Moral Virtues In Aristotle's The Nicomachean Ethics
In Book 2 of Aristotle’s The Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines his definitions of moral virtues and how they are acquired. He reaches an implicit conclusion that performing virtuous actions is not sufficient for counting as virtuous by arguing that one must perform virtuous actions in the manner of truly virtuous people in order to become virtuous. This essay will thus analyse the structure of Aristotle’s argument on the relationship of virtuous actions to one’s virtuous character.
In Aristotle’s first premise for his argument, he contends that moral virtues are a form of learnt behaviour and need to habituated through the repetition of virtuous actions. He claims that “none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature” (1.19-20, p. 23) because …show more content…
His next claim is that virtuous actions do not have fixed definitions of virtue pegged to them, and are instead defined as virtuous only by a critical application of relativity to the situation that one is in. Aristotle essentially argues that any action can be “destroyed by excess and defect”, and that the virtue of any action is only “preserved by the mean” (2.25-26, p. 25). For example, being kind as an action can become immoral when taken to an extreme or a deficit – being too kind could constitute agreeing to help someone even in immoral things like committing a crime, and not being kind enough would likewise be immoral in failing to help others when needed. Instead, Aristotle argues that actions which are “proportionate both produces and increases and preserves [virtue]” (2.17-18, p. 25). This means that virtuous actions are usually an average of their extremes and deficits – they are in-between two extreme ends of a moral spectrum. Being astute in assessing what would be considered virtuous actions in differing situations would have the combined effect of increasing and reaffirming one’s existing virtuous character. Hence, Aristotle uses this premise to highlight how virtuous actions are only defined as such by one correctly identifying the virtuous actions that should be performed in differing situations to develop their moral
In Aristotle’s first premise for his argument, he contends that moral virtues are a form of learnt behaviour and need to habituated through the repetition of virtuous actions. He claims that “none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature” (1.19-20, p. 23) because …show more content…
His next claim is that virtuous actions do not have fixed definitions of virtue pegged to them, and are instead defined as virtuous only by a critical application of relativity to the situation that one is in. Aristotle essentially argues that any action can be “destroyed by excess and defect”, and that the virtue of any action is only “preserved by the mean” (2.25-26, p. 25). For example, being kind as an action can become immoral when taken to an extreme or a deficit – being too kind could constitute agreeing to help someone even in immoral things like committing a crime, and not being kind enough would likewise be immoral in failing to help others when needed. Instead, Aristotle argues that actions which are “proportionate both produces and increases and preserves [virtue]” (2.17-18, p. 25). This means that virtuous actions are usually an average of their extremes and deficits – they are in-between two extreme ends of a moral spectrum. Being astute in assessing what would be considered virtuous actions in differing situations would have the combined effect of increasing and reaffirming one’s existing virtuous character. Hence, Aristotle uses this premise to highlight how virtuous actions are only defined as such by one correctly identifying the virtuous actions that should be performed in differing situations to develop their moral