What are virtues of character according to Aristotle?
Virtues are what enable something to fulfil its specific function successfully. Humans’ characteristic activity is to reason. So, virtues for humans are what enables them to reason well. A good/virtuous person reasons well, acts according to reason and flourishes (attains eudaimonia) as a result (E.E. 1218a, 35).
What is the difference between virtues of character and virtues of thought?
According to Aristotle there are two kinds of virtues that relate to different parts of the soul and kinds of reasoning (E.E. 1220a, 5-15). Virtues of character belong to the non-rational soul (character) and pertain to practical reasoning. Such virtues relate to ethics and human affairs, and their perfection is wisdom. Whereas virtues of thought belong to the rational part of the soul and require theoretical reasoning. For Aristotle these virtues are related to attaining eternal truths and their perfection is understanding. These virtues can be acquired by thinking (E.E. 1143b).
In what sense is virtue a mean?
The virtues of character lie in the mean of two extreme dispositions of excess and deficiency (E.E. 1228a, 23). A virtue is a disposition to feel the right emotion at the time and intensity, desire and choose the right action at the right time. Thus, it is heavily context variant. For example, the virtue of courage that relates fear lies in the mean of recklessness, which is in excess and cowardice, which is in deficiency (E.E. 1228b). It is recklessness to resort to violence in an argument with a friend, while it is cowardly to not defend oneself when attacked. Courage is correctly deliberating and taking appropriate risks. Some other virtues Aristotle mentions are temperance, prudence, and modesty among others (E.E. 1220b, 35).
How are they acquired?
Virtues are attained through experience and habituation (E.E. 1220a, 37). Aristotle argues that happy or flourishing life consists in acting virtuously. One becomes courageous by repeatedly acting courageously, moderate by consistently practicing moderation. Over time virtues become embedded in a person’s character (ethos) and become dispositions. One doesn’t merely act in accordance with virtue but out of virtue desires the virtuous action. In fact, this is the difference between a continent person and a truly virtuous person (E.E. 1145b, 10). Such a person’s soul no longer experiences conflict, it is in harmony.
Would the Socrates of the Apology agree that there are virtues of character?
In Book 1 of Eudemian Ethics (1216b), Aristotle considers Socrates’s view on virtue. Aristotle asserts that wisdom was theoretical knowledge or understanding for Socrates, made manifest through the method of elenchus. Once someone understood what a virtue such as courage was, they would act courageously. If they failed, it must be because they didn’t have the correct understanding of this virtue. Whereas for Aristotle, wisdom isn’t a kind of theoretical knowledge (that would be understanding, virtue of theoretical reasoning) but practical virtue of thought. It isn’t learnt but acquired through habituation. Moreover, wisdom (disposition to deliberate well) is not sufficient for acting virtuously. For example, someone could have the correct reasoning about the virtuous action required in a situation but fail to do so. In this instance, their failure isn’t because of their ignorance about virtues but due to incontinence.
Why does this matter?
What keeps Aristotelian ethics still relevant? Aristotle never really stopped being relevant for classical questions of philosophy, including the most basic question about humans: how we are supposed live. What is the good for humans we ask, Aristotle responds ‘happiness’. How do we live a ‘good life’ and attain this happiness, we demand, Aristotle has an answer: you live a virtuous life. And what are virtues? Character dispositions that enable us to reason well and find the appropriate action in a given situation. Practiced consistently, these virtues become habituated and the agent becomes a good person living a flourishing life. A threat of circularity looms large over this framework, but this can be avoided with carefully defining the terms that appear in each step of the way. Thus, Aristotle gives us an easy to follow practical picture, one that resonates almost universally as most traditions have a take on virtues resembling Aristotle’s, though with different emphases on specific ones. His call for moderation yet firmness when required, context-specific deliberation, habituation, and overall agent-centred approach are very attractive in his ethical framework.
rana the reader 