Aristotle Virtue Analysis

In this paper, I will examine Aristotle's understanding of virtue and his explanation of virtuous actions as presented in Nicomachean Ethics. In Book II of the work, Aristotle distinguishes between moral virtues, which are learned through habit and practice, and intellectual virtues, which are learned through instruction. However, it is not until later in Book II that Aristotle actually defines virtue. He opens Chapter 5 with, "Next we must consider what virtue is" (35) and at its end asserts that virtue is a state of character. Therefore, the conclusion of the whole argument is: Virtue is a state of character.
Aristotle first makes the following argument regarding the meaning of virtue: 1) There are only three kinds of things found in the
Since the vegetative does not involve reason, it does not have anything to do with virtue. However, the center of the appetites can be somewhat influenced by the rational part of the soul—"it listens to and obeys [the rational part] (27)—in that our decisions can be made according to what seems "most reasonable." The rational can also be divided up by what a person knows is inherently reasonable and the ability of a person to listen to or be convinced by someone else's reason. The two types of virtue, the moral and the intellectual, are divided very similarly to these different aspects of soul. Intellectual virtues include theoretical wisdom, understanding, and practical wisdom (making choices only after careful deliberation). Moral virtues are praiseworthy characteristics that include generosity and self-control. True virtue entails finding a mean or balance between the intellectual and moral aspects of virtue. This mean is applicable to not only the intellectual and moral aspects of virtue, but also pleasure and pain and the irrational and rational aspects of the
An action is involuntary when it is performed under compulsion and causes pain to the person acting. Some situations are exceptions (for instance, if someone is forced to do something dishonorable under threat), but these cases should usually considered voluntary because the individual is still in control of his or her actions. Something done in ignorance may be called involuntary if the person later recognizes his or her ignorance, but it is not voluntary if the person does not recognize or suffer for such ignorance. However, ignorance is an excuse only in certain cases and not general behavior, because general ignorance of what is good is exactly what makes a person bad. Lastly, then, because "virtue is concerned with passions and actions, and on voluntary passions and actions praise and blame are bestowed" (48), virtuous actions must be