Diego Rivera
Michael Polanyi College
Semester Three
November 7th, 2013
Michael Polanyi College
Semester Three
November 7th, 2013
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics
A Manual to Become Virtuous
The question of how can we become good persons, has always been relevant in our modern society. There are endless speculations on the nature of the human being. Of whether we are born good and get corrupted by society or that our nature is to be bad but are conditioned to be good by society. But whether we are born good or bad is of no relevant interest in this subject. What is here of more value is whether by our actions we can become good or bad, or in other words, virtuous or vicious.
Aristotle says that “of all the things that come to us by nature we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit the activity…but the virtues we get by exercising them…for the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.” What he refers in this passage is that virtues are not natural to human beings, but are acquire by the exercising them. In other words, virtues are states of character we form by our actions. And these actions can be determined to be good such as the good person would do them. Quoting Aristotle again he says, “Actions, then, are called just and temperate when they are such as the just or the temperate man would do.” Then, by doing just acts we become just. But also, three conditions must be fulfilled so as to call an action just. The first one is to have knowledge. Second, the agent must choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes. And third, his actions must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character. Another important fact about actions is to acknowledge that there is no universal form of action to tell whether they would be good or bad, but this would depend on the occasion or context in which the agent is, so they can only be said to be good or bad in relation to the occasion.
Now, with regards to how we determine virtue, we must understand that when it comes to passions and actions, these can be fitted into excess, defect, and the intermediate. Virtue, then, aims at the intermediate, and excess and defect would be a characteristic of vice. This, of course, only refers to the actions that are not naturally bad, for these bad actions won’t have an intermediate but can only be defined by excess and deficiency. Summarizing what virtue is, Aristotle says, “Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.”
The way Aristotle defines virtue and describes how we become virtuous, is reasonable to me. It would not be wise to say that one standard of action applies to all occasions, but that this standard would depend on the occasion the agent is in. But this doesn’t mean that moral values are totally subjective so as if an action is naturally bad would be good in someone’s judgment. What Aristotle says is that our judgment of how we act has to be in accordance to what the virtuous person would do in that occasion. So it’s not about having standards all over the place, but knowing what judgment we should apply to each occasion we are encountered. One of the main arguments regarding virtue is that we can achieve it by aiming at the intermediate of our actions and passions. In other words, it’s about living in balance. Finding that balance would depend on your occasions and the judgments you make to act in each of these scenarios. Finding the balance of your life means acting accordingly in each situation. Being metacognitive of this process, acting in the right way and consistently in each occasion, and knowing the reasons why you act the way you do in each case, is what would make you a virtuous person.
Aristotle says that “of all the things that come to us by nature we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit the activity…but the virtues we get by exercising them…for the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.” What he refers in this passage is that virtues are not natural to human beings, but are acquire by the exercising them. In other words, virtues are states of character we form by our actions. And these actions can be determined to be good such as the good person would do them. Quoting Aristotle again he says, “Actions, then, are called just and temperate when they are such as the just or the temperate man would do.” Then, by doing just acts we become just. But also, three conditions must be fulfilled so as to call an action just. The first one is to have knowledge. Second, the agent must choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes. And third, his actions must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character. Another important fact about actions is to acknowledge that there is no universal form of action to tell whether they would be good or bad, but this would depend on the occasion or context in which the agent is, so they can only be said to be good or bad in relation to the occasion.
Now, with regards to how we determine virtue, we must understand that when it comes to passions and actions, these can be fitted into excess, defect, and the intermediate. Virtue, then, aims at the intermediate, and excess and defect would be a characteristic of vice. This, of course, only refers to the actions that are not naturally bad, for these bad actions won’t have an intermediate but can only be defined by excess and deficiency. Summarizing what virtue is, Aristotle says, “Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.”
The way Aristotle defines virtue and describes how we become virtuous, is reasonable to me. It would not be wise to say that one standard of action applies to all occasions, but that this standard would depend on the occasion the agent is in. But this doesn’t mean that moral values are totally subjective so as if an action is naturally bad would be good in someone’s judgment. What Aristotle says is that our judgment of how we act has to be in accordance to what the virtuous person would do in that occasion. So it’s not about having standards all over the place, but knowing what judgment we should apply to each occasion we are encountered. One of the main arguments regarding virtue is that we can achieve it by aiming at the intermediate of our actions and passions. In other words, it’s about living in balance. Finding that balance would depend on your occasions and the judgments you make to act in each of these scenarios. Finding the balance of your life means acting accordingly in each situation. Being metacognitive of this process, acting in the right way and consistently in each occasion, and knowing the reasons why you act the way you do in each case, is what would make you a virtuous person.