DP Barrett - Aristotle’s
Virtue Ethics
The
Purpose of Life: Eudaimonia
Aristotle
begins his moral treatise, The Nicomachean Ethics, by stating that the
goal of life is happiness, because simple observation tells us that this is what
everyone desires: “what is the highest of all practical goods? Well, so far as
the name goes, there is pretty general agreement, It is happiness say both
ordinary and cultured people.”
The
word ‘happiness’ is the regular translation of the Greek word ‘eudaimonia’,
however, it is a very imperfect translation and misleads many readers in to
thinking that Aristotle is advocating a life of pleasure and enjoyment.
Eudaimonia literally means ‘having good spirits’ (eu = good, daimon = spirit)
and it has a connotation of being loved by the gods so that everything in your
life is going well. A more appropriate translation might be ‘success’ or
‘flourishing’ or perhaps even ‘fully functioning.’ What Aristotle is saying is
that we all want a good quality life, a life that satisfies all of a person’s
needs.
Aristotle’s
ideas about what constitutes a good life are connected to his ideas on human
nature and its functions. There are four key factors to consider here. Firstly,
like all living beings we need to stay alive, so part of functioning well means
being healthy and fit. Secondly, like all animals we naturally have desires for
pleasure, and we seek to avoid pain, so a fully functioning good life should
involve pleasure. Thirdly, like many other animals we are social beings, so we
require friendships and it is a function of our nature to serve society.
Fourthly, we are rational beings capable of knowledge, speech, and wisdom, and
we alone have this ability, hence one of the functions of human nature is to
reason and learn. Aristotle takes health as an obvious part of a good life, but
considers three different common opinions as to what makes a good life connected
to these functions concerning which is most important: pleasure, honour, and
wisdom.
Pleasure
The
average person believes that eudaimonia, the good life, consists in pleasure.
Firstly this means being healthy and free of pain, but it also means getting
what you want, enjoying things, and avoiding pain and suffering. Such a life
would be typified by not having to work, eating good food, getting drunk, having
lots of sex, and so on, and it may be connected to wealth and materialism. The
later philosopher JS Mill described
these as ‘lower pleasures.’
This
may be the life that most of us want, but to Aristotle it is not the essence of
eudaimonia. Aristotle described the life of pleasure as a ‘bovine existence’
because it is the kind of life that animals seek, and it does not satisfy the
higher parts of human nature. Aristotle argued that as social beings we need to
do our duties to our community, and a life of seeking pleasure will get in the
way of this. Moreover, the life of pleasure is not pleasing to the intellect and
gets in the way of knowledge and wisdom. A person who simply lives for pleasure
may have to use some intelligence to get it, but has not achieved eudaimonia
because his life is deficient; he is not fully functioning or making use of the
intellectual potential in human nature.
Friendship
/ Honour
Aristotle
paints friendship as the main aim of life because it is the kind of life that
most of us are capable of achieving. As social animals we need and desire
friends: “nobody would choose to live without friends even if he had all the
other good things.” To have friendship is to live in good relations with our
neighbours, to be esteemed by them, and to be useful to them, and so on. In
particular Aristotle is referring to doing your duties to society, and this is
what he means by ‘honour.’ This means things like paying your taxes, obeying the
laws, helping other people, doing jobs for your community, and also being
willing to fight to defend your society and being willing to lay down your life
for it. It is about being a respectful person and a good citizen: “man is born
for citizenship.”
The
life of honour is important to Aristotle, and all people should try to
honourable in this way. For Aristotle a good life includes health, wealth, and
pleasure, but these are not the ultimate factors, a good life must also include
friendships and honour. It often means giving up on personal enjoyment for the
sake of the community so that you can fulfil your duties: “even if the good of
the community coincides with that of the individual, it is clearly a greater and
more perfect thing to achieve and preserve that of a community.” The life of
honour involves learning skills which are useful to social success, and which
help to make you a good citizen, i.e. the ‘moral virtues.’ The lifestyle of
honour also requires the use of the intellect, so it requires the ‘intellectual
virtues’ but it does not aim at knowledge for its own sake.
Knowledge
and Wisdom
This
is the life the philosopher aims at, but in modern terms we might also say that
it is what scientists, mathematicians, and other thinkers and investigators also
aim at. Such people enjoy reflection and the pleasures of the mind, and they use
their brains as best they can to try and understand the world. JS Mill described these as ‘higher
pleasures.’ Again, a good life should include health, pleasure, and friendships,
but for Aristotle the life which focuses on knowledge and wisdom is the highest
form of eudaimonia, particularly since it is reason and wisdom which separates
mankind from the animals. To reason well and learn about and understand the
world is the specific function of human beings because only we are capable of
it. However, Aristotle recognises that very few people are capable of achieving
this rich life of knowledge and understanding, because not everyone has the
intelligence to grapple with philosophy and science, nor do they have the time,
which is why Aristotle says that most people should aim primarily at honour and
friendship.
The
Virtues
The
Greek word for virtue was arête,
which means ‘excellence.’ A
virtue is an excellent character trait or skill which helps a person to fulfil
their functions and achieve eudaimonia. In order to perform a function well
various skills and traits are required, for example, in order to be a good
policeman you would need to be observant, assertive, healthy, trained in combat,
rational under pressure, honest, and so on. As another example, in order to be a
good student you need virtues such as punctuality, diligence, the ability to
listen and take good notes, politeness, intelligence, and so on. For Aristotle
it is the possession of virtues which makes you a good person, that is, a good
quality human being capable of achieving eudaimonia, whether it be the life of
honour or the life of knowledge. He states that there are two main types of
virtue, the moral virtues and the intellectual virtues.
The
Moral Virtues
Moral
virtues help us to act correctly in a social environment, helping us to control
our behaviour and interact with others well. They also control the irrational
and emotional part of our nature, the part of us which seeks pleasure and wants
to avoid pain. In Aristotle’s view there is nothing wrong with having emotions,
you would not be human without them, but they still must be controlled and it is
important for them to be appropriate. The moral virtues include things such as
courage, generosity, temperance, honesty, helpfulness, and patience. Moral
virtues are cultivated by habit and it
can take years of practice to master them; to become a generous person I
must get into the habit of being generous, and in doing so I learnt to move away
from the vice of meanness. As Will Durrant put it, “we are what we repeatedly
do, excellence therefore is not an act, but a habit.”
Aristotle
provides a set of 12 virtues, which are in the table on the next page. According
to Aristotle the moral virtues are subject to ‘the doctrine of the mean’ which is the
idea that each virtue is midway between the twin vices of deficiency and excess.
When it comes to confidence you can go wrong in two ways, either by not having
enough confidence or by having too much. If you are a soldier and you have no
confidence then you will run away and you will not be able to perform your job
adequately, and this deficiency is the vice of cowardice. But similarly being
over-confident will make you foolhardy and reckless meaning that you take silly
risks and similarly you will end up failing in your duties.
The
Doctrine of the mean is often misinterpreted as suggesting an attitude of
‘moderation in all things’ but this is an over simplification, it is about
striking the right balance for the situation. If a pupil misbehaves then it is
acceptable for a teacher to get angry and shout at them in order to modify the
pupil’s behaviour, however, the teacher must not get so angry that he loses
control. Similarly, he must not be so patient that he allows the pupil to get
away with unacceptable behaviour. This is where we have the virtue of patience,
which is control of your anger; it is a vice to lose your temper too easily, but
it is also a vice to never lose it at all even when anger is warranted and
necessary, something which Aristotle dubs a ‘lack of spirit.’
Similarly,
truthfulness is a mean. This is because it is often possible to exaggerate about
events, or to exaggerate about your own achievements, and this is the vice of
boastfulness. On the other hand you can understate how things are, and undersell
yourself, which is also a flaw.
|
Sphere of
action
|
Deficiency
|
Mean
|
Excess
|
|
Fear and confidence
|
Cowardice
|
Courage
|
Rashness:
Taking foolish
risks
|
|
Pleasure and
pain
|
Insensibility
|
Temperance
|
Licentiousness:
Lack of
restraint
|
|
Anger
|
Lack of spirit
|
Patience
|
Irascibility:
Being quick to
anger
|
|
Self-expression
|
Understatement
|
Truthfulness:
Accurately reporting how things
are.
|
Boastfulness:
Exaggerating about
yourself.
|
|
Conversation
|
Boorishness:
Being dull and
uninteresting.
|
Wittiness:
Being
entertaining.
|
Buffoonery:
Being a fool / not being serious
enough.
|
|
Social conduct
|
Cantankerousness:
Being unhelpful
|
Friendliness:
Being helpful
|
Obsequiousness:
Being a brown
nose.
|
|
Shame
|
Shamelessness
|
Modesty:
Decent behaviour, speech, dress,
etc.
|
Shyness
|
|
Indignation
|
Malicious enjoyment:
Pleasure at other people’s
misfortune.
|
Righteous
Indignation:
Anger at
injustice.
|
Envy:
Jealousy of other’s successes and
wealth.
|
|
Getting and spending
(minor)
|
Illiberality:
Meanness.
|
Liberality:
Generosity.
|
Prodigality:
Wastefulness.
|
|
Getting and spending
(major)
|
Pettiness:
Being small.
|
Magnificence:
Being large.
|
Vulgarity:
Showing
off.
|
|
Honour and dishonour
(minor)
|
Unambitiousness
|
Proper ambition
|
Ambition
|
|
Honour and dishonour
(major)
|
Pusillanimity:
Timidity.
|
Magnanimity:
Being
forgiving.
|
Vanity:
Vindictiveness
|
Ethics
is about learning which actions are appropriate to the situation, and it is the
virtues which control action via controlling the emotions that lead to action.
In many ways mastering the moral virtues is like learning to drive, you have to
learn to balance the pedals and you cannot give precise formulations for how
this must be done, it depends on the situation, but you can always go wrong by
doing too much or too little. The best thing you can do is follow the example of
others who are viewed as successful and learn by your mistakes.
We
can easily see that these virtues are not just concerned with the narrow ideas
of morality as right conduct, they relate to life in general and to being well
liked and respected too. For Aristotle being entertaining is a virtue, and it is
a character flaw to be boorish and have no sense of humour, but equally it is a
flaw to go too far and act like a clown. When it comes to spending your money
you should be generous and charitable and help others, but you should not be
excessive and wasteful so that you bankrupt yourself. If you are very rich it is
good to be ‘magnificent’ and share your money, but it is not good to show off
and be vulgar.
Clearly
Aristotle thinks that a good life should include pleasures; to live a life
without pleasure and enjoyment is insensibility and is not a good life, however,
the pleasure in your life must be moderated by reason. It is not sensible to
enjoy so much food that you become unhealthy, and when pleasure is getting in
the way of social duties or education then you must put pleasure aside and
resist it. Similarly, pain is to be feared, but sometimes it is necessary so you
have to learn to endure it. This is where the virtue of temperance in important.
Similarly, it is good to be generous, but not to the extent of being wasteful
and ending up in poverty.
The
Intellectual Virtues
The
doctrine of the mean does not apply to the intellectual virtues, rather, the
more intelligent you are the better. Intellectual virtues are needed by
everyone, because they are required in order to live well and succeed in your
ventures, for example, they are needed to make your business work, or work out
how best to please friends, or how to build a house, or how to make important
political decisions. They are most strongly required by those who dedicate
themselves to knowledge and wisdom. Aristotle was an elitist and literally
believed that those who were most intelligent were better quality human beings
than those who lacked intelligence. The intellectual virtues are as
follows:- Technical skill – e.g. knowing how to build a house.
- Scientific knowledge – knowing facts about biology, geography, physics, etc.
- Prudence – knowing how to balance your needs with those of others.
- Intelligence – mathematical abilities and similar mental skills.
- Wisdom – ideas about what to do gained through long years of experience.
- Resourcefulness – knowing how and where to get the best information from.
- Understanding – this goes beyond knowing facts, but sees the whole issue and all the complex difficulties associated with decision making.
- Judgement – this is essentially moral judgement, and for a judgement to be good it has to take in to account what is right and good for all concerned.
- Cleverness – this is important as it helps you to work out how to get what you want, but on its own without good judgement it can be unscrupulous, for example, a clever person without moral scruples could use his intelligence to con you.
The
Cardinal Virtues
Aristotle
argues that some virtues are more important than others, and these are what he
names the ‘cardinal virtues.’ These are courage, temperance, wisdom, and
justice. Temperance is required to control our urges for pleasure and to avoid
pain, as these can often lead to immoral actions. Courage allows a person to do
what they know is right, even when doing so is difficult. Wisdom is key to an
intelligent understanding of the world and justice is the habit of giving people
what they deserve, such as respect, fair treatment, or rewards and punishments,
something that wisdom helps you to learn about.
Strengths
of Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
There are many reasons to support Aristotle's vision of ethics, in particular his emphasis on having a good character, aiming to make the most of your potential, and improving yourself through building good habits.
1)
Most people do aim for happiness / eudaimonia
It
seems true that the vast majority of people do aim to live a good quality life,
and also true that people have differing ideas about what a good life is. It may
be argued that Aristotle’s list of three views on the good life (pleasure,
honour, and knowledge) is too narrow, for example, people might also aim at
money, sporting excellence, art and creativity, fame, and so on. We might also
say that honour and friendship are different things as many people care a lot
about their friends and family, but little about society as a whole. None the
less, Aristotle has certainly identified some of the main things we do indeed
aim for in life.
Many
‘Neo-Aristotelians’ argue that a combination of these factors is needed for a
good life, for example, Rosalind
Hursthouse says that success in life should not be measured in purely
material terms: “someone who lacks wealth and power may still count their lives
to be a success – ‘I am rich in the things that matter’, one says, ‘my children,
my friends, my books, my memories, my job…’ And it is the possibility of this
non-material sense of ‘success’ which makes it a suitable translation of
‘eudaimonia.’”
2)
Good people do tend to have virtues
It
seems true that we expect good and successful people to have virtuous traits
like honesty, courage, and intelligence. If you point out any good or successful
person from history, such as Martin Luther King Jr. or Marie Curie, you will be
able to notice virtues in their character such as courage, generosity,
intelligence, perseverance, diligence, and wittiness. Aristotle wants us to
aspire to be like these excellent people, and to follow role models. The same
counts for people in your local community whom you consider to be good, they
will have a variety of virtuous habits such as friendliness, truthfulness,
temperance, and wisdom.
3)
It allows for greater scope in moral judgements
One
strength is that Aristotle’s ethics gives us a greater scope to judge people and
cultures with. Instead of simply saying “this is a bad person” we can be more
specific, recognising that most people have a mixture of virtues and vices. For
instance, we can say that Oskar Schindler was a virtuous man in some ways, as he
had the skills to run a business and the compassion to save over 1100 Jews from
the Holocaust, but at the same time he was also unfaithful to his wife,
extravagant, and happy to use Jewish slave labour. Instead of looking at a
foreign culture such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and saying “these people are
bad because of how they treat women” we might instead want to say “these people
excel in virtues such as courage and temperance, but they are deficient in the
virtues of friendliness and justice.”
4)
It encourages people to be excellent
Virtue
ethics encourages people to develop their characters and become the best people
they can be. It is not focused on a set of rules like “do this!” or “don’t do
this!” but instead is focused on character and says “be this!” Aristotle is
encouraging people to take their potential talents and develop them and bring
them in to actuality, rather than wasting your talents. His ethics also
encourages people to be good members of their community, and to follow admirable
role models. In many ways Abraham
Maslow’s views on ‘self-actualisation’ and the hierarchy of needs are a
modernised version of Aristotle’s views on eudaimonia.
Criticisms
of Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics and Some Responses
There have been many criticisms leveled against Aristotle's view on ethics, including the idea that all virtues can be abused for bad ends, and that it does not actually give a clear guide to how to behave.
1) All of
the virtues can be abused
Immanuel Kant argued that virtue ethics was an insufficient
moral philosophy because every virtue can be abused for immoral purpose, for
example, you can use courage to assault someone, and you can use intelligence to
plan a bank robbery. Kant argued that what morality really requires is a list of
rules to follow, and this is something that Aristotle fails to provide us with.
It may be that virtues are needed to help you to follow the rules, but without
these rules virtue is insufficient; virtue alone does not make a good
person.
Counter point: Aristotle says that there are intellectual
virtues such as wisdom, judgement, and prudence, and that these should help you
to make your decisions about what is best to do. Arguably it is precisely these
things that Kant and other enlightenment philosophers like Hobbes or Bentham
appeal to when trying to formulate their own lists of rules and principles.
Moreover, virtues such as friendliness and modesty would surely suggest being
kind to others.
2) Virtue
Ethics can be unhelpful in making moral decisions
As just noted, Aristotle does not provide his
readers with rules to live by, indeed, he openly states that because life is so
complex you cannot have specific rules that apply absolutely at all times. Some
may see this as a wise approach, however, arguably this leave us with little or
no direction when it comes to answering specific moral questions such as whether
abortion should be allowed. Arguably it is not very helpful to say ‘be brave’ or
‘be kind’ or ‘be wise’ in these cases as it is unclear which course of action is
the most courageous or compassionate or sensible. The idea of having virtues is
the idea of developing the habit of performing the right actions at the right
times, and having the appropriate feelings to the right extent, but this is all
very vague and is arguably unhelpful in actual decision making.
Counter point: Aristotle would reply that moral decisions are
given their substance via the community you live in, so essentially he agreed
with cultural relativism. Every different society expects different behaviour of
its citizens, and as social beings we ought to follow the customs of our
society. Aristotle would also point to the virtue of practical wisdom, which is
all about doing what you think is most beneficial to yourself and your
community; no matter which society you live in it is clear that certain rules
will be required which make the society function more effectively, such as rules
on justice, truthfulness, and not harming each other; despite the variations,
general rules like these are found everywhere.
3)
Exactly which traits are virtues?
There have been many different ideas about
virtue over the years, and it is not fully clear which character traits should
be seen as virtuous. Aristotle describes wittiness as a virtue because being
entertaining helps to make you socially successful, but some people would reject
this as unnecessary for you to be a good person. Aristotle thought that pride
and ambition were virtues, but Christians would see these as sinful as people
ought to be humble. Christian thinkers agreed that the most important virtues
were courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice, but they also added faith, hope
and charity to this list of Cardinal Virtues: faith in God, hope for the
afterlife and that good will defeat evil, and loving kindness towards others. We
do not find any religious notions in Aristotle’s list of virtues, and atheists
would also reject these as virtues, for example, David Hume says that wise people only
believes in things there are evidence for, meaning that having faith and hope
contradicts the virtue of wisdom, in his opinion. Christians also argue that
that chastity is a virtue, but Hume derided it as ‘monkish’ and Aristotle would
have called it ‘insensibility.’
Alisdair MacIntyre argues that conceptions of which character
traits are virtues have changed over time depending on culture and conditions,
for example, in times when there are great threats of conquest people who are
brave and violent often become viewed as virtuous, e.g. Achilles in Homer’s Iliad, whereas in our modern
materialistic society those with business skills or beauty might be considered
to have the most admirable characteristics. In the recent past patriotism was
considered a virtue, but many people today see it as a vice which can lead to
prejudices. In short, it seems that it is difficult to come to solid conclusions
as to which character traits and habits are virtues and which are vices, because
opinions vary.
4)
Why is service to the community good?
Aristotle
argues that service to the community is a necessary component of a good life,
and that for most people it should be the major focus of their lives; this is
what he calls the life of ‘honour.’ Aristotle is claiming that you should
willingly do duties to your society and be a good citizen, rather than just
satisfying your own desires. In modern times this might mean things like
volunteering for charities, being an active member of your church or school
community, getting involved in politics, doing an important social job like
teaching, nursing, or policing, and it may also mean defending your country,
such as fighting in wars. We may praise those who do this, but is it necessary
for everyone to live this way?
For
many people what is important in making a good life is their friends and family
rather than society at large. Aristotle’s view is largely based on his belief
that human beings are naturally social beings, and that we therefore have
natural duties to our society, but many philosophers oppose this view. Thomas Hobbes argued that each person
was an individual who should be purely concerned with his own needs, and that we
only join society because it helps to provide us with personal safety and
prosperity through co-operation.
5)
Why is wisdom and knowledge best?
Aristotle
argues that the best life for a human being is one centred around knowledge and
wisdom. A good life should include pleasure, health, and social duties, but for
Aristotle the major focus ought to be the things that JS Mill called the ‘higher
pleasures.’ We can question this; why should a life of academic study be
superior to a life of sporting success? Why should intellectual development be
more important than having good friends, being a good spouse, and bringing up a
family? What valid reason is there to say that a man who plays chess and
completes crosswords is having a better life than one who enjoys playing pool
and having a few beers? Many people would reject Aristotle’s views as snobbery,
and say that so long as life is pleasurable it is good, as Jeremy Bentham put it
“prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts
and sciences of music and poetry.”
6)
Aristotle’s Elitism
According
to Bertrand Russell, Aristotle’s
virtue ethics encourages humans to despise each other for lacking the qualities
that one is supposed to possess, or for possessing them in lesser degrees than
oneself. People who are not courageous, or who lack temperance, or generosity,
or intelligence will be seen as lower quality human beings, and as deserving of
less respect. Aristotle’s theory is elitist literally saying that some
human beings are better than others.
Counter
point:
surely it is normal and natural to judge people based on their abilities and
character? And surely it is better to judge them by “the content of their
character” rather than by the colour of their skin, or gender, or sexuality, and
so on?
Peter Vardy make a similar point, that in Aristotle’s times
it was only the rich males who were capable of pursuing the life of honour or
wisdom, whilst most of the population were just a poorly paid underclass or even
slaves. Aristotle actually supported slavery arguing that less intelligent
people should be governed by the more intelligent. In Aristotle’s views some
people were born too lacking in intelligence to properly govern their own lives,
and these people should be directed by the intelligent. As far as Aristotle was
concerned some people are born to plan and rule, others are born to work and
follow, and this was for mutual benefit.
Counter point 1: We could argue that Aristotle was a product of
his times when slavery was common. Some Neo-Aristotelians argue that we should
reinterpret Aristotle as simply pointing out that relationships are often
unequal because one party has superior skills and knowledge to the others, for
example, in places of work it is normal to have bosses and subordinates. What is
problematic for most modern minds is the notion that highly skilled and
intelligent people have greater dignity and value than others, meanwhile, Friedrich Nietzsche simply accepted it
as a truth that some people are better than others and worth more, and saw the
idea of equality as originating in those who were low quality and didn’t like
being at the bottom of society’s heap.
Counter point 2: In Aristotle’s times most people were
uneducated, so it may easily have seemed that some people were lower than others
and that they needed to be controlled, like children or animals. Today, when we
have universal education, it can be seen that practically everyone is capable of
a variety of achievements in their lives. Richard Norman argues that we should
try to reinterpret Aristotle’s Ethics as a call to recognise the humanity in all
people and help them to flourish and achieve their potential through things such
as education.
7)
Aristotle and the Disabled
According to Aristotle, health and fitness is
part of the function of a human being, so it follows that those who are
physically disabled or chronically ill cannot achieve eudaimonia, as their life
is deficient in some respects; such people are not fully functioning and are not
achieving ‘the good life.’ Similarly, since intelligence is part of the function
of a human being, those who are mentally disabled cannot achieve eudaimonia.
Many people perceive this as prejudiced and unfair.
Counterpoint: It can be argued that people can still flourish
to some degree despite being disabled, for example, Aristotle would probably
have highly respected Stephen Hawking for his intellectual and scientific
achievements, after all, the intellect is our highest function according to
Aristotle. None the less, Aristotle would still say his life was deficient in
significant respects, and given the choice the fact is most people would rather
not be disabled.
8)
Is virtue ethics selfish?
Virtue theory has been criticised as being
self-centred because it is generally seen as being about getting the best life
for yourself, and achieving your own personal happiness or ‘eudaimonia.’ It
seems that when you help other people you are not doing it for their sakes, but
for your own personal self-development, which is hardly altruistic and
moral.
Counter point: arguably this is not a good criticism as
Aristotle actually thought of the community as more important than the
individual; to Aristotle the good of the community and the good of the
individual are capable of going hand in hand, because only through living in a
well-developed and peaceful society can pleasure, friendship, and knowledge be
achieved. Additionally, human beings do tend to genuinely care for each other
and their happiness can depend on that of others. Remember that for Aristotle
man is a naturally social animal.
9) Can
you actually control your character?
The theory is centred around the idea of having
a strong character, and developing your virtues, and Aristotle emphasises the
role of getting into good habits so that acting well becomes second nature.
However, some people would question the extent to which we can control our
character. One view is that we have little or no control over our personality
and habits, because who we are is down to factors we can’t change such as our
DNA and upbringing: we have certain personalities and these cannot easily be
changed.
On the other hand, some people regard character
as something that is far too flexible to be relied up, as your character is
malleable and subject to change, especially depending on the situation. It is
very easy to end up acting in completely ‘uncharacteristic’ ways when you are
put into unusual situations, and it is usually these unusual situations which
call for us to make important moral choices. The people who partake in genocide
during wars are often ordinary people with friends and families, who would not
harm others in ordinary life. If your character can be pushed and pulled around
by your situation, and the society and people around you, then how much
responsibility do you have for it?
Summary and Conclusions
Aristotle’s theory shows an awareness of what
human beings want in life, happiness or ‘eudaimonia’ and it provides us with
what many see as an encouraging view of human achievement, however, some would
argue that Aristotle’s views on what makes a good life are merely his own
prejudices and opinions. Virtue seems to be required for a person to be
considered ‘good’, but philosophers such as Kant argue that his lack of rules
leave us devoid of direction and without a guarantee that ‘virtues’ or ‘skills’
will not be abused.
No comments:
Post a Comment