Resumo de Nicomachean Ethics

Aristotle's Contradictions Part II

If it is the job of legislators to habituate a society into virtue, then do we assume that sometimes the legislators are wrong? If we are properly trained to become racists by the supreme racist himself and still cannot bring ourselves to hate another race, does that mean that our teacher was simply lousy? In this regard, I think that Aristotle has given an extremely poor argument as to why one might not be virtuous. Comparing a harpist to a racist just seems a false analogy, for at some point, do we not include our actions towards others a part of the definition of virtue? At this point, I think we need a clearer understanding of what Aristotle defines virtue and virtuous behavior as.
The only manner by which he seems to define virtue is in saying that one must find the moderate position between two extremes, but this again defines virtuous action, not what virtue is. Without a definition, I see great fault in his argument, for, if virtuous action is ?all things in moderation,? then doesn?t this suggest that we are born with some inherent knowledge of virtue? Otherwise, who is to say that over-eating or starving ones self is not virtuous? Is it the fact that an action is beneficial to ones longevity that makes it virtuous? Aristotle uses cowardice and rashness, as an example for his moderation model of virtue saying that one must find the mean between the two in order to have the virtue of courage. If one is too rash and acts hastily he is not virtuous; likewise if he is too timid or fearful, he is a coward and not virtuous. The act of war could then be virtuous because one acts courageously to defend himself and his country: this is certainly not considered rash, and obviously not cowardly. The opposing side is then virtuous as well, for they do the same, but aren?t both sides also non-virtuous because they put themselves and others in danger? Again I must wonder about the role of other people in an action considered virtuous, and whether or not the effect ones action on them has matters. Are virtue and ?good? not required to accompany each other in the determination of what an action is?
??the human good turns out to be the souls activity that expresses virtue. And if there are more than one, the good will express the best and most complete virtue.?
(- Book I chap. 7 no. 15.) Apparently the answer is yes they do go hand in hand, but isn?t murder wrong? In the previously mentioned example of war, who then is wrong?
He seems to imply that the knowledge of virtue is innate, so why then can a tendency towards good or bad not be? Aristotle suggests that we cannot understand virtue until we have become virtuous. If virtue is acquired through habit and not by reasoning out why it is virtuous to behave in a particular way, then why do we learn to be moderate and call it virtue, when the reason for being moderate is insignificant in becoming virtuous? If we cannot understand why moderation is virtuous until it becomes a habit, then the argument seems to have a faulty foundation, for it appears to imply that we already know it since he gives no explanation as to why it is the virtuous path. Also, if the mean between two behaviors is different for each individual and there is no constant, then everyone can be virtuous, no matter how they act, by their own standards.
If people are naturally inclined to choose the virtuous route without a strict set of rules to guide him, then it seems to imply that while virtue may become habitual, there is already a foundation for it upon birth. Likewise, does this not imply that it is actually just the non-virtuous things that we must do through repetition in order for them to become habitual, and in the individuals mind, perhaps virtuous?
It seems an obvious fact that ?all things in moderation? is a good standard to live by since a deficiency or excess of certain things can cause deteriorating health both mentally and physically. How does that constitute as moral virtue though? Does it apply only to things necessary for survival? Even emotional things are necessary since without affection and love, babies can actually die or grow to be underdeveloped. In the reverse, if a baby is too loved or smothered, it will become too dependent and unable to function and later make decisions on its own. Who though, ever accuses a mother of being non-virtuous for loving a child too much?

Resumos Relacionados