Throughout Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle expands on what are the requirements for people to be considered good, or virtuous. He explains how political science is the ultimate science, since it deals not only with individual good, but with a societal good, which involves leadership in the most significant manner. For him, being virtuous is a necessary component of good life, which is one that is lived well, and may be perceived as “happy.” For practical purposes, however, in a world where one must interact with others, it is difficult to reach a consensus on the patterns of behavior that can be seen as virtuous. Nonetheless, Aristotle provides a most thorough structure to living virtuously, which he opens to be molded to the circumstances and
…show more content…
Virtue of thought is related to human reasoning, especially those regarding science and rationality. Virtue of character is a state, which is one’s perspective in relation to one’s own feelings, as in whether one is better or worse off due to them. A virtue is defined as such because Aristotle deduces that one ought not to be praised or blamed for having a certain feeling, or for being capable of having it; however, one can be praised or blamed for one’s reaction towards such feeling. Reacting poorly should incur in blame, while reacting nicely should incur in praise. Furthermore, a good state would need to be proportionate to the situation. For example, if a person accidentally stumbles on you, spilling your coffee, it would be okay to feel anger, since you are capable of it, but your reaction is what shows who you are. If you understand that accidents happen and let it go, for instance, that should be praiseworthy, considering the accepted norms of conduct within this hypothetical society. If you, on the other hand, decides to stab the person with a knife, that is a blameworthy action, which was utterly disproportionate to the occurrence. Thus, your state is what can be praiseworthy or blameworthy, since that is what you translated into the world; it is the true …show more content…
Too much of it makes one reckless and rash, while too little bravery makes one a coward. For instance, imagine a person who cannot swim being faced with a situation in which a child is drowning in a pool. If one has an excess of bravery, one may attempt to jump into the pool to try and save the child, but, since one cannot swim, this may end up disastrously, with even perhaps two casualties. In that case, that person, despite displaying a great amount of bravery (which can often be mistakenly construed as good), ought to be blamed for being unreasonable and reckless. Conversely, if one has a deficiency of bravery, one may just freeze in place and watch the child drown, without taking any action whatsoever to save him or her. That person, then, ought to be blamed for being a coward and not helping at all; plus, in this case, the person has to live with the remorse and shame. Thus, as indicated above, the extremes cause failure, but searching for a state in between them - the mean - will most likely lead to success. Following the example, if one acts by calling someone else who can swim to save the child, or even find a rope or a floatie to throw into the water, then one was simply brave, acting prudently in a manner that is relative to one’s own capabilities (or limitations) and to the situation at
Virtue of thought is related to human reasoning, especially those regarding science and rationality. Virtue of character is a state, which is one’s perspective in relation to one’s own feelings, as in whether one is better or worse off due to them. A virtue is defined as such because Aristotle deduces that one ought not to be praised or blamed for having a certain feeling, or for being capable of having it; however, one can be praised or blamed for one’s reaction towards such feeling. Reacting poorly should incur in blame, while reacting nicely should incur in praise. Furthermore, a good state would need to be proportionate to the situation. For example, if a person accidentally stumbles on you, spilling your coffee, it would be okay to feel anger, since you are capable of it, but your reaction is what shows who you are. If you understand that accidents happen and let it go, for instance, that should be praiseworthy, considering the accepted norms of conduct within this hypothetical society. If you, on the other hand, decides to stab the person with a knife, that is a blameworthy action, which was utterly disproportionate to the occurrence. Thus, your state is what can be praiseworthy or blameworthy, since that is what you translated into the world; it is the true …show more content…
Too much of it makes one reckless and rash, while too little bravery makes one a coward. For instance, imagine a person who cannot swim being faced with a situation in which a child is drowning in a pool. If one has an excess of bravery, one may attempt to jump into the pool to try and save the child, but, since one cannot swim, this may end up disastrously, with even perhaps two casualties. In that case, that person, despite displaying a great amount of bravery (which can often be mistakenly construed as good), ought to be blamed for being unreasonable and reckless. Conversely, if one has a deficiency of bravery, one may just freeze in place and watch the child drown, without taking any action whatsoever to save him or her. That person, then, ought to be blamed for being a coward and not helping at all; plus, in this case, the person has to live with the remorse and shame. Thus, as indicated above, the extremes cause failure, but searching for a state in between them - the mean - will most likely lead to success. Following the example, if one acts by calling someone else who can swim to save the child, or even find a rope or a floatie to throw into the water, then one was simply brave, acting prudently in a manner that is relative to one’s own capabilities (or limitations) and to the situation at