Aristotle’s virtue ethics has been vividly explained in his book. The objective of this paper is to clearly define what makes the Aristotelian virtue ethics different from the traditional or basic one as known by experts in the field of philosophy. In order to do so, a brief background of both must be provided. Virtue ethics is a theory or a philosophical approach to studying ethics (the study of right and wrong) that focuses on an individual’s character and or his individuality when it comes to determining the key element of ethical thinking. This highlights the concept that the person is the doer of the action and therefore all merits and demerits of those actions must be attributable to the person alone and not by the acts that he committed (including the reasons) as in the case of deontology, and the consequences of those acts as in the case of consequentialism.
Perhaps the strongest evidence of this would be the part where Aristotle said that “virtue then is twofold, of thought and of character; that of thought both comes about and grows mostly as a result of teaching, which is why it requires experience and time; that of character on the other hand, results from habit (ethos)—indeed, this is the source of the name ethike which derives with a minor variation of ethos” .
Philosophically, this can be interpreted as people who succeed in life, the one who reach the point of eudaimonia or in contemporary society, self-actualization, are those who have both the character and habit needed to succeed. This can be applied to life in a lot of ways. Being an achiever in the workplace requires both character and discipline (i.e. habit). A person who is purely skilled but lack the personality to deal with other people would simply fail as Aristotle explained; the same goes for a person who is all about personality but lack the skill required to make meaningful changes.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics is all about balance. He said that “where feelings of fear and confidence are concerned, then, courage is the medial condition” . Anything in excess, according to Aristotle, deserves criticisms. This is what makes succeeding in life really hard. Anyone can take their time adjusting their feelings, emotions, personalities, among other modifiable factors but in the end, there is always this likelihood that they would still fail in their journey towards self-actualization. This is a reality that everyone should accept; another reality though is that that perfect balance or “mean” which Aristotle mentioned numerous times in his book, can eventually be found and this should lead to the individual’s reaching his ultimate goal.
Traditional virtue ethics suggest that virtue is comparable to knowledge and that it is required in order to attain ultimate good or eudaimonia. This point is what is often described as the ultimate reason for every possible human action—the end goal or what a person aims to eventually achieve. This is where the difference of Aristotelian virtue ethics can be deciphered. Aristotle argues that this point of reaching ultimate good or eudaimonia cannot be dependent on superficial things like wealth, power, honor, and prestige because these variables often fade and this often leads to a scenario sooner or later wherein a person grow unhappy, unfulfilled or restless despite having amassed tremendous amounts of wealth and power. Instead Aristotle argued that rational activity is a more reliable drive to motivate a person to exist and be challenged. This is what is more commonly known today as the point of self-actualization. To reach this point, one does not need a lot of wealth, power, and honor; it is something that can be achieved by anyone who has the right kind of rationality, witness, among other qualities.
References
Aristotle. (350 BC). Nicomachean Ethics Book II-1. 21.
Aristotle. (350 BC). Nicomachean Ethics Book II-7. 29.
