Aristotle On Virtue

[DeviantNorm]

According to Aristotle, we are not born virtuous, but rather, we are born with the capacity to be virtuous. We gain virtue by being virtuous all of the time.

He also said that "Happiness is the sake for which we do everything else; it is the soul's activity which expresses the highest virute over a lifetime."

Therefore, to be happy, you must be virtuous.

Questions? Comments? Snide remarks?

[PallidaMors]

Do you think he was right?

[DeviantNorm]

Do you think he was right?

I don't know...I mean, I can understand the reasoning. I think we are all born with the capacity for being virtuous, but I don't think that being virtuous is the only way to be happy.

[PallidaMors]

but I don't think that being virtuous is the only way to be happy.
I had the exact same thought immediately after reading your post, and I didn't know why. I think that is because "virtue" is such a broadly defined thing... ;)

[CliveStaples]

"Broadly defined" by Aristotle, or in general?

[PallidaMors]

"Broadly defined" by Aristotle, or in general?
maybe just by me :p

[DeviantNorm]

Virtue is indeed too broadly defined. Remember, though, that times were different in Aritotle's day, so his definition would likely be different too.

So we are born with the capacity for virtue. We are supposed to live up to that potential. In doing so, we become virtuous. Excellence, according to Aristotle, equals virtue. This is where the problems arise. How do you define excellence? By one's actions? One's nature? I think it was Aristotle who said that you don't know you've lived a virtuous life until you die, because how your reputation is remembered reflects your virtuosity. If I've recalled correctly, then we can't define virtue for ourselves.

[PallidaMors]

Virtue is completely relative to the times you live in. So something virtuous you did in your youth may not be so virtuous now. It is a moving target, and as such is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. Virtue is almost something that only someone else can define for you, as they see it. Hmmm...sounds a bit like Beauty...

[CliveStaples]

Particular permutations or manifestations of virtue may change from culture to culture, but Aristotle firmly believed that bravery was a virtue, regardless of nationality. Virtue is also a balance between extremes, for Aristotle; bravery, for instance, is the median between cowardice on one side and recklessness and foolishness on the other. Aristotle's virtue ethics are not so nebulous as they are made out to be.

[Fyshhed]

I believe Aristotle was wrong then. One most differentiate between bravery and courage.

One can be brave and stupid. Can one be courageous and stupid? In context, it seems courage is always positive.

[PallidaMors]

Aristotle's virtue ethics are not so nebulous as they are made out to be.
Perhaps, but Virtue itself can be, and most often is...

[CliveStaples]

One can be brave and stupid. Can one be courageous and stupid? In context, it seems courage is always positive.

Equivocation. "Brave," with the premises I gave, lacks foolishness and recklessness. You are using "brave" in another context.

[Vorketh]

I choose to see virtue as being true to onesself. Simply in the case of identity crisis can it be seen that lacking truth to what one holds as moral or pure or right can cause severe confusion in ones life. Aristotle, just as he, and many other philosophers, have done time and time again, has stated something self-evident. Truth to onesself allows one to be content with onesself, and therefore capable of being happy. One cannot be truly happy if in conflict with onesself. Ever tried? I have. Doesn't work. All happiness in such a state is fleeting. Lasting happiness requires self-esteem, and virtue is an excellent source of self-esteem.

[Slipnish]

I choose to see virtue as being true to onesself. Simply in the case of identity crisis can it be seen that lacking truth to what one holds as moral or pure or right can cause severe confusion in ones life. Aristotle, just as he, and many other philosophers, have done time and time again, has stated something self-evident. Truth to onesself allows one to be content with onesself, and therefore capable of being happy. One cannot be truly happy if in conflict with onesself. Ever tried? I have. Doesn't work. All happiness in such a state is fleeting. Lasting happiness requires self-esteem, and virtue is an excellent source of self-esteem.

Here, here! /\

I tried to be someone else for a year, but the clothes didn't fit...

Anyway, virtue is supposed to be its own reward. But is it really? Anyone ever have a chance to make out with a really gorgeous member of the opposite sex, turn it down due to some mutant moral popping out on your shoulder at just the wrong time, then regret it for years afterward? :mad:

Screw virtue. (Do I sound bitter? Maybe its because she looked just like a very young Demi Moore. SIGH!) ;? ;?

[CliveStaples]

I think you are misinterpreting Aristotle. He looked down on men who were satisfied with a life devoted to pleasure. These men were satisfied, at peace with themselves, but were not virtuous. Aristotle adamantly believed that each person must follow their telos, their purpose (or perhaps, "potential"). However, mere satisfaction with one's self was not the goal of Aristotle's virtue ethics; true happiness comes from being virtuous, for virtue's sake.
The point is only self-evident because Aristotle has pervaded Western philosophy for the last few thousand years. Your concept of "self" isn't self-evident; Eastern philosophy has a very nuanced and very different approach to the self. If it was self-evident, you wouldn't need to explain it to anybody.

[Supaiku]

I think that you either have to be ignorant or virtuous to be truely content with yourself, or happy. Well, really a mix of ignorant and virtuous.

[FruitandNut]

Aristotle's perception of 'virtue' is but one of many, and is framed by a personal perception of how he saw things in his particular 'world'. MacIntyre more recently looked into a large number of historic references and concludes that virtue is a concept which has a fluidity of definition. There exist models of 'virtue' which are in direct contradiction to other models of 'virtue'. Like most arguments in philosophy, it comes down to perception.. In this case the perception of what is best practice or thought, or actions that further those aims. There appears to be a 'True Virtue' which transcends all particular models of 'virtue'. It is a whole of life virtue that frames what is good for humanity and has integrity and consistancy.

A new born baby does not yet comprehend it's world, so Aristotle has it right that an understanding of what constitutes good living and best practice is part of a learning process. As such, virtue is reliant upon personal and group experience.

[Supaiku]

It seems like true virtue is the good and bad as decided objectivly (but perhaps with respect to a single person? By that I mea that true virtue for each person, though objective in that it is concious of everything factors the needs of the individual it's evaulating more than everyone else. Or maybe the individual is unimportant.). You gotta factor in everything you can about the situation.
Virtue's only reliant upon life's experiences because we humans are the ones who define and evaulate it. It's only subjective because of our limitations.

[Mr. Hyde]

Aristotilean Ethics described man as being one of four types of morality: The Virtuous, the Contintent, the Incontintent, and the Malicious. The Virtuous was a man who did the right things for the right reasons, while understanding that what is right in one case, might not be right in all cases. The contintent man was one who might do the right for the wrong reasons, or do right in a lot of cases, but still does some wrong. The Incontintent would maybe do the wrong for the wrong reasons. But still does some right and feels guilt over the wrong. THe Malicious was the worst type of man. Does the wrong for wrong and right reasons. Feels no Guilt.

Most people, by his method, stood/stand in the two middle groups. Aristotle was a moral relativist. He understood that there is no unviersal good. That every good is different in every case. For or a more in depth look at his moral applications, read Aristotle on Homer Simpson, from "Simpsons and Philosophy: The Do'h of Homer" Like I said, to him Virture is always doing right for the right reasons.