In Aristotle's Virtues Ethics, taken from his much larger work, Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the ultimate goal of life is to achieve happiness, which is chosen of its own accord as an end (never as a mean to any other virtue). Furthermore, Aristotle states that happiness is "an activity of the soul" that can only be achieved when one is activing in accordance with reason, and in this way, happiness is the "supreme good" and the highest of virtues; the purest excellence. Aristotle then proceeds to outline the two major branches of virtue: intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue, according to Aristotle, stems from teaching and to a certain extent is an inherent capacity, whereas moral virtue is the "outcome of habit"---it must be cultivated by direct experience through our action. Aristotle then proceeds to describe virtue as being the disposition between two vices, namely excess and deficiency. Virtue can therefore be described as a mean state, for a mean state is not full of either extreme. Aristotle goes on to cite some actions that are decidedly either excesses or deficiency and have no mean, such as adultery, which is always a grave sin, according to Aristotle's views. Do you agree with Aristotle in that virtues should be described as mean states lying between two vices or do you think that they should not even be compared relative to vices? Also, do you think that virtue ethics is compatible with deontology? For if we are acting out of reason in accordance with virtue, would not we be living according to a deontological principle? Just food for thought. :)
I've read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics multiple times, and each time I read it, I feel like it becomes more and more difficult to know whether its entirely possible to reach the true happiness that he talks about. He says that you can be happy if you lead a virtuous life; however, he also says that being virtuous means that you act in moderation with everything. I have two problems with this. For one, if you act in moderation throughout your life, how is that making you happy? You are unable to experience anything but moderation. How does that make you happy? My second problem is what it means to be in the middle of each extremity of a virtue. If all you experience is moderation, then how do you know what the extremity in each case is without experiencing it?
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone can indirectly experience or witness the extremes through other individuals. I'm not sure if Aristotle is talking about direct, personal experience or not. But I can attest to the fact that witnessing someone else directly experience something allows me to gain some knowledge or perspective about the situation.
DeleteI do agree with Aristotle to an extent because practicing virtues would have no merit if there was no spectrum or us to witness, comprehend, or understand. I believe that it becomes easier to understand something when it's comparable to something else or is in relation. For example: gluttony versus anorexia. These are two extremes, or possible vices. Having a healthy, normal, or medium appetite can be more easily understood when provided with these extremes.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Avani with her statement about it being difficult to lead a virtuous life. Not so much so as far as how she characterized it, but an individual's moral code is very subjective and Aristotle does not make this easily attainable.