Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, was known for his knowledge of politics, psychology, and ethics. His book, “Nicomachean Ethics,” focuses on the ethics of man; which include happiness, virtues, and character. In this essay, I will be presenting Aristotle’s account of virtue and how Lisa Tessman, a feminist philosopher, is both indebted and critical of Aristotelian ethics. I will also be discussing the aspects of Aristotelian virtue that are still applicable in today’s world and how it could be applicable.
In “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle says that virtue is of thought and character. He further explains that of thought comes from the result of teaching which demands time and experience (Book II, 1, pg. 21). Unlike thought, character results from ethos (habit). Thus, virtues of character are derived just being living life and in the way which you live. Character develops from your own experiences, environment, and beliefs. Not only is virtue of thought and character, but it is of pleasures and pain. Pleasure makes us do actions that we believe gives us great enjoyment and pain makes us stay away from honorable actions.
Virtue are not feelings because we aren’t praised being benevolent for having feelings. Aristotle gives a list of feelings concerned with this topic such as; anger, fear, confidence, envy, love, hatred, jealousy, and pity (Book II, Ch.5, pg.26). Virtues are deliberate choices and one cannot be virtuous without them. It is not capacities either, because we are not called good just because we have the capacity to feel certain things. Thus, virtues are not feelings nor capacities, so they are defined as being states (Book II, Ch. 5, pg. 26-27). Virtue Is given the definition of a deliberately choosing state; meaning that you can choose whether you want to become virtuous.
In “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle claims that virtue is “…a medial condition between two vices, one of excess and the other of deficiency” (Book II. Ch. 6, pg.28). Not every feeling conveys the existence of this medial condition because sometimes they are combined with baseness such as shamelessness, envy, adultery, and murder. In temperance and courage there is no excess and deficiency of it; since there is no cap that is needed to be reached in order for something or someone to be categorized as courageous or temperate. Hence, as Aristotle says, “…there is neither a medial condition of excess and deficiency nor excess and deficiency of a medical condition” (Book II, Ch.6, pg.29). Some particular virtues (medial conditions) that Aristotle mentions are courage, temperance, generosity, magnificence, greatness of soul, mild-mannerdness, truthfulness, witty, and indignation. Virtue and happiness are under our control up to the extent of the decisions we make concerning what we think about, act upon, and believe.
Tessman’s account is indebted to, and critical of, Aristotelian ethics. Lisa Tessman’s account on virtue is in agreement with the neo-Aristotelian account of virtue because of its result of eudaimonism. Eudaimonism in the Nicomachean Ethics is described by happiness, but it is better translated as human flourishing. She presents a quote of Aristotle’s eudaimonistic theory which says, “…a trait that contributes to one’s own well-being cannot count as morally praiseworthy if it detracts from the flourishing of an inclusive social collectivity.” This quote supports the fact that Tessman believes that Aristotle provides a beneficial way of thinking about the costs with oppression since it creates the theoretical connection between character traits and flourishing. Tessman agrees with this point of view because she believes that one’s character traits are the reason to why they might be required to have to resist oppression. The Aristotelian blueprints help us grasp the whole scope of deprivations created by any and all oppressive conditions. On the other hand, she further goes on to show that virtues of Aristotle’s eudaimonism has to be reevaluated because Tessman does not share the same views. She states, “the concept of burdened virtues implies that eudaimonism must be rethought in certain ways, because contrary to the usual pattern of connection between a virtue and its bearer's flourishing, here is a set of virtues that could only actualize their potential to be partly constitutive of a flourishing life if the background conditions were different.” As we can see, the whole virtue aspect differs when that virtue ends up negatively impacting the one who’s in the process of flourishing, which would be called a burdened virtue. As shown, Tessman disagrees and agrees with the ways on how human flourishing is related with virtues from the basis of Aristotelian aspects.
Ultimately, the aspects of Aristotelian virtue that I think are still applicable today would have to be all of the virtue except for honor, good temper, truthfulness, and justice. I believe this because people, slowly but surely, are losing their sense of values and ethics as human beings and caring souls. They are losing this because of their environment, society, world, and beliefs; it is negatively impacting their minds, making people experience burdened virtues, stopping them from flourishing. There is no easy way to modify a theory of Aristotelian virtues to fit a modern world. There would have to be a whole shift of cultural ideas and beliefs. Not everyone will abide to these virtues because each and everyone has their own desires so they will want to fulfill them. Abiding to Aristotelian virtues is something that will no longer be able to happen because of the complete differences compared to the ancient Greek times and the modern world. Aristotelian philosophical ways are better for our modern society, but it could never happen because we already adapt a philosophical guideline that fit our agendas.