time, thinking was more practical and oriented on the product than the ideal. Machiavelli gives much more functional advice on how to rule, and his definition of virtue is therefore more sensible.
In Aristotle 's Nicomachean Ethics, the basic idea of virtue ethics is established. The most important points are that every action and decision that humans make is aimed at achieving the good or as Aristotle 's writes, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at the good... (Aristotle 1094a). Aristotle further explains that this good aimed for is happiness.
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.
Aristotle’s virtuous person and Kant’s moral worth have two different meanings. Kant and Aristotle, from different times, have different ways of looking at what makes people make the best decisions. Coming from different sides of ethics in Deontology and virtue ethics, they agree and disagree with each other as most other schools of ethical thought do as well. After stating both their positions, I will prove that Kant’s view of morality is more correct than Aristotle’s view of the person.
To begin with, Aristotle tells us his meaning of virtues and vices. They are not just any habits that we experience, but the outcome of what we feel as pleasure or pain. A virtuous person feels pleasure at the most beautiful action. A person who is not virtuous will feel their pleasure misleading. the definition of virtue is a behavior showing high moral standards or good characteristics. Virtues comes as a consequence of following the right habits. There are two different types of virtues: Intellectual and moral. To have virtues you have to have intellectual morals. This means you ethically do things on your own, you comprehend what doing, and realizing why you doing it. Aristotle says we can describe virtu...
Aristotle further divided his thought on ethics into two categories, intellectual virtue and moral/social/political virtue. With respect to his views on moral virtue, Aristotle developed a doctrine that showed that virtue is staying in the mean, the doctrine of the mean. “The moral virtue is a mean…” (Aristotle 109). This doctrine claimed that having the right amount of a characteristic would be virtuous and most often is in between having too much or too little of ...
Its primary aim is to praise and blame and it deals with excellence, goodness, shame, nobility, honor and matters of vice and virtue. According to Aristotle, virtue comprises courage, justice, magnificence, liberality, self-control, magnanimity, gentleness and wisdom that is speculative.
... individuals interpret human experience in different ways and thus interpret virtues in different ways. This means that virtue ethics cannot be an objective and universal theory. This, consequently, causes Aristotelian virtue ethics to be an unpractical and unsuccessful moral theory in reality. This is because there cannot be an agreed consensus of what is the actual mean, the virtue, between the vices of deficiency and excess.
He stated, “So virtue is a provisional disposition… virtue is a mean; but in respect of what is right and what is right and best, it is an extreme (Aristotle, 42).” Here Aristotle explains that moral virtue is determined by reason and that it avoids the states of too much, excess, or too little, deficiency. He believes that our soul is the principle of living because it is inside of us. Therefore, for Aristotle the soul was morally which is where we are given the right reason. He believes that, “there are two parts of the soul, one rational and one irrational (Aristotle, 145).” The rational part, which is how he believe we should do our actions upon, consists of possessing reason, part that can think and command, and intellectual virtues, which are virtues that come from time and experience. Courage is a moral virtue. When having courage, you either have too much fear, which makes you a coward, or you have too little fear, where you’d be considered rash or fool hardy. Generosity is also a moral virtue. When you are generous, you are either giving too much, which makes you profligate, or you are giving too little which would consider you as a stingy person. Moral virtues lead you to happiness because of their intermediate state that is by
Virtue ethics is a theory about finding our highest good and doing so will develop a vigorous character within each person. Character is important because it shows that a person has certain beliefs and desires in doing the right thing and when the right thing is accomplished, happiness follows (Hartman, 2006). Virtue ethics derives from Aristotle and he concludes that by doing virtuous acts all through life happiness and respectable character will develop (Morrison & Furlong, 2013). Finding the highest good within oneself brings happiness and great character to that individual.
Machiavelli disagrees with the classical definition of virtue. He makes a distinction between what he calls ‘virtu’ and ordinary goodness; a separation between private and public morality. Virtue literarily means manliness, and he equates it to skillful self-advancement. Virtue implies physical and mental capacity-intelligence, skill, courage, vigor; everything that is necessary for attainment of one’s own ends. Additionally, virtue is the ability to be flexible and adjust in any given situation. Pizan, on the other hand, attributes loyalty, prudence, intellect, imagination, moral strength and insight to virtue. Although their definitions of virtue are not necessarily the same, the historical, mythical, and biblical examples Pizan and Machiavelli utilize are aimed at proving the same point, that glory is the goal of acting virtuously.
For instance, he states that “it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use his knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case” and that “he must not mind incurring the scandal of those vices without which it would be difficult to save the state” because “it will be found that some things which seems virtues would lead to one’s ruin” and some that seem to be vices result in greater security and wellbeing (Machiavelli, pg. 15). Machiavelli doesn't define virtue as other humanist might he believes that virtues are qualities that others praise, like generosity and honesty. He argues that a prince should
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,
Virtue is considered a good thing, but how can one word be a cause for discussion? Words can mean different things, and in the case of Jesus and Aristotle, are their teachings of virtue different? Two great philosophers, one great question: which virtue is the best for us, Jesus’ or Aristotle’s? I am going to explore both versions of virtue and compare the two.
Before describing the close relationship between the good and virtue, we have to define these terms. Virtue has a broader sense than the contemporary understanding we have of it, in the Nicomachean Ethics virtue simply means excellence. Aristotle defines a good by noticing that every action seeks some good. In the Nicomechean Ethics good and end are interchangeable and both mean goal. Having described a good, Aristotle makes a distinction between goods in order to define the latter. So there are two types of goods (1094a10-1094a16), some have an instrumental value, they refer to goods which we seek in order to obtain other goods. For example money is a good however we do not value it for itself but rather in order to obtain something else such as a material product. Other goods are intrinsic, we value them for themselves. For example health would be considered as an intrinsic good since we seek good health for itself. The distinction between instrumental and intrinsic goods enables us to establish a hierarchy of goods and to suppose the existence of a good which would be the highest one. Knowing that there is...
times. Then the sand was sunk. Aristotle was a great believer in virtues and the meaning of virtue to him meant being able to fulfil one's functions. Virtue ethics is not so much interested in the question, "What should I do?" but rather the question 'what sort of person should I become?'