Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Can virtue be taught
Every person has qualities that define their character; it is what dictates how they see and experience the world. For example, if someone has good character-defining qualities, they are generally viewed as a good person; the same goes for bad qualities with bad people. These qualities are known as virtue, and they are ingrained in people from the exact minute they begin to process the world. How exactly does one gain virtue, though? Is a person born with virtue, or are they taught it? Is virtue even teachable? This question is pondered by Socrates in Plato’s early dialogues. In this paper, I will explain why Socrates thinks virtue is not teachable, using examples from Meno and Protagoras. Afterwards, I will explain why I believe that virtue …show more content…
In Meno, the titular character and Socrates consider this very question. To truly answer whether virtue is teachable or not, one needs to consider what knowledge is, and what it means to be taught something. Socrates attempts to prove this by asking a slave about the size of a square. When the slave answers confidently but incorrectly, Socrates implores him to look for another solution, leaving the boy baffled. Finally, the boy answers again with the same confidence he had in the beginning. This proves what Socrates assumed about what it meant to be taught something, which was that it was less being taught something new, and more being reminded about something that the person already knew. The boy had no previous lessons in mathematics, yet Socrates technically did not teach him anything; he only asked questions, and it was the boy’s own brainpower that led him to the answers. As such, Socrates turns this method onto Meno, a man who once claimed “[he has] made many speeches about virtue before large audiences on a thousand occasions” but now “[he] cannot even say what it is” (80b3-b5). Like the boy and the size of the square, Socrates is turning this into a method of discovery, except Meno is the boy, and the definition of virtue is the size of the
...ledge above everything else, Socrates put an emphasis on the quality of knowledge and the quality of teaching thereafter. To this day, the seeking of knowledge and the eventual passing it on are revered tasks. It is said that teachers are among the wisest people on the land not only for their knowledge but their experience in handling different personalities. They are also respected for their grasp of the facts of life and what goes on around us. They explain life and make it worth living. No wonder Socrates said, “The unexplained life is not worth living” (Brisson 90).
According to Aristotle, there are two types of virtue. These are: intellectual and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue stems from growth and teaching. In order to be intellectually virtuous one must have a great amount of experience and have allocated a great amount of time in studying whatever task it is they are looking to be virtuous in. On the other hand, moral virtue is given birth through habit. It is not an object that we are just born with it. Moral virtue originates from constant repetition.
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
In the Meno, Plato addresses the question of virtue, what it is, how to obtain and if virtue can be taught. Meno came to conclusion after a long discussion with Socrates that it is impossible to know what virtue is. The Meno’x paradox states, “if one knows what virtue is, he does not need to search for it. However, if one does not know what virtue is, how can he search for it? He may not know he has it even when he gets it.” Seeing how hopeless Meno is, Socrates propose the theory of recollection as a way to obtain virtue. This paper will argue against this theory.
In the Laches and the Phaedo, courage and virtue are discussed in depth. Also, arguments for the possibility of the existence of the immorality of the soul are given in the Phaedo. In the Laches, Socrates and two generals, Nicias and Laches, wrestle with how exactly to define courage. After discussing and working their way through two definitions of courage, Nicias proposes a third definition of courage. However, this definition of courage that he proposes is actually the definition of virtue. When the dialogue comes to an end, no definition of courage has been reached.
When discussing specific knowledge, it is often hard to pin down an exact definition of what it is you are discussing. Often a concept or word will get thrown around so often that it will begin to be taken for granted and when pressed, a person may struggle to pin down specifically what it is they mean. Realizing this, Socrates often went out and attempted to fix these kinds of problems and find out what people actually knew, compared to what they just thought they knew. In the dialogues Euthyphro and Meno, Socrates attempts to pin down definitions for piety and virtue, respectively. In doing so, we are shown that the thinkers in question struggle to define these terms, and attempt to do so in vague terms that may vary heavily under different circumstances. What Socrates is attempting to find is one definitive definition of piety and virtue, what is called his One Form Requirement. Rather than defining something by classifying different parts that make it up, Socrates maintains the belief that piety and virtue both can be simplified into one specific form that describes exactly what makes all F actions F.
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.
However, Meno poses a question which Socrates classifies as the “debater’s argument”. The argument goes like this, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know” (Plato 70)? Meno questions how will they know what they are looking for if they have no previous idea of what it is, and if they find it how will they know that. Because they have no idea of what it is that they are looking for Meno believes that even if they do come across the true meaning of virtue they will have no way of knowing that they have. Socrates counters this argument by inserting his idea of the immortal soul. Socrates states that we all have an immortal soul, which already has all the knowledge that we as man need. However, we as man simply need to discover the knowledge within us. As a result of this concept of the immortal soul, Socrates believes that once they encounter what they are looking for they will know they have found
In my opinion, Plato’s idea that virtue can’t be taught is correct. But can one learn to be virtuous? One can know what virtuousness is comprised of but that doesn’t necessarily mean that one will be virtuous. This indicates
In Book II, Aristotle makes a distinction between two types of virtues; those which are considered ethical and those which are considered intellectual. Ethical virtues deal with actions of courage, generosity, and moderation. Intellectual virtues deal with wisdom and contemplation. Ethical virtues are created through habitual actions. Aristotle says that humans are not born with a natural capacity for virtue. He believes that education and cultivation as youth by one’s parents are pivotal in setting up humans’ ability in making virtuous acts habitual. He feels that humans have to perform virtuous actions as much as possible and through this humans can make a step in becoming virtuous. Aristotle also states that ethical virtues have to be attended by pleasure. He believes that humans cannot be pained when committing a virtuous action. If a human is pained by an action then it is not considered virtuous.
By Characterizing himself –Socrates- as both ignorant and wise, he presents us with one of the most striking paradoxes. Like so many of the other philosophers, is provocative in that its apparent self-contradiction hides an important idea for us readers to discover. Though out this text Socrates ignorance results from his belief that he has no knowledge of moral idea, or moral properties, such as justice, virtue, piety, and beauty. He asserts that, if only he knew the relevant definitions, he would be a moral expert who could answer philosophical questions about moral properties- questions such as is a certain action just? Or is it truly good for a man to be virtuous? Socrates believes that only someone that is “truly wise” would know these essential definitions and be able to provide such expert answers. It is important to determine whether Socrates does, in fact, accept priority of definition principle and, if he does, whether he is committed to a false and problematic principle that subjects him to catastrophic results. A textual analysis will be a philosophic inquiry into Socrates’ conception of knowledge, considering what he believes knowledge to be, how the knowledge of definitions fits into his epistemology, and whether or not his conception of knowledge is philosophical compelling.
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,
Aristotle, argued that he could not judge a person on the basis of one example and wanted to look at the whole over time. Additionally he argued virtue was found between the extremes of each characteristic. Balance between the extremes of emotion was his main concern (Manning and Stroud 59). Virtue ethics requires one to strive for excellence, a process that happens over a long period of time. It includes learning about ethics, struggling with them, and eventually living ethically (Class
Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics is a theory used to make moral decisions. It does not rely on religion, society or culture; it only depends on the individuals themselves. The main philosopher of Virtue Ethics is Aristotle. The. His theory was originally introduced in ancient Greek.