The failure to properly develop virtuous character traits will result in the agent acquiring vices or bad character traits instead. Vices include cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and vanity. Virtue ethics says that it is not only important to do the right thing, but also to have the required dispositions, motivations, and emotions in being good and doing right. We should enjoy doing good because we are good. It isn't only about action but also about emotions, character, and moral habits.
The appetite is often considered base or even sinful, but is clearly not so for Aristotle: the passions merely demonstrate a person’s basic necessities, which one can not consider without considering the human person in the same way. The spirited part reacts to injustices or incorrectness in one’s surroundings, and it is often described as the “angry” part, as anger deal with perception of injustice as well. The reasonable part concerns itself with finding the truth and distinguishing it from falsities, and is often considered both the highest and hardest to perfect part of the soul. Each part has its own intricacies and specifics, allowing them to aid the human... ... middle of paper ... ...er pleasure later. However, this opinion does not account for actions excluding one’s appetite taken at the end (or even causing the end) of one’s life, like in giving one’s life for that of a loved one.
Divine intervention is another major component of this epic. At the beginning, Homer placed the role of the gods to determine the fate of Odysseus. “With this Athena left him/ as a bird rustles upward, off and gone. / But as she went she put new spirit in him, / a new dream of his father…” (I. 368-371).
Plato likens the soul as a chariot rider, guiding and guided by two horses, courage (representing the transcendent dignity of the mind) and desire (representing the physical body which drags us down). He says that the soul is 'trapped' between the body and the mind, and is only after death that it becomes 'freed' to rejoin the eternal world of...
"Do good to those who do good to you, and harm to those who harm you." This essay will be an exploration of the ethical viability of this statement through the evaluation of several ethical ideas and theories. Primarily, the statement suggests a necessity of the two separate points made within it: To do good to those who do good to you, but in doing so you must harm those who harm you. If you decide to act upon one half of this statement, then it seems not only logical but almost necessary and just to act upon the other half. Although momentarily the statements seem reasonable and sensible, in many respects the ambiguity and simplicity of the statement make it inapplicable to such a vast and varied society.
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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...n, remember that there are two types of virtues, moral and intellectual. The moral virtue as it relates to virtue in general must be an excellent making characteristic. That is, someone who is morally virtuous will be able to perform moral duties well. This illustrates how Aristotle is able to bring the notion of arête to apply to moral virtue. For Aristotle the doctrine of the mean is a way to categorize (one of his favorite activities) moral virtue; however, there are some exceptions, as Aristotle noted, leaving a gap that must be filled.
So selfishness is, in turn, a good thing. Without it, we end up finding ourselves having no self-value and eventually conclude that there is no true, underlying reason to even exist. Where the Golden Rule comes into play here is that we are taught the Golden Rule to instill in us the consideration and compassion of other individual’s feelings by performing selfless acts, but the Golden Rule is selfish, and that is a good thing. By having our self-interest at heart while performing a good deed, it shows that we have our own values (Sanford Rose Associates). Although, some people may have different internal values that misconstrue each person’s idea of selfishness, known as Objectivist ethics, but that is
Virtues usually help people do good, but when they do not help, people must violate them for the sake of the principle. Franklin would argue that virtues are not the core of morality, but, doing good is the core. Therefore, people must sometimes sacrifice their virtues if it is necessary to achieve morality. Franklin uses his guidelines in this flexible way because he is a reasonable and practical person. If Franklin strictly followed his guidelines all the time, it would be unproductive and inefficient.
To me, an example like this would fit as a definition, because without much examination, it works well for most situations. For example, if a man is good, then an appropriate return for his goodness is to be good back to him. But if a man acts in a bad or troublesome way, an equally bad punishment is needed to counter his actions. I see this fitting, but Socrates of course easily found a flaw, finding this definition useless if followed, because of there not being a person best at benefiting friends and harming enemies.
Aristotle believes when you do something it comes from the virtues you have, while Kant believes there is always a reason behind actions. However, both agree “that time and practice is required to develop virtues” (betzler 50). Another thing they have in common is that both of them focused on peoples actions and why people performed those actions. Whether, it is happiness or good will we are all completing an action to the end; in order to have a good life. Aristotle’s Strength is his belief in moderation (Book480).